Musical Musings
Posted by Jennifer
It’s 2009, and a Broadway theater is crowded with expectant fans. Energy buzzes in the air. Some in the audience think the show is bound for failure; others dream of its success. But all are curious to find out how they’re going to pull off this seeming oddity. The lights dim. The curtains rise. And then, finally, our hero bounds across the stage in his trademark red and blue, ready to shoot web into the rigging and sling over the crowd.
Julie Taymor’s Spider-Man musical has been in production for quite some time now, and has been met with its fair share of skepticism from all corners. And while I can understand some of that skepticism—U2 doesn’t strike me as the ideal choice for a musical theater score, and that growing price tag doesn’t exactly foretell financial success—I don’t have any doubt that the concept is a solid one. After all, comics and musical theater are two peas in a pod.
This conclusion is based largely on accumulated anecdotal evidence, and I don’t pretend to be a mathematician. I have no statistics. But in my interactions with other comic book fans, I’ve discovered that the percentage of us who are also fans of musical theater is disproportionately high. You all know my views on the subject—my introduction here detailed my teenage RENT obsession at length, and I’ve been a Broadway junkie for far longer than I’ve been a comic book fan. However, I also know I’m not alone—and I know I’m in good company. Any group that includes Joss Whedon is one I’ll happily belong to, and it seems like too much of a coincidence that half the cast of the X-Men movies has done musical theater at some point.
But why is this the case? What is it about comics and musical theater that draws the attention of the same types of people? Below, I offer a few of my pet theories—and welcome others to share their own in the comments.
1.) Comics and musical theater are nerdy, easily-dismissed obsessions.
This is a gimme; it could be said about science fiction fans, computer geeks, Renaissance Faire folk, or any other number of subgroups. Neither comics nor musical theater are, shall we say, popular. I know from my own experience growing up as a musical theater geek in a group of outcasts and artsy kids that an interest in Broadway does not make you the most popular kid in class; likewise, stories I’ve heard of others’ childhood comic book collecting habits strike similar chords. It seems only reasonable, then, that when you’re already unpopular for liking one thing, it’s much easier to find your way to another, to make connections with other breeds of misfits and find pleasure in that which others fail to appreciate. In fact, the cultures that spring up around these media are of a diverse, accepting sort on a level far beyond what the works inherently encourage; witness, for instance, the strong communities of gay comic book fans and gay musical theater fans who love the works despite the relative paucity of gay characters in mainstream comics or Broadway musicals.
But beyond popularity, comics and musicals are both dismissed for many of the same reasons—because they are “kitschy,” because they lack seriousness (no matter how many examples a fan of either medium could give to the contrary), and because they are watered-down versions of high culture artifacts (novels and opera, respectively). The musical theater fan, like the comic book fan, must cope with the derision of the general public in response to his or her taste in entertainment, and he or she must be ready to defend the worth of his or her chosen obsession at any given time. Perhaps comic book fans and musical theater fans are the same simply because they are the kinds of people who are willing to give a chance to culture that’s deemed less than worthy, and to find its true value.
2.) Comics and musical theater are emotionally honest in a way most other media are not.
In this case, I’m thinking primarily of older comics, and older musicals, but I think the point still stands to this day. Comics and musicals are not afraid to tell their audiences what their characters are thinking and feeling. In comics, this is achieved through thought bubbles and narration boxes; in musicals, it’s achieved through the music itself, through song lyrics we know no other character is actually supposed to hear. In comics and musicals, characters speak from their hearts. This can be done more or less artfully, of course, but the end result is the same: we know these characters inside out, because we have heard their deepest, most private thought processes.
Other media can achieve this effect—novels and movies both frequently include interior monologue and voiceover. But it’s not a required element, and when it is present, it’s done with a lot more show than tell, with a focus on artistry over honesty. Only comics and musicals are so willing to let their characters just blurt their thoughts out, unfiltered, for the audience, no matter how tedious or unnecessary those thoughts might objectively be. And sometimes, that’s just plain refreshing.
