Musical Theater: Commentary on Sarah Schulman's "Stagestruck"

        This quarter, I took a class on Musical Theater History. The class focused primarily on the genesis of the Broadway stage musical, from its origins in Vaudeville and Variety shows, to more of what we see currently in shows like Hamilton. Despite my ardent love for musicals and theater, this course still left something to be desired. The main criticism that I have of this course, is one I have of almost all college courses; it only provides a surface level survey of musical theater history, and does not allow for greater nuance and specificity. The goal of this and any course seems to be to cram as much information as possible, in the least amount of time. Point blank, this is not an effective way to learn. Semi-fortunately for me, I took this course as more of a refresher, and to fill in the gaps in my knowledge base that were bound to be there, and because I am passionate about musicals. However, with that being said, I am still critical of the structuring of this course, as it seems like we only spent additional time on the early canonized musicals. While the rest of it was covered in historical commentary and period specific reviews, those too were skewed towards a certain perspective. The lectures themselves were interesting, but again so much information was packed into two hours, that the opportunities for in depth discussion were very limited. Despite this, I still enjoyed the class, and the professor was truly amazing. (Also, he is the only person I know who watches Crazy Ex-Girlfriend,so he wins bonus points for that).

           I bring this up, because it helps lay the foundation for what I think should happen next. After spending most of the quarter reading dense and sometimes uninspired commentary on classical musicals, the readings for the last few weeks of class, were actually more thought-provoking and interesting. This primarily has to do with the fact that they are addressing the modern musical, they are taking on controversial perspectives, or they consist of commentary on controversial shows. The most important of these is an excerpt from Sarah Schulman’s Stagestruck on RENT. Full disclosure for those who are not in the know: I am a massive RENT-head, and have been for a very long time. Despite having preformed biases about my favorite show, I am still receptive to different opinions and perspectives. That is why I find Schulman’s scathing attack on RENT to be such an interesting topic of conversation, and why I am ultimately glad that it was included as a reading for this class. Am I happy that this was the decided avenue for discussing of my favorite show? No. However, it intrigued, inspired and provoked me to further action, so if that was the actual goal, then I am happy. I will use this space to delve into my commentary on Schulman’s piece, and what I think it means for theater studies on the whole, as well as where I think it leaves critics and cultural commentators in the future.

While I do not agree with most of her opinions, Schulman does raise important points about female authorship and the existence and importance of creative interpretation and license. Her book then becomes less about a claim of plagiarism on Jonathan Larson’s part, and more of a cultural critique of the ways in which mainstream media represents minority groups. She applies feminist and queer theory to her understanding of RENT, and I think that if she had spent even more of her book doing that, then trying to invalidate the authenticity and integrity of the show, then her arguments would have been that much stronger.

As I previously mentioned, I am biased towards this show, but not to the extent that I am unwilling to consider Schulman’s perspective. However, she carries a lot of her own biases that ultimately prevent her from seeing any view point other than her own. She becomes so convinced that RENT is a rip off of her novel, People in Trouble, that she disregards some of the greater nuances of the show. Most pointedly, she refers to RENT as a play, and fails to comment on the ways in which the music functions in what is obviously a musical. She cites Larson’s supposed inability to write cohesive narrative and plot, as evidence of him using her novel as source material, when anyone who actually listens to the songs, understands that it is the transcendent quality of the music, and the inventive lyrics, that allow for a rich narrative. She also fails to acknowledge the ways in which RENT is a loose adaptation of Puccini’s La Boheme. By failing to take this fact into consideration, she starts to give herself far too much credit.

Most of Schulman’s arguments are founded in second-hand testimonials and unverifiable evidence, as well as personal anecdotes and observations. While she makes a lot of passionate claims, the fact that they are rooted in flimsy evidence, erodes the believability of her argument. She remains so rooted in her opinions that she also fails to consider other avenues where Jonathan actually derived his source material. She fails to consider that because Jonathan spent time in Life Support style groups, and that he had many friends with HIV/AIDS, that is likely the actual inspiration for Life Support meetings within the show. As for her claim that wristwatch timers were only referenced in her book, that too is a weak claim. Jonathan could have very easily picked up on that information from seeing it first-hand, not to mention that RENT takes place in 1989/1990, so wristwatches going off in public would have been more common. That, and even if it seems out of place for the time period, HIV positive people still needed to take AZT style pills every twelve hours, and considering that the events of “La Vie Boheme” happen late at night, that too could coincide with the need to take a second daily dose.  

