LEND ME A TENOR Reviews- Page 2

[musicalman2]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 12:02am

yeah, but I do think that one of the things necessary to pull it off is that Max has got to be able to sound operatic convincingly, as does Tito. It's not a question of realism issues. You just have to believe that they make a realistic try at it. Otherwise the entire set of events which happens between the acts makes no sense.

[April Saul]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 12:17am

This show is a lot of fun and if word-of-mouth means anything at all, it will survive Isherwood's particularly nasty review!

[theatreguy]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 12:28am

I completely agree with Isherwood's review. I never felt the show was as funny as it thought it was. And as for Bartha's singing - it was fine in the first act even though he's clearly not an opera singer, but the falsetto stuff at the end of the second act was not pleasant. They couldn't have found something else for him to sing?

Overall I saw a very strong cast brought down by surprisingly weak material.

[gcontini2]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 12:32am

"yeah, but I do think that one of the things necessary to pull it off is that Max has got to be able to sound operatic convincingly, as does Tito.."

Several flaws with this argument, including:
1 - Tito, as played by LaPaglia in this production does not sound operatic either
2 - the audience - as witnessed by the wild laughter throughout the show - does not seem to have an issue with Bartha's singing nor do they not buy into the Isherwood's implausiblity scenario
3 - this is just one of countless items in this farce (or any comedy) that are not 100% ironclad realistic. Isherwood does not have a problem with items like Tito waking up in a few hours after a serious overdose, Maggie not recognizing her Max (no matter who would be playing him) in Otello's costume, or even that Maria's (Jan Maxwell) wardrobe could never fit in a suitcase the size of a large shoebox that she nevertheless storms out with...

Because these don't matter so much in the big picture of the story, most audiences let it go and don't, like Isherwood, make them an arbitrary summation of the show's success or failure to entertain

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 12:57am

John Simon gives it 3 stars. He calls Bartha brilliant!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aXQTHpk3lhAo

Ps. I love the positive notices for Jennifer Laura Thompson.

[BBBoy]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 1:17am

I will say this - I had a very nice time at LMAT, but I was there the night that Murray and Isherwood were there, and there were some deadly, long, dull stretches in the show, especially in the first act, and while ultimately I really really did enjoy the show (and will recommend it to friends), I do understand where these two guys are coming from.

I was actually sitting in proximity to Matthew Murray, and he most definitely was not having a good time pretty early on.

Dare I say it was the performance they attended? I think the show deserves a good run and healthy audiences, and really do think that Isherwood was being a sourpuss who just can't let go and have some lowbrow farcical fun, but I don't think either of these reviewers are totally out of line.

[sparrman]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 1:52am

One thing I'm curious to know: I have seen absolutely no publicity photos of Max and/or Tito in blackface as Otello. Are there any such photos outside the theatre? I wonder if (as Isherwood seemed to think) this is viewed as a potentially offputting element in the show. Or *maybe* they just don't want to ruin the surprise?...but wasn't a west coast production of the show cancelled fairly recently because of protests about people appearing in blackface?

[A Director]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 2:41am

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/03/theater/reviews-theater-when-one-tenor-is-much-like-another.html

Cut and paste the above and read the 1989 New York Times review.

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 3:03am

NY Post gives it 3.5 stars, and is a huge rave for Bartha.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/theater/loan_repaid_with_interest_XDSIFg6wnmE3nsGdJQzrdK

[bjh2114]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 4:38am

NY Daily news is also positive with 3.5 stars and a positive notice for Bartha.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2010/04/05/2010-04-05_hangover_star_justin_bartha_owns_stanley_tuccis_revival_of_ken_ludwigs_lend_me_a.html

[singtopher]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 7:55am

I have to admit, I didn't really care for the show either as did the rest of the group I was with. Save for the three leading men and Maxwell I was rather bored by it. I agree with whoever said it just never "took off".

I'm glad most folks like it, and I'm glad to see it get some good reviews, but I cannot say I agree with them.