3.) Comics and musical theater are both, in a way, fantasies of power and control.
The idea of superhero comic books as a “male power fantasy” is not a new one. And while I’d argue that that fantasy is not exclusively male—I know plenty of women who wish they could punch away their problems—it’s definitely a fantasy of power. Through superheroes, readers can visit a world where the good guys always (ultimately) win, where the dead almost always come back; where being thrown into a wall only leaves you stunned for a panel or two. And readers can imagine that they, too, could beat up the bad guys and save the world, solve all their problems (or at least some of them) through means (powers) they could never have in real life.
Musical theater functions in much the same way. Musicals, even the most serious musicals, are still fantasies of control over problems. The songs clarify and distill the problems into manageable chunks and consequently allow the characters to work through those problems within the span of a three-minute tune. The audience can always count on a reprise or other callback to pull the events full circle, and even if the ending isn’t happy (which it often isn’t in superhero comics, either), there’s always a sense of catharsis. Both comics and musicals are over-the-top, gleefully unrealistic media that require a huge suspension of disbelief. But for fans who are looking for fantasies of power and control, this utopian disconnect from reality may be exactly what they’re looking for.
—
I can think of several other possible connections, some less flattering than others (both media, after all, produce cultures of commodity, where fan status can be measured in certain circles by the number of rare issues collected or the number of shows seen). But I’d like to hear your suggestions. If you’re a comic book fan and a musical theater fan, tell me: why do you like both? What similarities do you see? Are you excited about Taymor’s Spider-Man?
And how can we get Joss Whedon to write that X-Men musical we all know he must have in his brain somewhere?
I agree with your points, especially the power and the honesty of the stories. I would venture as well that the stories are about the people in the comic/musical. they arent so much about the situation, or the scene, or how everything plays out, they are almost exclusively stories about individuals, extraordianry people in extraordinary circumstances / normal people in normal circumstances, etc. There is an intimacy with the main characters in both musicals / comics (like you said, through the thought dialogues, etc).
I am pondering about ENDING too. You do get a sense of closure in comics, through the arcs and collections. There is more if you choose to follow it, but it isnt always necessary. Lately at least, movies and tv leave a lot of open ends, in case of a continuation. Musicals end, a story is told. This i find comforting.
I need more coffee, but that’s my 2c
Twyst
24 Oct 08 at 7:31 am
Hmm. My wife is not a comic fan, but a rabid musical theater fan. Part of that is the difference between the soft endings in comics, where the ending are impermanent and will be retconned later in the series, and the hard endings in musicals. That said, in her case good story-telling does not allow the medium to indulge in other sins such as completely oversexualized imagery.
I’m iffy on musical theater because I find the tropes painful. RENT is a good one. South Pacific, not so much. I guess my story-telling standards were set in the 90’s when complex story started to become the norm. The simplicity of plot and arc evident in most musical theater able to be produced by your average college and community theater (i.e. older than about 20 years) also matches the same simplicity found in older comics. And I’m not fond of it. Food for thought.
http://talkswithwind.livejournal.com/
24 Oct 08 at 8:29 am
While I can agree with you on a lot of points, the one thing I’ve come across is that the majority of comic fangirls are willing to give musical theatre a chance while the majority of comic fanboys are not.
I’m not sure exactly what this says about us in terms of gender issues, but it is something to explore, I think.
Jo
24 Oct 08 at 9:29 am
A couple thoughts about the connection. . .
I think you’re dead right about the way that both media allow shameless displays of raw emotion. I’m reminded of the recurring conversation I’ve had with Sigrid about ‘emotional porn,” which I think actually started with a comparison between Sondheim and the X-Men.
Also, as to your first point, I think the way we access these media encourages fannishness. Obviously, there are people who are nuts about TV and movies, but those are relatively easy to follow, and most people I know are only obsessed with one or two shows at a time. If you want to be ‘up on’ musical theater, or comics (a larger universe, rather than one or two titles), it takes a bit more work. You’re either going to the theater/comics shop on a fairly regular basis, or you’re downloading/buying soundtracks or collections. And if you’re really into it, you’re probably following industry news. The best way to do that is on the Internet, and as long as you’re on the Internet, you’re likely to end up talking to other people about it — and meeting other people who ‘get it’, the way your friends/family/co-workers may not.
