Bonnie & Clyde deserves better

[Pauly3]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 2:07am

First: if you only have negative things to say and haven't actually attended a performance, please refrain from participating here.

I live in California and had not been able to see the show until last night (Saturday, 12/10), and so I now make my remarks having seen and experienced the real thing.

While I am familiar with and admit to liking a lot of Frank Wildhorn's previous works, I would never have guessed the music in Bonnie & Clyde was his. The score for this production is really very good, regardless of who composed it. The show as a whole, is very entertaining as well. While I did not immediately love it, I had several of the songs in my head all night long and into Sunday. My appreciation for the show has grown while reflecting on what I had just seen and heard. I think all involved with the show deserve better than what appears to be an upcoming an early closing.


Many ask "why a musical about thugs" or "why a movie remade into a musical"? On the surface, I echo (or did echo) those same questions. But do a little research, or better, just go see the thing. The story told in this musical isn't simply about thugs, nor is it a remake of a movie. It's about two very young people, what they came from, what lead them to their lives as criminals, and most importantly (for this particular telling) the relationship between those two people. It's a different take on a very compelling story of what the creative team felt was the plausible relationship of these very real people. And it's good....very good.

The reason I didn't love it (initially) is because I didn't care so much for the non-musical aspects of the show. The developement of the characters and those parts of the story came off a bit slow for me. However, even the acting of the speaking parts, which I would re-do if I was the "new decision maker", was very very good. When the music starts and the players sing, the show really becomes something special though.

I think the show's faults are far far far outweighed by its strengths - which are awesome performances and outstanding music.

In the end, somthing really stood out: The theater was darn near 100% full - I don't care what the average ticket price was that night, the entire theater rising to it's collective feat to applaude the cast says something about the entertainment offered by this show and its extremely talented cast and creative team.


Bonnie & Clyde, on this night, deserved this appreciative audience's response. I think it deserves a lot more audiences and a lot more appreciation.

Updated On: 12/12/11 at 02:07 AM

[PlayItAgain]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 3:45am

No, it deserves to die a quick painful death which is whats happening to it, if it was as good as people on here have been delusional raving about (which it really isn't) the box office would be reflecting that....

[binau]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 3:53am

PlayItAgain, I haven't seen it or listened to much of it so I don't have an opinion but that is so silly, to argue that the box office would reflect the quality etc.. It is brought up so often here I feel stupid to be the one that has to say it, though. But bad shows do well (SPIDER-MAN) and good shows do poorly (SCOTTSBORO BOYS). The box office receipts might sometimes be related to the quality of a show but it is not necessarily the case.

Updated On: 12/12/11 at 03:53 AM

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 4:01am

qolbinau, didn't you read the OP's demands? You are not allowed to post here if you haven't attended a performance.

Don't you love when some joins BWW to impose on everyone what can be discussed or not on a thread?

[sephyr]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 4:17am

well thats only half of what he said...i think the emphasis was on if you ONLY have negative things to say...and have NEVER even seen a performance...which makes sense to me. How can you make an accurate judgement and never see the show?

I haven't seen the show but have hard some songs which were nice. I hope the show lasts for a while so I can see it and make my own judgement. I like to see all shows do well.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 6:11am

People can discuss comments and opinions because they speak from experience.

I haven't seen the show yet (have tix later in the month) but I can certainly add to discussions about the ideas people have about it staying open, the reviews bias, etc. It's not brain surgery to have an opinion.


And to the OP: a standing ovation is not all that special in NY. It's also not unusual for the weekend performances to have a much higher customer base. Likewise...if the theater is papered as widely as suggested, those people are, for the most part, working for the show. And others are lemmings and will stand up just because the person next to them does.

As I said in another thread: a show that cannot attract a PAYING audience (regardless of WHY) doesn't "deserve" to stay open.

Sephyr -- most of us want shows to do well. We also want them to be deserving of success -- not just be accepted as good becaue it exists.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 8:03am

Why do the Bonnie and Clyders continue to propulgate this myth that if you don't like the show you must not have seen it?

I sat through the show and found it to be marginally better than Wildhorn's other nonsense. Act 1 was dreadfully boring, mostly because nothing happened. Act 2 was entertaining enough. The leads were charismatic and did their best, but are much better than the material they're given.