Posted: 4/5/10 at 8:13am

It seems like Isherwood doesn't like the show itself, commenting on the implausibility of it and the writing, which isn't really fair considering it's a revival. Obviously his opinion is his own, it is what it is, but it's not even a well-written review. Come on.

[AC126748]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 8:22am

Look, the show obviously just doesn't meet with Isherwood's criteria for excellence in theatre:

1. It's not written by Sarah Ruhl.
2. No one wears flannel.
3. No one delivers their lines in a robotic monotone.
4. No bacon is fried on stage at any time.
5. No music from Mr Isherwood's high school days is played.
6. There are no buff gentlemen for him to ogle.
7. It's actually good.

Updated On: 4/5/10 at 08:22 AM

[wickedfan]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 9:26am

"5. No music from Mr Isherwood's high school days is played."

Truer words were never spoken.

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 9:41am

I want to thank Isherwood for finally proving to me that his opinion is of no value whatsoever, and I can now be comfortable in being totally dismissive of anything he ever says again.

This is a laugh-out-loud entertainment, proibably the best farce seen on Broadway in many years.

Go, laugh, have fun.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 9:57am

I won't comment on what my perceptions of the quality of this production.

I will, however, say that Isherwood is an Idiot of the First Water, whose understanding of theatrical forms is dismayingly retarded. When he says "when you have to display the physical prowess and stamina of a Lance Armstrong to keep the engine of comedy humming at an acceptable level, it’s a sure indication that there is something wrong with the machinery itself," he proves that he just doesn't know what farce IS. He proceeds to do that over and over again throughout this moronic high-school-quality essay. When will the Times get wise?

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 10:00am

Ugh! Thank God this guy isn't the chief drama critic of the Times!

I think this guy would like the stuff that my college puts on.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 10:09am

I wonder why Brantley didn't review this. I would've thought it would be considered high profile enough.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 11:01am

Kad, I'm surprised that Isherwood reviewed this too. I consider this production to be pretty high-profile.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 11:28am

This is what I heard. Apparently, Brantley was swamped with the reviews for Red last week and The Addams Family coming up Thursday, so Isherwood took this one. This means Isherwood is probably also doing Million Dollar Quartet next week... so expect a rave for that since it falls into Rule #5 of AC126748's post.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 12:23pm

For the record, Variety is positive with a rave for Shaloub.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117942531.html?categoryid=33&cs=1

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 3:22pm

With Shaloub in the lead, it'll run for ages despite the Times review.

[Q]

Posted: 4/6/10 at 2:27am

Valid criticism of the piece. And whoever said that doesn't count in reviewing a revival is an idiot.

Haven't seen this production, but if Isherwood is right about the staging, he's spot on.

Hurts to have your panties in a twist, doesn't it?

[bjh2114]

Posted: 4/6/10 at 4:39am

Valid criticism of the piece.
...
Haven't seen this production

How can you say it's valid criticism without having seen it? I know you are saying this his analysis of the play separate from the production is correct, but I strongly feel that Tucci's direction and the powerhouse performances from the cast overcome the play's flaws. Good actors and directors can overshadow even the most flawed plays (e.g. Mary Stuart). So I don't really think that's fair for you to say if you haven't seen the production.

but if Isherwood is right about the staging, he's spot on.
If he were right about the staging, yes, he WOULD be spot on. But he's NOT right about the staging, which is why he has missed the mark by a mile. Oh but isn't it ever so much fun to write in hypotheticals!

[ManhattanGal]

Posted: 4/7/10 at 1:00am

I have read that Tony Shalhoub spits various objects into the audience and theater-goers are advised to bring tissues. I have never heard of such an outrageous concept! Didn't he play germ-phobic "Monk" who had OCD? He should be more sensitive to the fact that some people might not want their theater experience to include that kind of personal space violation. Whose idea was this? Stanley Tucci's? Does he think an audience so adores actors that this is edgy and acceptable?

I had purchased a ticket to see this and if anything lands on me.... I will stand up and walk to the nearest restroom to wash! Also, I do not want my theater experience to include having an eye poked out by some projectile flying object.
Just ridiculous.