#13 - Open or Closed
Why literary theory might help us to stop undermining musicals.
Yesterday I found myself reading The Role of the Reader by Umberto Eco in which he describes the difference between what he calls Open and Closed texts. This writing is based around literary theory but quickly becomes a lens through which all art can be viewed.
Here’s a reductive summary:
A closed text is one with a linear, fixed idea of its own meaning which is largely defined and planned by the author to create a clear and fixed idea of meaning in those that read it.
An open text is one with no fixed sense of meaning that in fact creates space for multiple different readings and many different versions of meaning.
A closed text is one that chooses simplicity over ambiguity while an open text prizes the perspective of the reader and their unique idea of what the text means to them.
Eco doesn’t mark one as superior over the other but merely notes that art and artists often decide how open or closed a work of art is when making it. Similarly an audience get to decide how much fixed meaning they impose on a piece or how comfortable they are with ambiguity.
Die Hard is a largely closed text. The Shining is Open.
John Grisham is a closed text. Kafka is Open.
Warhorse is a closed text. The Caretaker is Open.
This of course got me thinking about musical theatre which seems to largely function as a closed form. A lot of major musicals have a very clear narrative, fixed meaning and a clear moral, and seem designed to make the audience feel a certain way. Musicals often seem to actively refute any complexity of meaning or intentional ambiguity. In fact complexity or ambiguity are often read as an example of an individual musical being a failure. People often don’t seem to want musicals to challenge them or unsettle them. They want linearity of meaning. They want a cosy sense of theme, meaning, philosophy, and structure.
I often talk about the work of Caryl Churchill which is structurally audacious, tonally equivocal and morally ambiguous. Her oeuvre is a clear example of open texts. Her plays are capable of being interpreted in a multitude of different ways and there is no single clear sense of meaning but rather a shapeshifting sense of relativistic and comparative meaning that moulds itself to the reader/viewer rather than the work itself.
I often wonder aloud why there aren’t more musicals that remind me of Caryl Churchill’s plays. After all, her work is multilayered, expressive and frankly most of her characters could break into song at any moment without it feeling unjustified. And yet musicals are rarely open texts. And I wonder if this is because the form has got stuck in a rut of closed text after closed text until ambiguity and openness is seen as a mistake rather than a choice.
But maybe the form itself isn’t closed. Perhaps it is audiences and critics who impose and flatten the meanings of musical theatre. Maybe simplistic productions spoon-feed and rationalise the messages and themes of a musical until it is saying only one thing very loudly.
The musical seems to have actively resisted postmodernism. There are of course examples of postmodern musicals but mostly in America; Company, Fun Home, A Strange Loop, In The Green, Soft Power, and Natasha, Pierre & The Great Comet to name a few seem to signify an occasional acceptance for open text musicals but their rarity is notable, as is works like this near absence in the UK.
Again I wonder if this is because when a musical actively intends to be an open text it is read as a failure. Words like unclear, messy or unfocused are used to describe musicals that I often read as ambiguous, audacious, or complex. Musicals seem to be more widely approved, applauded and accepted when they are morally and narratively straightforward. When they have a message and a meaning that is immediately digestable by audiences paying huge ticket prices.
I will clarify that I think there are two things going on here. More musicals are being made that are closed texts and also the more open a musical is, the more it leaves itself open to being criticised by audiences and critics who feel much more comfortable with musicals as closed texts. Indeed I often notice musicals that are somewhat open being forced to market themselves as closed or find themselves discussed as closed by those who wish them so.
Susan Sontag’s essay Against Interpretation suggests that simplistic interpretation of open texts is something of which we should be suspicious. She was anxious at the thought that critics would close the open with simplistic sloganesque criticism that looked to solve all of a piece’s answers and discover simple answerable meanings in work that was far more complex. She said:
“Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art…Even more. It is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world”
I would add that when we are nervous about something’s complexity we tend to wish it would simplify itself rather than immediately place the blame on ourselves. Years of musicals tending to be a certain way have perhaps led to critics and audiences assuming that musicals should be a certain way forever. Moreover these assumptions lead people to presume that some musicals are more closed than they are and make underserved fixed statements about them. As Sontag says later in ‘Against Interpretation’
“Real art has the capacity to make us nervous…By reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames the work of art. Interpretation makes art manageable, conformable.”
Musicals are rarely given the chance to make us nervous, or uncomfortable or balance multiple meanings. In fact even pieces that have multiple meanings and a sense of openness are often told to conform to what seems to be the one true meaning of musical theatre; to give audiences a good night out.
I would ask two things. Firstly that we respect and recognise that writers and makers of musical theatre should be allowed to make more open text musicals if the form is going to flourish, grow and expand. Secondly that criticism and discourse about musicals should wherever possible look to allow musicals as many meanings or complexities as the work itself desires. Or perhaps more.
