Review - Spidey's Early Arrivals

Last Tuesday night I went out for some pre-holiday coffee with my good friend, BroadwayWorld Senior Editor Jessica Lewis (Actually we were so engrossed in conversation that we forgot to order coffee. Sorry, Starbucks.), and naturally the topic of Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark came up. Jessica had seen the show already and I mentioned how comical it was becoming that, with what right now stands as an eight-week preview period, the reviewing press will be attending long after the Internet has helped establish a firm word-of-mouth opinion.

We talked about Saravà, the 1979 musical version of Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands that ran for a then-unheard of 38 previews, postponing opening night three times while flooding the television airwaves with a lively commercial that said nothing about not having opened yet. I believe that Clive Barnes, then writing for the Post, was the critic who broke tradition and decided to publish a review, beginning with a disclaimer explaining the situation. (Seems not everything can be confirmed with Google.)

When Jessica asked if I'd ever consider reviewing Spider-Man before its official press opening, we had no idea that two nights later Newsday's Linda Winer would be sitting in the Foxwoods Theatre, preparing to write an article that, if not exactly a review, was certainly opinionated. Two nights after that, Jeremy Gerard of Bloomberg News was in the audience and his views were made public the next day.

There are a couple of things I find interesting about both write-ups. First of all, unlike the Spider-Man web site, they both mention that the musical is still a work in progress prepping for a February 7th opening. (In fairness, it has become standard practice on Broadway not to advertise a show as being in previews.) Secondly, though each points out what they perceive as flaws in the material, Winer and Gerard seem to have approached their assignments as progress reports, with the latter especially giving suggestions as to what he feels needs to be done in the next six weeks. They're the kind of summaries that were traditionally published back in the days when the usual route for a new musical was to play engagements in one or two tryout towns, have a very brief run of New York previews and then open on Broadway. The critics who reviewed those openings in cities like Boston, Philadelphia and New Haven were well aware that they were not only writing for their local ticket-buying public, but also suggesting to the producers what they thought needed to be done before leaving town. As the role, and the necessity, of the Broadway theatre critic becomes a more and more hotly debated topic in the Internet age, could this kind of progress report journalism become more common among New York's reviewers?

Of course, the main difference is that the out-of-town critics were offered free tickets for specific performances while Winer and Gerard made clear that they purchased their own admissions. If their actions don't comply with the standard practices of the business, they're certainly protected by freedom of the press.

So if someone plunked down $292.50 (the price quoted by Gerard) on my behalf and told me to go see Spider-Man tomorrow and write up a review, would I do it? Naw. I make no judgments about anyone else's decision to do so, but here's why it's not for me:

Sure, they're charging a ticket-buying public that may not be fully aware of the meaning of "previews" full price for an acknowledged unfinished product. But when I see the show I'll be reviewing the actors, writers and other creative artists; none of whom have anything to do with the price of an orchestra seat. I have no interest in making my opinion of their work public until whatever date they're contractually obligated to be ready. The way I see it, I'm an invited guest who's given two of the best seats in the house in exchange for my coverage, simply on the condition that I attend on one of the dates they deem appropriate.

Would I like to have someone give me a ticket to see Spider-Man tomorrow, without the obligation to write a review? Absolutely! Before I started reviewing I frequently attended first previews because I found it exciting to see the artists' visions in their rawest forms, and then go again after the opening to see how the production had changed. But until someone's willing to spot me, there's a heck of a lot of theatre to be seen in this town, and I prefer to be welcomed with a comp at the door and the press agents happy to see me.

Click here to follow Michael Dale on Twitter.

"I'm trying to bring a new generation into the musical theater and to create a new audience."
-- Jerry Herman

The grosses are out for the week ending 12/26/2010 and we've got them all right here in BroadwayWorld.com's grosses section.

Up for the week was: TIME STANDS STILL (21.9%), MAMMA MIA! (19.2%), CHICAGO (16.2%), THE ADDAMS FAMILY (15.9%), MARY POPPINS (14.5%), AMERICAN IDIOT (8.7%), THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (6.7%), WEST SIDE STORY (5.4%), BLOODY BLOODY ANDREW JACKSON (4.8%), THE LION KING (3.3%), BILLY ELLIOT: THE MUSICAL (2.3%), WICKED (2.1%), SPIDER-MAN TURN OFF THE DARK (1.1%), BRIEF ENCOUNTER (0.7%), IN THE HEIGHTS (0.6%),

Down for the week was: DONNY & MARIE: A BROADWAY CHRISTMAS (-17.8%), PROMISES, PROMISES (-11.2%), LA CAGE AUX FOLLES (-10.8%), THE Pee-Wee Herman SHOW (-8.5%), DRIVING MISS DAISY (-8.1%), A FREE MAN OF COLOR (-7.4%), THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST (-6.5%), WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (-6.3%), next to normal (-6.2%), ELF (-4.7%), RAIN: A TRIBUTE TO THE BEATLES ON BROADWAY (-3.9%), JERSEY BOYS (-3.4%), MEMPHIS (-3.0%), A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC (-2.5%), Colin Quinn: LONG STORY SHORT (-2.2%), ROCK OF AGES (-2.2%), LA BETE (-1.7%), Million Dollar Quartet (-1.5%), LOMBARDI (-0.9%), FELA! (-0.5%),

To post a comment, you must register and login.