New Poll: Do You Think the Critics Gave BONNIE & CLYDE a Fair Shot?

[nrosky]

Posted: 12/9/11 at 1:18pm

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/9/11 at 7:00pm

What the hell's a "fair shot"?

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 2:36am

... Can anyone make a poll? I don't get it...

[TheHappyPhantom]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 5:22am

In answer to the question, YES. Everything they've said sounds dead on to what I've seen of the show, and previous Wildhorn work. It looks like amateurish crap.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 9:27am

To me when a review has to bring up the writers previous work and bring it up in such a gleeful way i think the writing was on the wall for the show before the overture started on press night

[Pit Mole]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 11:22am

Phantom... your post: "Everything they've said sounds dead on to what I've seen of the show" seems a bit ambiguous as to whether you've actually seen the show or not. If not, simply saying: "Well, I've seen other Wildhorn shows and didn't care for them, so this one would certainly be something that I don't like either" would seem to be an opinion that is extremely limited in it's validity .

Have you actually attended a performance of this production ofBonnie & Clyde, or are you relying on other criteria as the basis for your statement?

[hyperbole_and_a_half]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 11:27am

To me when a review has to bring up the writers previous work and bring it up in such a gleeful way i think the writing was on the wall for the show before the overture started on press night

It's called context and it has appeared in just about every single review I've ever read. Spiderman reviews talked about Julie Taymor's success with Lion King, How To Succeed reviews inevitably mentioned Harry Potter, Godspell reviews referenced Schwartz as the composer of Wicked, and on and on and on. If Sondheim suddenly put up a new show tomorrow, his work would undoubtedly be compared in reviews to Sweeney, Company, Sunday, etc., so why should Wildhorn be any different?

If anything, I think critics have been too lenient on Bonnie & Clyde; by letting Wildhorn's reputation precede him, they've ended up grading his new show on a curve, where Jekyll & Hyde, Dracula, Scarlet Pimpernel form the normative baseline. If Wildhorn apologists had gotten their way, and Bonnie & Clyde was rated purely on its merits, the reviews would have been even more scathing.

[Pit Mole]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 11:42am

BTW... Not just in terms of this show, but,really...across the board, I find it somewhat disturbing that when certain people dislike a show, that they will often feel compelled to attack it (as well as any person that might disagree with them) with "bitchy", snippy comments that, frankly, sound like they're being screeched out by some bitter old queen who's just been ditched. It may make you feel clever, or feel like you've really gotten a "zinger" in... but it truth, it ultimately reduces the weight of your opinion inasmuch as it makes you look like you probably have other issues or agendas...

Theater is, by it's very nature, emotional, so to that end, it's not surprising that people express emotion regarding it's products. What is perplexing, is the degree of disrespect that people show for someone that holds a different point of view.


Like it, hate it...be ambivalent about it... all good. Let's try to elevate the level of discourse a bit though.

Seems like we all ought to be able to play nicely in this sandbox.

[TheHappyPhantom]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 3:32pm

I have not seen. I'll be totally honest about that. What I guess I should have said is, that based on the clips I've seen and the music I've heard, the critics reactions have been exactly what my first response was to those things. The composition is pop music, not theatrical or appropriate for the time, and when it does get more appropriate it sounds forced and amateurish in its impersonation. The lyrics are GOD AWFUL, cliche, academic and standard. I think the lead girl sings through her nose and, can't imagine sitting through this entire show listening to her. However her generic pop voice does perfectly match the generic pop music. My reaction based on what I've seen is that this is another show that thinks it's deep, and tourist will buy into it, much the same way they think Next to Normal is hard hitting and deep because they don't know any better. Kind of like hearing someone say they cried listening to a Katy Perry song. No, I haven't seen it, but I also would not see it based on the marketing and reviews. I think it's being critiqued fairly because the critics you have seen it, confirmed everything I felt from just watching the clips.

[NYTheatre01]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 9:34am

Hey Unhappy Phantom! You have got to be kidding!

[Pit Mole]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 11:40am

@ NYTheatre01: As you have gathered, some folks on this board have repeatedly expressed some very strong negative opinions about the show without ever actually having seen it.

I wouldn't let it bother you too much...they just have a need to feel important and they obviously have no other legitimate way of satisfying that need. Frankly, I find them to be pitifully amusing!


I would say that the best bet for anyone having an interest in reading an informed, possibly intelligent review of ANY show would be to stick to reading the opinions of people who have actually seen the production in question. Whether they liked it or not, at least you'll be reading a first-hand account, not the musings of someone with an admittedly flawed vantage point.

[broadwayfever]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 1:06pm

Hey Phantom,

Are you serious? You're actually going to critique a show when you haven't even seen it? Listen, nobody on this thread is going to take you serious when you're giving the show bad reviews but telling us that you still haven't seen the show...RLMAO. With that in mind, take your reviews and opinion of a show that you still haven't seen and stick them where the sun don't shine.

Posted: 12/12/11 at 10:16am

Hehe...

Fair "shot".... on a Bonnie & Clyde poll question.


God I love puns.....

which probably wasn't even intentional... but who cares.