Why is it that plays at our most prestigious theatres are so often embraced and encouraged to be open texts while musicals are not? As ever, changing our minds might be the best way to give musicals as an art form, the best chance of flourishing.
Thank you for reading
If you have thoughts on what I wrote this week then please do use this button to comment.
I’m extremely glad to have a place to think about and share opinions with more space for nuance than twitter. Over the coming weeks I will be sharing thoughts about musical theatre, formal disruption and creative technology that once would have been twitter threads but are now actual sentences. If you think someone else might enjoy them then please do share this newsletter with your friends and colleagues.
Counterpoint will be a place to share opinions and conversations that are perhaps not yet ready for a book but require a bit more space than 280 characters. If you enjoyed reading this and haven’t subscribed you can do so here
I recently wrote a book about musical theatre called Breaking Into Song. It is 200 pages of manifestos, theories and hopes for musical theatre and is written to get anyone and everyone thinking about musical theatre in a new way no matter their preconceptions.
Lyn Gardner called it 'A passionate and cogently argued call to arms and a very enjoyable read.' and Alan Cumming said ‘This book is a fascinating cri de coeur and made me question everything I think about musicals.'
If you fancy picking up a copy then the best place to do so is from my amazing Publisher Salamander Street.
Thanks so much for reading and I will see you next Thursday.
PART 5 - last in a series
You can demand these be accepted all you want, but audiences will still remain unsatisfied, most unable to articulate why, and so by author choice or ignorance, if the work is not corrected to address the problems the audience has with the show it will fail.
That is not going to change and there appears no valid argument that we should ignore this mechanism, just so more authors are motivated to try more absurd tricks to make a name for themselves. At least the greatest artists in music, most who had plenty of work criticized and unaccepted in their lifetime, chose a path of writing for the audience norm and then were, throughout a long career, compelled to explore things beyond that – that raised vitriol until accepted by future generations, as part of a larger body of work that created a niche for that change. For most of his career Ives was despised. Now he is revered, albeit by a shrinking sect of fans. If critics and enough audience members truly appreciate something radically different, even if it fails now, it may return more appreciated in the future as the hive collective gets more informed.
And finally, there is this. I think an artist needs to understand the difference between skilled expression and (to use your words) audacious expression. Spoken or not, there appears an undercurrent in the arts where some artists (Debussy, Schoenberg) are driven to create unique expression of art, something totally their own (nationalism in Debussy’s case, serial music in Schoenberg’s). They want to be recognized as creating something new and uniquely theirs. But, most of them don’t start like that, they practice the craft in the form presently of their time period and find, as they progress in personal style, they need to go a different path. Musical theater ought to be the same. Authors should begin writing, learning craft and gaining experience producing art consumed by present day tastes - they must develop their skills and understanding and then seek out new ways of expressing their art – just as you propose – just as Sondheim did. This comes as a result of natural evolution of their expression.
Instead, those who want to leap forward with expressions of art that tend to fail or are unaccepted by critics or audiences, are certainly missing the needed step of learning craft, learning from failure and success and evolving over time and do so to quickly draw attention to themselves by their unaccepted radical departure from the norm.
Again, I have no right to counsel an artist what road they choose to take, but I will argue vehemently against some notion that we must provide them space and acceptance to do what they want, when we find their effort dissatisfying.
Why is it that plays at our most prestigious theatres are so often embraced and encouraged to be open texts while musicals are not?
Are they? I don’t see that from where I sit. However, plays may be allowed some freedoms to try other forms of expression that musicals are unable to use by the limitations of song, lyric and same pushing the narrative forward. When songs don’t contribute to pushing the plot forward, unless they are exceedingly funny or emotionally compelling (both rare), they are considered by most audiences to be worthless fodder to the event. The argument stands: “why is the song there?” The watches and coughs come out.
As ever, changing our minds might be the best way to give musicals as an art form, the best chance of flourishing.
Or improving the quality and craftsmanship of the effort might allow more works to flourish. You do seem to ignore that most failing musicals are by novices without any training, history of experience and clearly lack a necessary desire to seek criticism in an effort to correct their writing mistakes and build a piece of art the majority audience longs to attend.
If I had a nickel for every first draft, first effort musical written by first time authors who presumes they are genius, their work is genius, while riddled with every conceivable amateur developmental error endlessly repeated ad-naseum, I would have a very pretty pocket of nickels. Enough for a couple of pints, for sure.
If I had a dime for every time I was forced to hear the authors defend their bad choices, defend their bad first draft, avoid getting any relevant critical feedback, surround themselves with sycophants to protect them from criticism, I could afford several Scotch eggs too.
Thank you for providing this place to stretch our minds and reorder our (mine) opinion. I may disagree with some of your assumptions, but I love that you would even think to make this inquiry.
PART 4
Indeed I often notice musicals that are somewhat open being forced to market themselves as closed or find themselves discussed as closed by those who wish them so.
