Dude! (I Got Tu Go Disco)

Yes, please do note the intentional [title of show] pun.

So, where were we? Oh yes, the works of Galt Macdermot and his fellow Hair alumni Gerome Ragni and James Rado. So that'll be Dude, the Highway Life- the second work by these collaborators and the last to appear on Broadway.

Dude again took its inspiration from those great texts of the past; in this case Shakespeare and the Bible. According to wikipedia (the font of all knowledge) the plot goes a little like this:

"Reba and Harold, actors who believe they have been cast in Richard III, instead find themselves portraying Adam and Eve in a Garden of Eden-like setting, where they are tempted by Zero (the devil) and give birth to son Dude. The forces of Good (#33, Bread, Susie Moon, Mother Earth, and the Shubert Angels) and Evil (Zero, Nero, Esso, Extra, and Sissy) try to gain control of Dude's soul. Dude grows up and succumbs to the temptations of bizarre sexual practices and illicit drugs, leaving his parents guilt-ridden, until Guide #33 (God) assures them that life is merely show business and everything has a happy ending."

This story doesn't sound to implausible; Jerry Springer addressed the fight between good and evil in a much more controversial manner, Tommy and Taboo both address a young man growing up and dabbling in bizarre sexual practices and illicit drugs. Plus every good old Broadway show ends with a happy everything. To me the plot sounds like a message to Broadway about the development of contemporary theatre and that in the end it is only theatre.

But you don't expect Rado and Ragni to approach the plot in a conventional manner do you? Of course not. With Eugene Lee on board as designer, the entire Broadway Theatre was gutted and replaced with a theatre in the round, placing the various parts of the orchestra at different sides of the theatre. Did no one ever think about acoustics in those days? This probably explains why I can't think of any success musicals that have been performed in the round- even the Donmar Warehouse has a vague front to it. In addition to this reconfigured stage, attempts were made to transform it into a primeval forest using real dirt. Way to go Eugene, dry dirt caused dusty faced audiences and attempts to control it with water led to mucky faced audiences. Eventually a fake dirt compromise was reached after also cutting the real chickens that were intended to wander the stage. Lee basically threw everything at this show- walkways, ramps, seated areas, trapdoors, even trapezes.

The actors weren't the only people to find themselves going through a strange, radical experience; the audience were also left slightly bemused. Instead of orchestra, mezzanine and balcony we had valleys and foothills, mountains and mountain tops and tree tops and trees respectively. I quite like this as the hoity toity would enjoy the novelty- "Oh look darling tonight we sitting in the foothills, guffaw" and those who could not afford the good seats had no way of showing it- instead of last row in the balcony, you'll be sitting in the tree tops. Much more romantic.

And here is where the problems start. By splitting up the orchestra, acoustics were a real problem especially if you happened to find yourself right by brass section! Another issue with in the round theatre is that a large portion of the action, especially in dialogue scenes will only visible and audible to certain areas of the audience.

It wasn't just the sound designer who was having a nightmare of a time, during previews the director and choreographer both resigned, being replaced by Rado and Ragnis' old friend Tom O'Horgan (director of Hair) at short notice. After complaints from both the cast and creative team Ragni finally addressed the mammoth task of rewriting much of the show including replacing a 23 year old Dude with an 11 year old Dude. Just a few minor tweaks then.

So one would think that despite these chaotic scenes backstage surely Rado, Ragni and Macdermot can pull it out of the bag again? Nope, the critics hated and audiences just didn't want all the fuss of getting confused about where they'd be sitting or the risk of getting a bit grubby.

So now we address why? I get the feeling that Ragni and Rado were on a bit of an ego trip following Hair. Dude sounds like the sort of show that would fit in with off-Broadway today not the stuffy Broadway of the early seventies but because of their stature within the community, they could straight to the Great White Way. The creative pair had carte blanche because producers were desperate to make the next Hair. I'm all for creativity on the stage but Ragni took this a step too far by not thinking about the practicalities. Real dirt, whilst a romantic idea, is a logistics nightmare as are livestock- what if someones allergic?

I get the feeling that Ragni insisted that he was running the show despite having no experience as a director, choreographer, musical director, etc. I can imagine this would really rub some people up the wrong way.

Yet I don't feel like I want to lay all the blame on Gerome Ragni; musicals are a collaborative effort with many different factors that must be woven into each other to get it right. Whereas my examination of Via Galactica took the post modernist approach of finding the piece that was missing from the jigsaw, the fate of Dude! is less clear cut. Even though I love his work, I think Eugene Lee went a bit too far in creating an all round environment in a theatre that was never made for anything but traditional proscenium arch based shows. The producers were pretty much out of their depth- should you really go trusting lots of your money on some guys that spend most of their days stoned?

And so finally I address a huge contributing factor that has nothing to do with anyone involved in the show. Timing. Although I know no one is ever going to want to revise Dude! I feel it may have had a more successful life if it had arrived thirty years later. In the early seventies, Broadway was nearing the end of a prosperous time that had seen so much progress in the world of the musical. Soon the great British super musical would arrive and metaphorically piss over creativity. If scaled back slightly and set in a more suitable theatre, it could have made a nice little earning off-Broadway and would have a been a good stepping-stone for young actors. Although we still see a lot of the same old film based musicals on Broadway, off Broadway has become much more creative (strangely) in the years since 9/11. Instead Dude! went up to that great show graveyard in the sky (or possibly in that church that used to be a theatre on Broadway)

Front Row Seats- What Happened!?

