SICKOS, WACKOS, MISANTHROPES- Page 2

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/6/03 at 10:56pm

Enjoy what you want, screw crowds, in or out.

I just told you, if I heard a score by LW that I thought was great, nobody would be more surprised. And I wouldn't pretend I didn't like it, I would tell everybody I know who hates him (and that's not everybody I know) that I can't quite believe it. I believe that Brantley would do the same thing if he had a long track record of not liking somebody who came up with something that surprised him.

[Peter]

Posted: 11/6/03 at 11:45pm

...Broadway theater is a dying horse and there's this large group of diehard who are so desperate for theater to 'get the respect it deserves' that suddenly it has become the job of critics to sell Broadway to a disinterested public. All of a sudden people think the 'Power of the Times' is some sort of tangible force that needs to be used for good or something equally heroic. People don't care about theater...

Hmmm I thought that selling Broadway to a disinterested public was at least part of what a critic has always been trying to do...Silly me.

And who said the power of the Times needs to be used for something good or heroic??? I said Brantley has become predictable and lacks objectivity. He needs to bring a better balance to his writing...if he's nasty with Webber, he should be just as nasty with Sondheim for an equally disappointing show. Even Frank Rich took Sondheim to task with Merrily.... I miss Frank Rich.

Maybe it's me, but does everyone truly believe that Kristen Chenoweth deserved the over-the-top love letter Brantley gave her for Wicked? She looks good and offers a little comic relief in the show..no shading, no depth required here. It's nothing but a blown up supporting role which certainly deserves good reviews..but this obsessive? Next time Audra MacDonald appears on stage, look for something similar from Brantley. Even it she's really bad..he'll be kind. Like I said, predictable and unfairly biased.
Updated On: 11/6/03 at 11:45 PM

[localonecrew]

Posted: 11/6/03 at 11:52pm

1. broadway is dying. Shows are now more qualified for theme parks than they are for real theater. The death knell started with Disney's Beauty and the Beast and the final nail will be Batman the musical.

2. This entire thread was Horseys subtle way of trying to get you all to buy taboo tickets even after it gets slaughtered by the critics.

Posted: 11/6/03 at 11:56pm

Shill be coming round the mountain when shill comes....

[Horsey]

Posted: 11/7/03 at 12:26am

Honestly...I could care less if anybody goes to see TABOO or not. I have absolutely nothing to gain or lose if the critics love or hate this show.

[DofB5]

Posted: 11/7/03 at 6:36am

I see my questions were just looked over. I think that says something in of itself.

The shill joke is getting a little old, don't you think?

D

[Cadriel]

Posted: 11/7/03 at 7:08am

I just have to comment on the Times critics for a moment.

Frank Rich was not known as "The Butcher of Broadway" without cause. If you've ever read the vicious way he slammed shows that he didn't enjoy, it nullifies all the positives he's ever given to any show. Reading the Frank Rich reviews of, say, Chess, Aspects of Love, and Miss Saigon is enough to leave someone numb. Reading his positive reviews is like reading stuff by another writer altogether. Part of my distaste for Rich's work is that he was extraordinarily personal toward the people he was slamming - the bile he spewed at Trevor Nunn in the late '80s, however well deserved, was not the sort of thing that should be in a professional review. I could forgive him for not sharing my taste in theatre; I couldn't for the way he went about attacking shows' creative staffs. I also feel that he badly missed the mark in analyzing what was actually wrong with the shows he criticized (for instance, he lambasted the now loved score of Chess as much as the book), and as such his negative reviews were less than worthless.

Brantley's not a tenth as mean-spirited as Rich was. But his reviews are dizzying in their inconsistency. Brantley has this irritating habit of going on and on and on about performers, and I think he's really weak when it comes to any analysis beyond that. He seems to want to turn out a couple of good one-liners in his reviews (the line about circus ponies, grinning like an idiot, and a migraine the size of Alaska in Millie comes immediately to mind) rather than do any reasonably good criticism of them. He's become rote and predictable, and the last New York Times review I actually enjoyed reading was the rave he wrote for La Bohème.

Of course, no critic today has a tenth the sense displayed in Walter Kerr's book How Not to Write a Play. We need someone of his caliber doing reviews again.

-Wayne

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 11/7/03 at 8:22am

Mornin',,,well it seems this thread just labors on and on. Is this really about disecting a few NYC critics?
Poppa & Namho ~ you both make good points...Bd'w is desperately trying to bring the people back into the excitmnet it once held. The big problem I see...the tickets are getting too high and the shows and talent are not measuring up. Sorry...that's my view. People are picking and choosing much more carefully these days, how to spend money they don't have.