Interesting - a probable marketing choice that was found to work for them and the show. This suggests, but without any evidence, that the show ambiguities might not (or were found to not) relate to the majority of audiences critical to selling tickets. Again, this makes me think that the philosophical argument mostly at play here is whether works should be written to please critics or audiences. Because it is certainly clear each have their own differing tastes.
Perhaps I can illustrate this with SHUCKED - the musical. From the reviews I read, critics did not want to like this show, it was everything corny and predictable that the title and premise suggests. (It’s a show that adds to their fatigue, as critics.) They wanted to hate it, but ultimately admitted that it was an audience favorite, it provided music audiences wanted to hear and rapid fire jokes flying every 20 seconds creating a laugh riot experience for the majority.
Yeah, nothing about this felt like art, it was not written to advance the genre by any degree, it was a pastiche homage to past musicals and 70s TV. It was written for the lowest common taste held entertaining by the much wanted slapstick humor riddled throughout. It likely also hit the market at the right post-pandemic time. More than ten years in the making, with one first draft completely discarded and a new draft shepherded by a new director, its success was probably more timing than anything. It might still be playing if the theater owner hadn’t their own investment project to get on the boards. It will do very well on the road and in regional release in the years to come. Audiences will love it and critics will have to tolerate it.
As Sontag says later in ‘Against Interpretation’ “Real art has the capacity to make us nervous…By reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames the work of art. Interpretation makes art manageable, conformable.”
Because something can make us uncomfortable does not follow that it should be used to do so. That needs to be the choice of the author, a form of writing with that intended purpose for reasons that serve the work.
Admittedly, I cannot immediately think of any reason why a subject of a musical play needs to instill nervousness or discomfort within the audience experiencing the unfolding plot. There may be conscious reasons to add shock value like theater macabre, I suppose. But, to add it for sensationalism or show notoriety doesn’t serve the work itself.
But, I have no right to opine whether it should or should not exist. Instead, I maintain that: 1) it had better serve a useful purpose to the story, plot, event, 2) it is used to provide an intended reaction from the audience 3) it had better provide some level of understanding with and acceptance from the audience to benefit their experience and 4) it should be handled by an experienced writer who understands the complexity of using such a device effectively.
Musicals are rarely given the chance to make us nervous, or uncomfortable or balance multiple meanings. In fact even pieces that have multiple meanings and a sense of openness are often told to conform to what seems to be the one true meaning of musical theatre; to give audiences a good night out.
This feels like you’re going around in circles. (Or perhaps this is your collective summary?)
Never the less, this depends entirely on who you are attempting to appease - critic or audience. If you want the audience to change and accept “open text” projects you must undo two millennia of western theater expectations and desires ingrained in them. Good luck with that. I haven’t time to do that, so the best I can do is move towards this by degree, as the audience allows me to take advantage of their expectations in a clear way that entertains and satisfies them.
I would ask two things. Firstly that we respect and recognise that writers and makers of musical theatre should be allowed to make more open text musicals if the form is going to flourish, grow and expand. Secondly that criticism and discourse about musicals should wherever possible look to allow musicals as many meanings or complexities as the work itself desires. Or perhaps more.
Hmmm. We already allow the first request. An author is free to explore and deliver whatever they want. But good luck demanding audiences change their tastes, wants and expectations just to allow a greater array of writing options to appear and demand acceptance.
Why is it you don’t want the market to decide, by ticket sales and attendance, what should be accepted as art and what is denied successful recognition? I really do not understand why you think that all effort must be held as art, when clearly some works are not up to market standard to be art - by critic or audience judgment.
I understand you want to change the standard, but I fail to see what advantage there is to doing so. Like you, I do not want musical theater to stagnate and die because of its sameness (which we might agree is prevalent), but I also think that pursuing wildly unproven expressions of art in this genre doesn’t necessarily solve the problem. By all means try it and let the market decide if it is successful or not.
It appears that throughout his career, Sondheim longed to uncover new means to engage an audience in musical theater. After a long successful career, he would dabble with forms other than straightforward narratives. He was not always successful. Buoyed by a genius score, he managed well with Company, but failed miserably with the two-unrelated one acts of SUNDAYS IN THE PARK (which sees very little regional revival) and failed twice with the Kaufman-Hart, backwards in time MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG.
My personal bias in his actions was that he seemed to pursue projects with very little emotional heart. (Just like the man himself, as he admitted.) Clearly in both MERRILY and SUNDAYS he expected the audience to care about, feel empathy for, very dislikeable characters in very distasteful relationships. Lapine failed to ever make us care about Dot and George and Furth is far too late to get us to care about Franklin Shepherd. They were dislikeable people from the outset and only Franklin is supposedly redeemed by seeing how he was once a decent guy. (But, how he or Kaufman thought discovering his former self good provides a catharsis that transforms the character to audience satisfaction is beyond me. (Apparently beyond the audiences too and the critics.)