[SamIAm2]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 5:54pm

From B&C cast member Tad Wilson's Twitter today:

tadwilson Tad Wilson
Want to support @BonnieClydeBway but not in the city? Buy tickets for any performance THIS WEEK in my name. I'll pass them to people in need

[Eris0303]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 9:26am

tadwilson Tad Wilson
Want to support @BonnieClydeBway but not in the city? Buy tickets for any performance THIS WEEK in my name. I'll pass them to people in need

Who's "in need"? I haven't been going to Broadway lately in order to save money for my cruise next month. Does that make me "in need"?

[jstarr2]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 11:17am

If you look at all of the reviews together on Curtain Critic there were actually a good number of good to decent reviews written about the show: http://www.curtaincritic.com/Shows/BONNIE_AND_CLYDE_REVIEWS-70.html

[demoiselle2]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 1:19pm

No, I don't think it got a fair shot . . . as detailed in my blog post below.
What's Wrong with Bonnie & Clyde?

[SamIAm2]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 12:00pm

Beautifully said, demoiselle2. Thanks for posting the link. Would you please say more about what you think of the performances by Laura Osnes and Jeremy Jordan?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 6:15pm

It is a shame there will be no cast album

[Pauly3]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 8:21pm

- What the hell's a "fair shot"? -

A fair shot is when the reviewer bases his review solely on the content he witnessed. Obviously, there are some who believe (right or wrong) some critics didn't do that with Bonnie & Clyde. I would guess you already knew this, so your question comes off as more of a quip than an unpretentious inquiry - not unlike the (perceived) methods used by some of the critics. In the worst case, readers feel the writer is being disingenuous - or in the case of the critics in question, biased.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 8:34pm

- It's called context and it has appeared in just about every single review I've ever read. Spiderman reviews talked about Julie Taymor's success with Lion King, How To Succeed reviews inevitably mentioned Harry Potter, Godspell reviews referenced Schwartz as the composer of Wicked, and on and on and on. If Sondheim suddenly put up a new show tomorrow, his work would undoubtedly be compared in reviews to Sweeney, Company, Sunday, etc., so why should Wildhorn be any different? -


I don't believe anyone is saying Wildhorn should be any different in regard to context (or anything else). Using the creator's previous work to provide context is fine (including Wildhorn). But it's not unreasonable for some to feel they are getting an unprofessional review if the review is perceived to have been derived from bias. When a reviewer "gleefully" points out previous failures, he risks the possibility of coming off as prejudiced. Apparently - or obviously, many feel some critics are guilty of not writing 100% honest unbiased reviews. Context is great - but depending on how it is used, it can show readers more than intended - or perhaps exactly what IS intended (for better or worse).

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 9:06pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 09:06 PM

[Pauly3]

Posted: 12/16/11 at 2:23am

bobbybaby85, why is it that the defense of this show is so offensive to you? You disagree the show is worth defending - and you disagree how the reviews are interpreted, but why the interest and (apparent) passion to beat the show down?

To answer your question, I have no interest in Lysistrata Jones. I haven't read the postings, the reviews or anything regarding the show. But if I had seen it and didn't like it, I wouldn't bother trying to convince those who do like it that my opinion is the "right" opinion (whether it agreed with the critics or not).

What's your deal?

[PopAria]

Posted: 12/16/11 at 2:35am

Maybe they should have billed it as a Joe Black or Jeff Calhoun musical instead of the new Wildhorn show. Cuz really he just wrote the melodies (which are the best part of the show.).

I feel like they should be singing "I'll be home for Christmas" now instead of This world will remember us.

[demoiselle2]

Posted: 12/16/11 at 9:00am

The post I linked to above was intended more of a reaction to the critical response than a true "review" of the show (though I do write criticism). I thought that both Jordan and Osnes gave excellent performances, especially Jordan, whose character had a bit more range in his material to work with.

I think that B&C is a solid show. It is consistently entertaining, well-directed, beautifully performed and designed, and musically appealing. I was never bored, and my companions enjoyed the show too. My mom, who is not a regular theatre-goer (except with me), really liked the show and was stunned by the critical reaction. She, on the other hand, was appalled by Sweeney Todd when we saw it when I was twelve--so she's a member of the kind of audience that I believe is out there for Bonnie & Clyde, and is being cheated by a critical body which does not welcome the less "elite" tastes.

I think the show's first act suffers in terms of the overall structure of the book, though individual scenes are charming. There is a lack of cohesiveness, cause-and-effect between the scenes which weakens the first half of the show. More bluntly, it feels like a string of important moments in the lives of Bonnie & Clyde that we have to get to before we really can get to the good stuff--their crime spree. Fortunately, the act still moves pretty fast, and the second act does not suffer from this problem: the scenes follow each other smoothly and do generate real tension.

I've read complaints about the Preacher (Michael Lanning)'s songs here--that they were out of place. I disagree. I think they were very much *in* place, that they offered the context that the show really wanted to have in this moment in time to give B&C the depth and resonance that the creators' imagined in our current economic moment. If anything, the show would have benefited from having MORE of the themes and edge from "Made in America" sprinkled throughout. (Full disclosure here: I am friends with Michael.)

Anyway, those are my thoughts. The show did not get the reviews it deserved--the level of meanness was way out of proportion to the problems the show has. I am certain there is an audience for the show, and I'm sorry that it received the treatment it did.
Dramatic Impulse