I know that the (real or perceived) work that it takes to keep up with comics is the main barrier keeping people I know who are casual comics fans from following them more closely — and that gets them to look at me askance because I do. (Though they’re perfectly happy to quiz me about continuity for half an hour after we’ve seen Iron Man or Dark Knight! And they’re more likely than I am to buy superhero movie DVD’s and watch+rewatch them. Because to them that’s all there is; there isn’t all this other canon out there to catch up on!)
My point in the above ramble is that I’m that person relative to musical theater. I enjoy most of the musicals I’ve seen live, and I’ll occasionally buy a soundtrack or rent a DVD. But I’m not really fannish about theater because it seems like it takes more work than I’m ready to put into it. People who know the names of musical actors who aren’t famous from other media seem to me like I seem to people who have no idea who wrote or drew most of the comics they’ve read . . . unless it’s Joss Whedon. (Also, I’m sure there are people who watched Buffy and have no idea who Joss Whedon is, though I’m so infected by fandom that it seems odd and strange for me to comprehend!)
Caroline
24 Oct 08 at 10:47 am
(Another musical theater X-Man – Kelsey Grammer!)
I think the comparisons you draw are valid ones, and it’s certainly true that both genres are geeky ones. Still, I’m skeptical that this means financial or critical success.
For starters, Superman: The Musical. It was not a thing that was good. Ending aside, Dr. Horrible was good, but it was 45 minutes long, not 2-3 hours, and didn’t have multiple performances or have to worry about staging special effects and superheroic action. Plus, the whole point was a mash-up of genres and an inversion of tropes, which a more straightforward take on the superhero genre wouldn’t have.
Then there’s the fact that…well, I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but in my experience, members of geeky subcultures do not always cross over well. See what happens if you tell the majority of science fiction fans that you like boy bands. Or if you tell romance novel readers that you like comics. These are all what I’d call “socially disenfranchised” groups, mocked by everyone and represented by the worst stereotypes, assumed to be emotionally stunted and able to take refuge in only the most simplistic forms of entertainment. You’d think they’d band together, but I really find that they don’t. I know it’s all in good fun for the most part, but I get that from geek friends about the Disney stuff, for example. There’s a mentality of “Well, I like something dorky, but at least I don’t like that.” So while I certainly think there are commonalities between musical theater and comic books, that doesn’t mean that either audience will be receptive.
Furthermore, if the comic book audience is in it for the physical clashes, they’re going to be pretty disappointed in the musical theater genre as a whole. And again, I want to point out the difficulties of staging a superhero musical.
But the other reason I doubt this will work (as a subgenre – one or two plays might actually be good) is because of vampire musicals. You’d think vampires would be a natural fit for the musical genre, what with the over-the-top-ness and the flamboyancy and the drama and the hey and the what now. And vampire fans are certainly a geeky subculture. But Dance of the Vampires, Dracula, and Lestat were all terrible, and I think it’s because the over-the-top-ness of vampires combined with the over-the-top-ness of musicals just pushes things too far. I feel like that’s likely to happen with superheroes as well.
All of which really, really sucks, because how fast would my little heart beat if superhero musicals really became a thing? So damn fast.
Jess
25 Oct 08 at 8:16 pm
@Twyst I think you’re definitely right about character. I struggled a bit with the question of ending — to me, it feels like that’s the biggest difference between comics and musicals, that one never really ends and one always solidly does — but comics are probably more likely than TV or movies these days to have some kind of cathartic ending somewhere, instead of a million obvious and intentional loose ends.
