NOTE: This post is in 2 parts because it's over the character limit.
Since we all seem to have quite a variety of opinions regarding performing arts on film (in all its manifestations), and could discuss those opinions until world's end (which may be sooner than we think), I would love to take this online opportunity to share actual examples of what I love and hate about filmed performing arts.
I'll start by disclosing that I spent A LOT of time in high school watching as many movie musicals and performing arts recordings as possible. I am a visual/kinesthetic learner, so reading about shows in History of Musical Theater class or about the genius of Martha Graham in Agnes DeMille's autobiography just did not cut it.
I should also point out that, as a youngster, I rented most of these from the video store (ON VHS NO LESS) because this was just before the Internet contained everything ever. Kids have it so easy these days.
So to begin, one of my favorites: Martha Graham's "Night Journey" (and anything she ever did on film) that was shown to me in dance class as a student:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHjyW6bJ8R0
I love this because Martha Graham and Agnes DeMille were such pioneers in the area of dance on film. It feels like it is both directed for film and yet choreographed for stage (because it was), with the same artist in both roles as well as dancing. To clarify this relationship, Agnes DeMille was the niece of the Hollywood mogul Cecil B. DeMille. She is best known for introducing contemporary ballet into musicals, most notably the famous ballets in Oklahoma and Carousel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYY6DhNGJAk
Also, she was besties with Martha Graham.
I'll spare you more movie musical scenes of awesomeness to focus in on our real issue: live performance (mostly with audience present) on screen. How about the PBS recordings of musicals from the 80s, like the original Broadway production of Into The Woods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NAuqQ-h7vA
or Sweeney Todd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7LhNCK2axY
As a young performer, these recordings were like master classes I could watch over and over again. The educational factor is a major part of their value, not to mention the transcendent benefit such recordings can offer a performer whose art is, by nature, ephemeral.
There's also the global aspect of exposing audiences to international performances that would otherwise be inaccessible. For instance, this crazy awesome 'popera' of Le Notre Dame de Paris, starring a collection of French pop stars and modern dancers who are fierce beyond all reason:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ9XuIill2Q
If you watch nothing else that I've posted here, WATCH THIS. Fun fact: they built a theater just for this production. An entire theater. So that, among other amazing technological feats, this guy can sing a whole song while suspended from a rigged steel beam. A STEEL BEAM, KIDS. Imagine if this show was limited to only those who saw it live. How sad would that be? Not to mention expensive? If I was able to see it live in France when I was in high school, of course I would have preferred that, but I'd rather have any exposure to this than nothing.
Okay, now I need to post at least something I despise to even it out. So here's a Jonas brother ruining one of the most beautiful tenor roles in musical theater:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecZU_XN50B0
Sit down, Nick Jonas. Sit down.
Go ahead, let's make the case that he's a celebrity and brings in young ga-ga preteens who will hopefully get bit by the performing arts bug. I'm not saying I'm against capable celebrities. Exhibit A: Hugh Jackman, who is by far the most compelling musical theater performer I have ever seen live:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNEUtN21cuU
The Les Miserables example actually points out a clear distinction of why I prefer the recorded live performances to movie musicals: professionalism. I appreciate that the actor playing Enjolras has worked very hard and is a master of his craft so that his excellence is effortless. This, for me, is far more preferable than Anne Hathaway as Fantine (sorry, had to throw that shade again), and I would rather young impressionable students be exposed to the difference in quality and training from the start.
And it's not just about musicals. How about these gems from the Royal Shakespeare Company WAY back in the day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxftRZ_Uzq0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGbZCgHQ9m8
(Bonus sexy Ian McKellen and Judi Dench from the late 70s and early 80s)
So I realize I am mostly on the side of support for these kinds of productions, mainly from an educational and historical perspective. These examples also highlight that live performances on film are not as new as we might think. Sure, there are plenty of downsides to mass distribution, and I do think theater and musicals are a bit more accessible than opera and symphony, but I'd love to see examples of the opposite arguments because I know they exist and are equally as valid.
I love that you posted this, you inspired me to share my favorites. I think I go to youtube once a week to the watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqapHRAqnfk
And this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVC4MrUEBRo
Let's get real here, Angela Landsbury, Bernadette Peters, and Mandy Patinkin performing iconic Broadway pieces?! If these weren't available for public viewing on Youtube, I would be very sad. I know that these are made available because of recordings, but it remains amazing to me that they are so easily accessible. This is something that is very important to me, the ease of access to these Broadway classics.
Also, from listening to the music from Company, I found that you could stream the entire 2006 revival in parts on Youtube, which is phenomenal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJsd_Cvk_rw
Although, this is certainly a disjointed way to watch it, it is incredible that it is an option. I watched the entire production a couple of years ago because I am just enamored with Raul Esparza and the music. But I guess my question is, is there a cost behind this? It seems to be up on someone's personal youtube station. Is that even legal, to stream PBS's performances online?
