This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Feb. 8, 2011 - In January, I went to New York City to attend the final weekend and graduation from the Sulzberger Leadership Program at Columbia. The program started on Sunday morning, and to get there in time I needed to fly out on Saturday. It's been a long time since I saw a Broadway show and I still have friends who work at the Broadway General Management office, Alan Wasser Associates. It just so happens that one of its current shows is "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark".
For those who don't follow the Broadway scene, "Spider-man: Turn Off the Dark," with music and lyrics by U2's Bono and The Edge and a book by Julie Taymor and Glen Berger, was inspired (my choice of words) by the Marvel Comics series. Because of the technical intricacies of the show, the traditional "out of town tryout" was not practical and the show has been working out the kinks in the Broadway (Foxwoods) theater it will live in. The opening date has been pushed back four times, and the press has been abuzz with reports of injuries actors sustained while performing stunts contained in the show.
So naturally, I had to see it. And I did.
There was plenty to say about the production, but I found myself being struck by one thing above all else - something I'd never noticed in the Spider-Man story, but that those more intimate with it may think I'm crazy for missing: The role of the media.
As I remembered it, mostly from the movies, Peter freelances (?) for the Daily Bugle (did Superman, too?) and its publisher, J. Jonah Jameson, is convinced that Spider-Man is a fraud, setting up situations only so he can emerge the hero. In the musical, suddenly this plot point seemed crucial to me. I'm not sure if it was the intent of the writers - as I haven't heard it mentioned anywhere - or if my last three years submerged in journalism did the trick, but it hit me head on.
Reporter after reporter comes to the publisher with hero headlines and over and over he refuses to print them and sends the reporters back out to get the "real" story. In the second act (spoiler!) it becomes even more pronounced when the super-villain (created by director Taymor) sees her master plan almost thwarted merely because the publisher refuses to report the illusion she's created to draw out Spider-Man.
After lines earlier in the show about the super-villain's powers being fatal to males, the publisher emerges immune. Part of the plot's problems when I saw the show was how this gets resolved, but he ultimately agrees to print what she wants and her plot moves forward. And I should mention, the thing he's refusing to print is that seven giant evil characters are blowing up Manhattan.
I saw the show a few weeks after the fourth and most dramatic injury had occurred on the set. Between the involvement of U2 and Taymor (director of Disney's "Lion King"), the budget (reported at $65 million), the injuries and the delays, the press had been all over this production for months. It was constant, it was relentless and there was an ongoing tension in the theater community about how fair/appropriate/damaging/aggressive press coverage had been.
The general rule is that reviews aren't published until a show is officially open. Honoring this rule (though, I'm not a critic so I didn't really have to) and being extremely busy kept me from sharing my two cents about the show. But if I had, the role of the media is what I would have centered on.
But yesterday, it went to another level when several publications (including the New York Times) published their official reviews of the production on what would have been the show's opening - had the opening not been moved back for the fourth time to March 15. And a brouhaha ensued.
Surely, I thought, someone sees the meta-ness going on here, and surely someone will write the article and/or the blog post and I can simply link to it and say "this is what I would have said." But here we are. (And maybe someone did and I've just been unable to find it - please, link me to it, because there's a lot more to say and I'm sure someone can source it better than the outline I've done here.)
So, what did I think of the show? I don't think what I think matters. People (who can afford to) are going to go see this show. It's a spectacle, there's plenty to see, U2 has fans-a-plenty, it has more press coverage than maybe any show ever, and it pushes the envelope on what can be done on a stage in a live performance in a big way. And a lot of talented people are gainfully employed. Whether or not the story holds matters to some people, but not to others, and that's the difference between showfriends and showbusiness.
What I found poignant was not just life's imitation of art, but the fact that it so naturally and pointedly played out that nobody really noticed it.
Or I've just completely become a journalism nerd.