@talkswithwind I agree on the ending factor; I do, as I said to Twyst above, think that’s a big difference between the two media. And I think you’re right about the difference between old and new comics, and old and new musical theater — that’s actually another point I had in the back of my mind. The two media seem to have had very similar trajectories, in terms of the evolution of the style, and the simultaneous respect paid, and growth made from, that old style. If you don’t like old comics, it makes sense that you wouldn’t like old musical theater. Rodgers and Hammerstein are Stan Lee and Jack Kirby; Jonathan Larson is Brian Michael Bendis.
@Jo One of the surprising things I’ve found, actually, is that a lot of male comic book fans (including straight ones) who are also into musical theater — that’s one of the discoveries that led to this post. There’s always the chance, of course, that some comic book fanboys will take one look at musical theater’s reputation and stay far away, but I think on average straight comic book fanboys are more likely than straight guys in the general population to give musical theater a chance.
Jennifer
25 Oct 08 at 8:38 pm
@Caroline I hadn’t thought of the connection between the amount of effort it takes to follow the media, but I think you’re definitely onto something there. It also explains how I had such a generally easy time transitioning between the two; once I got past my initial comics block, it only seemed natural to scour the internet and find out the history of everything and memorize rosters and creators and all that. Keeping up with changing X-Men teams wasn’t any harder than following cast changes in RENT.
Jennifer
25 Oct 08 at 8:44 pm
@Jess Oh, I never claimed that the Spider-Man musical is going to be financially, or even creatively, successful; I think the points you bring up are completely valid for why it could (and probably will) very easily fall on its face.
But I also think, just based on what I’ve seen, that there is a huge crossover fanbase between comics and musical theater; much more of a crossover audience than there is between, say, comic book fans and romance novel readers. So while I don’t doubt that there are those on both sides who look down on the other, I think the connection is a strong enough one to merit examination. Combining musicals and comic books might not be a creative success, but I can certainly see why people would get the idea to do so, because these are two seemingly-disparate fandoms of the socially disenfranchised that do seem, quite often, to go together like peanut butter and jelly.
Jennifer
25 Oct 08 at 8:59 pm
I’ve a thought in regards to @talkswiththewind’s point — I have not only been a fan of musical theatre but also a student of musical theatre. Both South Pacific and RENT are absolutely very very related to the era in which they were created. It may be hard to watch a production of South Pacific and find it relevant to now, but I do not personally feel it lacks gravity or a complex story. There is a distinct and complicated plot about racial relations present in the book just as much as there is one in Miss Saigon for example.
In terms of comics, while the older comics, like the older musicals, appear to be simpler, the underlying plot of, for example, the X-Men is one that may be seen as ahead of its time. Ian McKellen famously said he took the role of Magneto because the struggle of homosuperior struck him as quite relational to the struggle of homosexuals and that character was created in the 1960s not the 1990s.
I think what comics and musicals both have (as well as science fiction like the original Star Trek) is a more available freedom to express things that mainstream media may fear and I think that is something both mediums have always had.
Anika
27 Oct 08 at 8:49 am
Great post. Related to point #2 and Caroline’s mention of “emotional porn”: I think one thing that appeals to me about both is they tend to allow for big, operatic emotions — huge stakes, huge responses, etc. There’s a willingness — sometimes a necessity — to go all the way. No half-assing allowed.
Have you seen The Drowsy Chaperone? One thing I love most about that one is that it’s very much about fandom — why we love the things we love and what these things come to symbolize for us over time.
Sarah
27 Oct 08 at 3:51 pm
Very belated replies–
@Anika I think you’re completely right about that. There was a fantastic interview recently–I think by Matt Fraction, but don’t quote me on that–where he said that comics are allowed to touch the social issues no one else wants to explore because no one expects much of them. I think the same could be said of musical theater, or any other media that’s derided. If the medium is looked down on, no one is scouring it for evidence of subversion, so they can “get away with” a lot more.
@Sarah Thanks! I agree–big emotional stakes are very much present, and that’s definitely a shared appeal.
I haven’t, actually, seen The Drowsy Chaperone, but I have a friend who adores it. Is it still on Broadway? I should definitely check it out.
Jennifer
23 Nov 08 at 9:08 am