Ethel Merman- who else?

In days gone past, the front row was the place to be- the most expensive tickets, the most exclusive tickets, the ticket that showed that you had power and position in the world. In short theatre seating hierarchy was simple. The closer you were to the front, the higher you were in the hierarchy. I guess this has something to do with not only being closest to the stage (and so supposedly having the best view) but also being closest to the stars of the show (and we are talking some big names, it hasn't just been recently that star names have been required to sell a show- imagine being front row to the opening of a new Ethel Merman show- WOW).

So what has changed? Most front rows are now taken up by loudmouth teenagers with no knowledge of dressing up for the theatre (I even once saw a girl just wearing a t-shirt and not much else). I think this progression is twofold (or maybe three if I can think straight!) and its results also give the appearance of ouroboros; that of a snake biting its tale- or in theatre terms, well we'll get to that later.

Over the years, set designs have become more vast if not more imaginative. During the sixties and seventies we saw some of the most amazing designs such as the set of Grind that completely rotated between scenes to show the inside and outside of a club. A pioneer of outlandish set design was Eugene Lee, one of my favourite set designers if only for the way his sets encumbers all and perfectly set the atmosphere of a play. Among his craziest ideas were a production of Candide in which the Broadway Theatre was broken up into small stages connected by walkways and seats ripped out in favour of wooden benches and stools. This closed pretty soon after opening. His other famous attempt at completely demolishing the Broadway was Dude! by Ragni and Rado (who else?) The stage and seats were separated into different areas such as forest and sky with different areas also representing different price ranges (clever Mr Producer always knows how to get more money out of theatregoers without them realising). The floor was strewn with chicken feathers and soil. Needless to say this closed even quicker than Candide.

But sets did continue to grow, especially through the 1980s when recession meant people wanted more for their money and so wanted huge extravaganzas with sets to match. Into the nineties and to the present day we have looked towards huge automated sets that look pretty, change within the blink of an eyelid, and have the potential to decapitate a poor unsuspecting ensemble member with one blow. So what does this sort of set mean for sight lines, especially for the front row elite?

For the cheap seats, things got better, big sets mean you can see more of it from away and there tend to be larger ensembles hence more to see if you sit far back. For the first class front rowers, things got worse. A large set means more will be played upstage meaning you can't see jack all. The stage will be further above the seats to accommodate all the mcgubbins controlling your swanky automated set and the larger ensemble will mean more feet for you to stare at! Two friends of mine recently found themselves in the front row of Hairspray where the view was so bad they had to move back a few rows just to see any of the show. In short, only foot fetishists and those who like peering into the orchestra pit would ever pay full price for these seats.

I blame Rent, well Rent and John Barrowman- everything's always his fault!

Another reason for the decline in popularity can be traced back to Rent. In an attempt to be hip and "down wiv da kids", and also in an attempt to honour Jonathan Larson, Rent implemented the first lottery ticket system. People would line up at crazy o'clock in the morning to obtain $25 tickets for the front two rows of the theatre. This idea became a phenomenon with Rentheads camping out multiple times a week and even creating their own little universe within these lines. Other shows started taking this idea for themselves until almost all musicals on Broadway had some sort of lottery or student rush. Now London is starting to catch on with Legally Blonde offering cheap front row seats that tend to be full of screaming teenagers, or worse screaming drama students. My point about lottery seats is that now the front row is notorious for being where the desperate fans sit (even if they don't realise they are now possible the worse seats to have). Next to Normal used to have a rush system where the first there would get the first seat and so on. Things got so bad that there was a crazy girl who insisted on having "her seat" every time and would queue up even the night before to ensure this. Wicked had an instance of Kelly Ellis getting so annoyed with the fangirls in the front row that an accidentally left on mic revealed that she wanted to stab the girls with the pins her dresser was holding. Perhaps this is another reason why we don't want to sit in the front row anymore- to escape the grasps of crazy fan girls.

This author would willingly straddle these two, wouldn't you?

And finally to the ouroboros moment- audience interaction. I guess Hair started this back in the 60s, when front seats were still the place to be and hoity-toity types were stunned when a hippy suddenly jumped onto their chair or gave them a flower. As time has carried on, interaction has continued and those who do not wish for a negative interaction have distanced themselves from the front. Blue Man Group tend to sell of their front seats cheap and I think they also provide disclaimers as many of their stunts can "leak" out to the front row. In Denzel Washington's Julius Caesar, the production was so bloody that the front row were provided with pacamacs to protect themselves from flying blood. As negative effects like this increase, the value of front row seats decrease (unless you're in for a cheap thrill).

But we have now come full circle. The new production of Hair has brought back the thrill of being in the front row. People are now willing to pay as much money as they can to have Will Swenson sit on their lap or Gavin Creel molest them. (I would.)