More on Company, Elaine Stritch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf52APstI0A
To watch her rehearsal process it just mesmerizing. I agree with Katie, about the importance of the educational and historical perspective. I don't think there is a down side to making these available to the public, my only question is who has the distribution rights? If some one has uploaded the 2006 revival of Company to their computer for distribution on Youtube, is that legal?
A great example on "educational and historical perspective" - Leonard Bernstein's Young People's concerts with the New York Philharmonic. There was a series of 53 concerts, performed 1958-1972 in Carnegie Hall (http://www.leonardbernstein.com/ypc.htm). For example, here one of his concerts titled "What Does Music Mean" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajKVWJ_dj8M). Many of these concerts are available on youtube - I highly recommend checking them out, whether you know anything about music or not!
I was a music major, so I guess I like watching these more for the way Leonard Bernstein explains things, rather than to really try to understand, for example, what American music is.
I guess now these recordings of the concerts are waaaaay old and might not be interesting to kids today. But I think it's interesting to also see the kids all dressed up going to Carnegie Hall, and to hear Leonard Bernstein say things like "I want to thank you all particularly for your wonderful letters and telegrams about our last show, which made us all feel very happy, and very proud."
This recording allows me to see this video, not because of a geographical restriction, but because I was not born when these concerts were filmed. What a great piece of history to capture - the genius of Leonard Bernstein, the footage of the students in the hall, and of course the wonderful New York Philharmonic.
So -- I think you win for the most fun blog post for the year! Video-palooza and you blew out the word count anyway :-) Great examples and just think if they were simply broadcast on television or netflix so that EVERYONE had easy access at a higher quality than youtube. (I like using the traditional networks or high-level cable options as you hit everyone's typical attention zone -- think what is offered at the most budget cable option).
I love this post and all of the links, because I grew up on a lot of these. Coming from small little towns, these movies were my early arts education. They are so important in their own right, and I think it would be amazing to see more of them available on Netflix or network television, as Brett mentioned. One important observation, are many of these were made with the filming in mind. The current trend of streaming live performances I think does get tricky because it is trying to blend two art forms (film and a stage production) that each have their own strengths. So, should organization move to having two separate outreaches, filmed and stage...with each produced with the medium in mind?
Indeed, and there is the rub that the Met is discovering. As Kate said in class, movie makers do great movies and we do great theatre or opera or ..... Each medium has a unique aesthetic and technical framework.
NOTE: This post is in 2 parts because it's over the character limit.
ReplyDeleteSince we all seem to have quite a variety of opinions regarding performing arts on film (in all its manifestations), and could discuss those opinions until world's end (which may be sooner than we think), I would love to take this online opportunity to share actual examples of what I love and hate about filmed performing arts.
I'll start by disclosing that I spent A LOT of time in high school watching as many movie musicals and performing arts recordings as possible. I am a visual/kinesthetic learner, so reading about shows in History of Musical Theater class or about the genius of Martha Graham in Agnes DeMille's autobiography just did not cut it.
I should also point out that, as a youngster, I rented most of these from the video store (ON VHS NO LESS) because this was just before the Internet contained everything ever. Kids have it so easy these days.
So to begin, one of my favorites: Martha Graham's "Night Journey" (and anything she ever did on film) that was shown to me in dance class as a student:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHjyW6bJ8R0
I love this because Martha Graham and Agnes DeMille were such pioneers in the area of dance on film. It feels like it is both directed for film and yet choreographed for stage (because it was), with the same artist in both roles as well as dancing. To clarify this relationship, Agnes DeMille was the niece of the Hollywood mogul Cecil B. DeMille. She is best known for introducing contemporary ballet into musicals, most notably the famous ballets in Oklahoma and Carousel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYY6DhNGJAk
Also, she was besties with Martha Graham.
I'll spare you more movie musical scenes of awesomeness to focus in on our real issue: live performance (mostly with audience present) on screen. How about the PBS recordings of musicals from the 80s, like the original Broadway production of Into The Woods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NAuqQ-h7vA
or Sweeney Todd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7LhNCK2axY
As a young performer, these recordings were like master classes I could watch over and over again. The educational factor is a major part of their value, not to mention the transcendent benefit such recordings can offer a performer whose art is, by nature, ephemeral.
There's also the global aspect of exposing audiences to international performances that would otherwise be inaccessible. For instance, this crazy awesome 'popera' of Le Notre Dame de Paris, starring a collection of French pop stars and modern dancers who are fierce beyond all reason:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ9XuIill2Q
If you watch nothing else that I've posted here, WATCH THIS. Fun fact: they built a theater just for this production. An entire theater. So that, among other amazing technological feats, this guy can sing a whole song while suspended from a rigged steel beam. A STEEL BEAM, KIDS. Imagine if this show was limited to only those who saw it live. How sad would that be? Not to mention expensive? If I was able to see it live in France when I was in high school, of course I would have preferred that, but I'd rather have any exposure to this than nothing.