Exactly why I am covering more Regional theater. PAC's are popping up on every corner of NJ, NY and PA. They're packing in the crowds and the talent! The prices are right and they don't have to spend $300 for a Bd'w experience. And I'm there! And so are the people I work with. I still love NY, and work there, but I see less shows there anymore.

DOf~ I attempted to answer your questions briefly about "critics" credintials. Guess it got lost in all the comments or perhaps you're looking for something more qualified.

...Dof~ I don't know of a "critics" school or course. This is not unlike journalism, but not all critics have a degree or experience in that either. Every critic has a story of their experience. Even little ole me. Just ask them. Respect is mutual. We're all people. ...

Peace Folks!

Updated On: 11/7/03 at 08:22 AM

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 11/7/03 at 8:39am

The reason Broadway is more expensive is because it's dead. It's the same people seeing all the shows, the same tourists coming to town, the same locals going to the shows. So they're trying to generate the same amount of revenue from a continually decreasing base of consumers with continually increasing production costs. It's basic math.

So people start to think if shows were better reviewed then more casual people might wander into the theater and be overwhelmed by the magic of theater. Suddenly, its the job of critics to sell the product, instead of to critique it. Suddenly theater needs 'support' because if critics are, well, HONEST about what they're seeing it might seem these shows aren't worth $100 a night per person (and god forbid someone want to take a date or family with them.)

CADRIEL: Have you read the 'Miss Saigon' review? It was one of the most positive reviews the show received, with Rich favorably comparing it to classic Rogers and Hammerstein shows. He took issue with the casting of Willy Falk and with the helicopter scene but, without question, praised the show. Sure 'Aspects' and 'Chess' were reviled but Rich was hardly alone in his assessment of them, nor was he even the most vicious. Signalling him out for being just as outraged at those shows as every other critic is petty and inconsistent with how those shows were received. As for Nunn, well, other than 'Les Mis' he directed a handful of really bad shows in the late 80's and his direction was some of the weakest aspects (heh) of those works, especially in the case of 'Chess' were he horribly reworked an already successful show (and score.)

Posted: 11/8/03 at 9:26pm

Bottom line... If we (general public) would all just start making up our own minds instead of waiting for critics, friends, co-workers, etc... to do it for us, Broadway - and theatre in general would be far better off. This is not to suggest that EVERYONE relies on someone elses opinion, but that so many people do. People nowadays need to be told what's good and what's not because many folks don't want to be caught thinking in the minority.

Posted: 11/8/03 at 9:28pm

Updated On: 11/8/03 at 09:28 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/8/03 at 9:59pm

Bri, the more "general" the public, the less likely they are to be able to afford to buy tickets to the assorted shows they would need to "make up their own minds" about.

As for me, I bought tickets to Wicked right after they went on sale because I loved the novel and I liked Idina, had never seen Kristen live before. But I had very serious reservations about Schwartz's songs and was worried that the serious political themes of the novel would be scuttled for Broadway (tm). I expressed these reservations on these boards before the reviews came out. And it turns out, my hunch that I wouldn't like the score was right. And in large measure, huge political points were abandoned in the show, and others were kept in.

It used to be that I didn't let bad reviews talk me out of seeing shows I wanted to see and I did let good reviews talk me into seeing shows I had little interest in. I realized by reading as many sources as I can get my hands on, which critics (and please note I am specifying critics and not "reviewers" or "chatters" like Reidel) had sensibilities that were close to mine and over time, I came to know which ones I can trust. For me.

Nowadways, with mainstream shows costing so much money, I will let bad reviews of shows I had interest in talk me into saving my money. I take my chances off-Broadway and in the regionals. And the lesson I learned after seeing Wicked is that I am going to trust my hunches and not invest in something with such a huge variable as "score by Stephen Schwartz," which I am sorry I overlooked this time.

Posted: 11/9/03 at 12:35am

I understand, Namo. I guess I just get frustrated with people feeling they need to say what everyone else says just to feel they are with the "in" crowd.

In London, there are several different newspapers that review new shows, each with their own take on the show. The reviews don't always come out the very next morning, so the shows actually have a chance to do some box office business and see what the people think.

On Broadway, the NY Times is really the only paper that matters and therefore has an incredible amount of public sway. That's a pretty scary thought when you spend 10 to 12 million dollars on a show only to have it's fate rest in the hands of one person. I wouldn't want that kind of responsibility.

I guess my point is - if everyone (general public or not) would simply be wiling to think independently, instead of relying on what one critic thinks, they wouldn't have that power to wield and perhaps we could get some fresh new shows on the boards instead of producers being terrified of taking chances and constantly presenting revivals and regurgitated stories from the movies.

-Bri