A response to Claire's Post: "Musicals and TV"

I find this train of thought rather interesting, despite the fact that it does not directly connect to our discussion on Barber. However, I find a valid connection in the distinction between something that is sheer spectacle and something that has dramatic substance. In essence, this could be a way of looking at the difference between Barber's concept and that of Zeffirelli. This also connects to my other post this week.

Barber was inspired by a dramatic work, Shakespeare's play of Antony and Cleopatra. This is a tragedy / history from one of the greatest dramatic minds in the history of the English-speaking world. Any opera inspired by the play itself would have to be driven by a desire to capture the dramatic essence of the play in an operatic medium. To satisfy this desire, the gradiose spectacle of such works as Aida or Wagner's Ring Cycle would not necessarily be appropriate. Remember, many of Shakespeare's plays were performed on a stage with minimal sets and very little in the way of special effects.

Zeffirelli's concept would have fallen into this idea of the spectacle superseding the drama. In musical theater terms, Zeffirelli's idea would have been a Disney production like Tarzan was on Broadway. Lots of flying bugs and monkeys on bungee chords all over the stage, but not an instant theatrical classic.