PART 2
ReplyDeleteOkay, now I need to post at least something I despise to even it out. So here's a Jonas brother ruining one of the most beautiful tenor roles in musical theater:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecZU_XN50B0
Sit down, Nick Jonas. Sit down.
Go ahead, let's make the case that he's a celebrity and brings in young ga-ga preteens who will hopefully get bit by the performing arts bug. I'm not saying I'm against capable celebrities. Exhibit A: Hugh Jackman, who is by far the most compelling musical theater performer I have ever seen live:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNEUtN21cuU
The Les Miserables example actually points out a clear distinction of why I prefer the recorded live performances to movie musicals: professionalism. I appreciate that the actor playing Enjolras has worked very hard and is a master of his craft so that his excellence is effortless. This, for me, is far more preferable than Anne Hathaway as Fantine (sorry, had to throw that shade again), and I would rather young impressionable students be exposed to the difference in quality and training from the start.
And it's not just about musicals. How about these gems from the Royal Shakespeare Company WAY back in the day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxftRZ_Uzq0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGbZCgHQ9m8
(Bonus sexy Ian McKellen and Judi Dench from the late 70s and early 80s)
So I realize I am mostly on the side of support for these kinds of productions, mainly from an educational and historical perspective. These examples also highlight that live performances on film are not as new as we might think. Sure, there are plenty of downsides to mass distribution, and I do think theater and musicals are a bit more accessible than opera and symphony, but I'd love to see examples of the opposite arguments because I know they exist and are equally as valid.
I love that you posted this, you inspired me to share my favorites. I think I go to youtube once a week to the watch this:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqapHRAqnfk
And this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVC4MrUEBRo
Let's get real here, Angela Landsbury, Bernadette Peters, and Mandy Patinkin performing iconic Broadway pieces?! If these weren't available for public viewing on Youtube, I would be very sad. I know that these are made available because of recordings, but it remains amazing to me that they are so easily accessible. This is something that is very important to me, the ease of access to these Broadway classics.
Also, from listening to the music from Company, I found that you could stream the entire 2006 revival in parts on Youtube, which is phenomenal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJsd_Cvk_rw
Although, this is certainly a disjointed way to watch it, it is incredible that it is an option. I watched the entire production a couple of years ago because I am just enamored with Raul Esparza and the music. But I guess my question is, is there a cost behind this? It seems to be up on someone's personal youtube station. Is that even legal, to stream PBS's performances online?
More on Company, Elaine Stritch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf52APstI0A
To watch her rehearsal process it just mesmerizing. I agree with Katie, about the importance of the educational and historical perspective. I don't think there is a down side to making these available to the public, my only question is who has the distribution rights? If some one has uploaded the 2006 revival of Company to their computer for distribution on Youtube, is that legal?
A great example on "educational and historical perspective" - Leonard Bernstein's Young People's concerts with the New York Philharmonic. There was a series of 53 concerts, performed 1958-1972 in Carnegie Hall (http://www.leonardbernstein.com/ypc.htm). For example, here one of his concerts titled "What Does Music Mean" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajKVWJ_dj8M). Many of these concerts are available on youtube - I highly recommend checking them out, whether you know anything about music or not!
DeleteI was a music major, so I guess I like watching these more for the way Leonard Bernstein explains things, rather than to really try to understand, for example, what American music is.
I guess now these recordings of the concerts are waaaaay old and might not be interesting to kids today. But I think it's interesting to also see the kids all dressed up going to Carnegie Hall, and to hear Leonard Bernstein say things like "I want to thank you all particularly for your wonderful letters and telegrams about our last show, which made us all feel very happy, and very proud."
This recording allows me to see this video, not because of a geographical restriction, but because I was not born when these concerts were filmed. What a great piece of history to capture - the genius of Leonard Bernstein, the footage of the students in the hall, and of course the wonderful New York Philharmonic.
So -- I think you win for the most fun blog post for the year! Video-palooza and you blew out the word count anyway :-) Great examples and just think if they were simply broadcast on television or netflix so that EVERYONE had easy access at a higher quality than youtube. (I like using the traditional networks or high-level cable options as you hit everyone's typical attention zone -- think what is offered at the most budget cable option).
ReplyDeleteI love this post and all of the links, because I grew up on a lot of these. Coming from small little towns, these movies were my early arts education. They are so important in their own right, and I think it would be amazing to see more of them available on Netflix or network television, as Brett mentioned. One important observation, are many of these were made with the filming in mind. The current trend of streaming live performances I think does get tricky because it is trying to blend two art forms (film and a stage production) that each have their own strengths. So, should organization move to having two separate outreaches, filmed and stage...with each produced with the medium in mind?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, and there is the rub that the Met is discovering. As Kate said in class, movie makers do great movies and we do great theatre or opera or ..... Each medium has a unique aesthetic and technical framework.
Delete