Honestly, Jeremy Jordan's considerable talents are much better served in Newsies than in this.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 9:19am

"First: if you only have negative things to say and haven't actually attended a performance, please refrain from participating here."

Second: good luck with that request.

I saw it. I have nothing but negative things to say. I don't get the fascination with Jordan and Osnes - cute kids, nice voices, totally generic. There isn't a unique thing about this Barbie & Ken pair. I know, some folks love Barbie & Ken. The book is a reductive and boring non-exploration of what is in real life a fascinating story. Rule #1: don't make your script less interesting than real life. The score is a set of bad lyrics set to pleasant generic tunes.

Three strikes, they're out (or probably soon to be out). No show "deserves better" than what it gets - there's no "play nice" rule in commercial entertainment.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 9:31am

Is it wrong that I enjoyed DRACULA more than this show?

Posted: 12/12/11 at 9:54am

No show "deserves" to close within a month of it's opening. Every show will have its own group of supporters that will fight for it until its inevitable demise, however, pure loyalty alone does not keep a multi-million dollar production afloat, especially in NYC.

B&C enjoyed highly successful runs out-of-town but sold-out regional stints does not a successful Broadway run make.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 10:04am

"No show "deserves" to close within a month of it's opening."

Of course it does, if they can't sell enough seats to meet their budget. Where do you come by such a naive philosophy? (You should use "its" in this case, not "it's.")

Broadway is a business, not a charity for bad writers.

[Pit Mole]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 10:08am

OK... not everyone who's knocked the show is amongst those who have not seen it, however several people on this forum HAVE admitted that they've NOT seen it, yet still feel compelled to drone on ad nauseum about what crap they think it is and frequently couple that chatter with personal attacks against people who's opinions do not coincide with their own. What a curiously odd compulsion.

It is truly interesting to me that if someone did not like a show (any show...I'm not just talking about B&C here)... why they would feel the need to personally attack people that did share their viewpoint rather than simply say why they did not like the show etc.? What is SO threatening to these folks that a differing opinion would prompt them to launch petty & childish personal attacks on others just for not sharing the same opinion?

Think of it this way: You like chocolate, I like strawberry... no big deal,right? BUT... if we're talking about a theatrical production, not ice cream flavors... then all of a sudden it seems that certain folks feel the need to denigrate those with a different preference . Look: If you've never tasted chocolate ice cream, but your friend has, and didn't like it, would you really feel the need to say that chocolate tastes dreadful and nobody should ever consider eating it? Sadly, there is a lot of exactly that type of stuff that goes on in this forum and frankly, it just reeks of bitterness.

Let's raise the bar a bit here and play like nice kids.... there's plenty of room for all in this sandbox


Have a great day!

Posted: 12/12/11 at 10:49am

Charity cases do not receive Broadway openings. Charity cases often don't see life outside of a staged reading, at most. Once any production reaches this level of acclaim, it's at the mercy of the general public who are, at the moment, heading to see headliners and large-scale successful productions for the holidays, not new musicals coming off of a rough round of reviews.

I am by no means making any arguments in B&C's favor- I highly doubt I'll be returning to see it before it bites the dust. I'm also not making any arguments for those who are rallying in its defense because it "deserves" better reviews and support- loyalty does not make up for generic marketing tactics, an ill-timed run and an overall lackluster score.

[Actor2]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 11:02am

The box office does NOT always reflect great shows. The Ragtime revival was BRILLIANT and the best show that I have ever seen. It lasted two months.

[hyperbole_and_a_half]

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

Is it wrong that I enjoyed DRACULA more than this show?

Oh thank god somebody else feels this way. I haven't dared voice this opinion because saying "I liked DRACULA more than BONNIE & CLYDE" could imply that I actually liked DRACULA, which I emphatically did not...but I had a better time with DRACULA because the talent was better and the book would veer into ridiculous camp with every other line or so (and was helped along by the remedial accents sported by the cast), and therefore made the schmaltzy Wildhorn score and the hammy lyrics part of this cohesive fabric of unintentional train wreck theatre that was "entertaining," in the most ironic sense of that word. BONNIE & CLYDE is way too earnest and try-hard, which isn't always a bad thing in a musical, but is a death sentence for a musical that is as much of a thudding bore as BONNIE & CLYDE turned out to be.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 12:25pm

Dear Moderator,

Thank you. Since I cannot reply to your message, I'll reply here. It's a bit troubling that all posts containing "not acceptable language" aren't deleted -- and I didn't realize that "Frank Wildhorn" was an expletive, though that is very reasonable. I'd now appreciate an explanation for the deletion of all of my posts over the past few days that contained no expletives at all. You know, whenever you get a second.