The only part of her argument that carries any weight is when she addresses the effectiveness of representation within the show. If you disregard her claims of plagiarism and copyright infringement, (which I clearly do) her fundamental arguments become clearer. To me, this is less about intellectual property theft, and more about how, at least in her mind Jonathan chose to represent minorities and sub-groups within the show. She sees it as a white man getting the opportunity to represent subsets of people in a way that she finds offensive or less substantial than she would have done it. It is about Schulman feeling like she does not have a place in the industry, and about not being able to give a rich, authentic voice to those who seldom have one. In this respect, she is not wrong. While she disregards some of the greater nuances of the show, in favor of looking through her own limited frame of reference, I can partly see where she is coming from. She wanted to be able to tell authentic stories about LGBT people, people with HIV/AIDS, and people living in the East Village, in a very specific way. Whether you believe that Jonathan lifted ideas for RENT from People in Trouble, is a matter of personal opinion, and while I believe that RENT tells an authentic story of love and loss, (among other things), I can see why Schulman might feel otherwise. The themes presented in her novel differ greatly from RENT, and the novel and show ultimately have different messages, but Schulman argues that it is part of the overall problem.

Shulman argues that HIV/AIDS is represented as less harrowing and grim in RENT, and that it makes the struggle of actual HIV sufferers seem less valid. She sees the relationship between Maureen and Joanne to also be less authentic, and is embittered by the fact that the relationship between Angel and Collins, as well as the relationship between Roger and Mimi seem to be more centralized than the relationship between a lesbian and a bisexual. While this interpretation fails to acknowledge the ways in which these relationships parallel their La Boheme counterparts, it is evident that she is unhappy with the way that the relationships are represented. From her standpoint, the heterosexual main couple faces adversity, but ultimately gets a “happy” ending, while the relationship between two gay men ends in the death of one partner, and the relationship between the two women seems largely marginalized and riddled with problems. Joanne is characterized as being uptight, pretentious and controlling, while Maureen is characterized as being spontaneous, flighty, inconsistent and unfaithful. Both characterizations can be seen as harmful stereotypes, particularly in Maureen’s case. It is through these observations that she sees the only visible representation as being largely negative. Schulman is of the opinion that if you are not going to portray under-represented people well, then you are better off with no representation at all. She chooses to not see RENT as progressive and groundbreaking because of these observations.

While I disagree with her standpoint on the existence of representation, it ultimately serves to establish a dialogue, not only about theater, but media and culture in general. Her commentary lays important groundwork for the application of theory in media, as well as a greater push for the consideration of identity politics and political correctness. Even though I do not agree with most of Shulman’s claims, she does do a good job of making the theater a place once again for the political. The application of some of her ideas can then be used to critique and deconstruct other plays and musicals. It allows for deeper analysis of modern musicals in particular, and I believe that while it is just one way of approaching the study of theater, it can be an effective one. Since the study of musical theater is too often invalidated for not adhering to “high art” this is just one method of showcasing its potential to be more than people give it credit for being. While Schulman’s specific commentary did more to incite rage than anything else, I am grateful for having gained this new perspective, and being reminded that sometimes I am too limited in my scope of understanding and analysis, and need to broaden my discursive lens.

While I did not always agree with the structuring of my Musical Theater History class, I am grateful for it. It has not only filled in some of the gaps in my knowledge base, but it has also allowed me to reevaluate some of my opinions and perspectives on some of my favorite shows. It has allowed for greater insight and has renewed a passion for theater that while it had not waned, was definitely at a standstill. It also served as a reminder that I should study and pursue what makes me happy. Musicals make me happy.