This book introduces an archaeological approach to the study of media - one that sifts through the evidence to learn how media were written about; used; designed; preserved; and sometimes discarded. Edited by Erkki Huhtamo and Jussi Parikka; with contributions from internationally prominent scholars from Europe; North America; and Japan; the essays help us understand how the media that predate todayrsquo;s interactive; digital forms were in their time contested; adopted and embedded in the everyday. Providing a broad overview of the many historical and theoretical facets of Media Archaeology as an emerging field; the book encourages discussion by presenting a full range of different voices. By revisiting lsquo;oldrsquo; or even lsquo;deadrsquo; media; it provides a richer horizon for understanding lsquo;newrsquo; media in their complex and often contradictory roles in contemporary society and culture.
#1426598 in eBooks 2011-08-29 2011-08-29File Name: B005JRHYZS
Review
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Interesting. but inconsistentBy B. McCoyWhat a mixed bag of a book. this is!It briefly reviews and explains what the author thinks was the biggest "hit" and biggest "flop" for musicals on Broadway in a 50 year span. It sounds pretty straight-forward.But what if the "biggest flop" wasnt a finished musical. but just a workshop of a musical in development ("Wise Guys." considered the biggest flop of the 1999-2000 season)? What if the biggest flop musical isnt even a musical ("The New Musicals Project." considered the biggest flop musical of 1990-1991)?I suppose that. since the title doesnt specify "NEW" musicals. that I shouldnt be disappointed when revivals are considered the biggest hit ("South Pacific" in 2007-2008) and biggest flop ("On The Town." 1971-1972). even then there were notable new hits and flops during those years.I DO have an issue or two about a book being about hit and flop "Broadway musicals" that include so many shows that never made it to New York at all being considered "Broadway musicals." There are shows included that never even went into rehearsal. as well as numerous that never played New York at all. How can a show that only played in Washington DC or Philadelphia be considered a "Broadway musical?"There also isnt a very consistent view of what makes a "hit" or what makes a "flop." In the preface. the author states that its mostly about making money. but then doesnt follow through with that thought. "Shrek." which lost about $25 million and is the biggest money-loser of all time isnt considered to be the biggest flop of the year. "Carrie." which set the record for losing money in the 80s was considered less of a flop than "Chess" because of "expectations." according to the author. However. other shows in 1983-1984 lost more money. achieved less artistically. and received much worse reviews than "The Human Comedy" did.All that said. the book is much more consistent in picking "hits." though the author readily admits this is easier -- in part -- to there being fewer "hits" than "flops." every year. One may quibble about "Applause" (a mostly forgotten show) being the hit of 1970 vs "Company" (a ground-breaking show that has enjoyed multiple Broadway revivals). Im a little disappointed that he couldnt find a "hit" for every year (discounting "Jerome Robbins Broadway" and "Black and Blue" which ran more than 600 and 800 performances respectively as not having enough merit to be considered a "hit").The couple of pages given to each show are often informative and interesting. but I do wish that the author had been more consistent in what is considered a "flop" or a "hit." and I wish even more that he had been able to come up with actual musicals for every year...preferably ones that made it to Broadway. if youre going to call it a book about "Broadway musicals."23 of 24 people found the following review helpful. Full of tidbits even YOU didnt knowBy Robert ArminPeter Filichia is one of the few writers who can come up with historical tidbits about the musical theater that even I didnt know. His choices for the "Hits" are rarely all that surprising (although his revelations are often new and entertaining) but his "Flops" will certainly prompt a lot of discussion. Just when you think youve figured out his system (big anticipation. big let-down). hell throw in a ringer that youve never even heard of. Even one performance disasters are pushed aside by shows that closed in previews or on-the-road. In one remarkable instance he chooses a show that closed before rehearsals even started!!! If your knowledge of musical theater is limited to just the well-known shows. youll love reading about the Hits and be completely baffled by the Flops. but more passionate musical theater buffs will relish everything. Be prepared. though. to be a little frustrated when Filichia skips over the show you were expecting -- Ken Mandelbaum has already covered that territory. Filichia has other tricks up his sleeve.1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. An Interesting and Informative Read With Some Improvements NeededBy A. E. BrimAs a long time lover of musicals. this book was a must-buy for me. In fact. when I got it. my parents were not surprised to see the title. I found it a captivating read and loved to read some of the stories of both hits and flops. For the most part. I enjoyed his writing.However. as another reviewer has pointed out. it needed some more editing and in some cases. fact-checking. The authors dislike for the Disney shows is evident and it is in these that I found some errors. The need for fact-checking was evident in his entry on "Beauty and the Beast." While giving a synopsis. he lists the original actors for Belle (Susan Egan). Maurice (Tom Boseley) and Gaston (Burke Moses). However. for the Beast he credits Jeff McCarthy. The original Beast was Terrence Mann. who was even Tony-nominated for the role! Mann is a well-known Broadway name--prior to the Beast. he had also originated the role of Rum Tum Tugger in the Broadway production of "Cats." Javert in the Broadway production of "Les Miserables" and Saul in "Rags." The only theater he mentions for BatB is the Lunt-Fontanne. but the show debuted in the Palace Theater and it is well-known the production was downgraded for the move.When he gets to "The Lion King." he spends most of the entry expressing his dislike for the jokes in the show. However. every joke he highlights was transferred from the MOVIE. so I dont know how much he really disliked the musicals book that was added for the show.Just a few stains on an otherwise good book. Hopefully. these can be corrected.