Thank you,

themysteriousgrowl

[WestVillage]

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

"No show "deserves" to close within a month of it's opening."

I guess you are too young to remember the days when shows that got bad (yet better) reviews than B&C posted their closing notice on opening night. Open the show Monday and clear out your dressing room on Tuesday.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 1:58pm

Three strikes, they're out (or probably soon to be out). No show "deserves better" than what it gets

An opinion that changes quite often on BWW depending on the consensus of the academics. I haven't seen Bonnie and Clyde, so I have no opinion of the show and I have have enjoyed a couple of Wildhorn shows and hated others. What I love thus far about Bonnie and Clyde however is the bizarre divisiveness of the opinions it has created around here. From the surprisingly positive buzz, to the negative reviews, to the die-in-the-wool Wildhorn dissenters, the discussions have been the most interesting since Idina Menzel and Avenue Q won their respective Tonys.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 2:07pm

Hey, I adored The Scottsboro Boys, yet I would never say it "deserved better." It was a wonderful show that was clearly not going to appeal to enough people to make a success on Broadway.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 3:57pm

OP here.

I did not come here to make demands and enforce new rules of what can be discussed. I simply made a simple request (and asked somewhat nicely too). The "don't come here and tell me what I can discuss" perception would seem to be of the same ilk as someone who loves to hate. I don't get how people are compelled to take time and read (let alone write) about a show he/she doesn't like. You are free to do it. I just don't get why you care to do it. My (naive) hope was this thread could exist without such opposing viewpoints specifically from those who have not seen the show.

Box office numbers don't nearly tell all of what the quality of a show is or isn't. Nor does the standing ovation at the end (or lack of one). I get that. I saw three shows over this same weekend, and Bonnie & Clyde's "lemmings" must have been more enthusiastic than the "lemmings" of Billy Elliot and Spiderman though. The ovation B&C got made a definite impression on me in comparison to the other two.

The meaning of the term "deserve" can be argued. But it's not necessary. From the viewpoint there are indeed a considerable number of poeple who love this show, it is a shame tickets are not selling nearer full price to allow the show to continue operating. From my perspective, the show - and the work that has gone into the show - and the talent in the show, deserves better than what I perceive as an all too short run.

The disappointment for all who share a liking for this show is real, and those of you who wish to point out your dislike (often times more than once) and apparent desire to prove your "what makes for good theatre" superiority is puzzling. It may be very telling though...and also a shame.

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 4:05pm

From the viewpoint there are indeed a considerable number of poeple who love this show, it is a shame tickets are not selling nearer full price to allow the show to continue operating.

Then you got the point. Not every musical HAS to be on Broadway, even if all these producers think they have a fair shot.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 4:10pm

Exactly, blaxx - so you love the show and it'll probably flop. Move on, don't whine about injustice, keep watching. Produce B&C at your local community theatre. But this passive kvetching about a show "deserving" anything is just pointless.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 4:27pm

There is no claim being made (here) this show must be on Broadway - and the apparent whining you suggest doesn't exist either.

Perhaps you could spend time doing something more constructive - and move on yourselves.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 4:27pm

Insightful.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 4:40pm

But this passive kvetching about a show "deserving" anything is just pointless.

My point was that it's rarely called "kvetching", "whining" or even complained about when the show in question happens to be Caroline or Change, Grey Gardens, Drowsy Chaperone or Scottsboro Boys. I don't disagree with the opinion that audiences ultimately determine the financial success of a show, but let's not pretend we see this same speech regarding dispirited fans of every flop. It's actually MORE common to hear that ______ does NOT deserve to be on Broadway. And yet that notion is rarely challenged.

Updated On: 12/12/11 at 04:40 PM