Do "theater fans" want to like the show?

Posted: 7/17/10 at 2:58pm

I'm often struck by the posts on this board; for every one that is an exuberant rave, it seems like there are a dozen shooting down a show for being "overrated" or not measuring up to another production or performance. (Little Night Music" has illustrated this twice- The revival didn't measure up to the original (which frankly, I can't believe so many posters saw) and now, the recast version isn't as good as the production a few months ago.)

And it dawned on me: When I ask someone who isn't a regular attendee at the theater, it seems like they almost always "loved" it. Hairspray at the local dinner theater? Hysterical! Free ticket to "Million Dollar Quarter"? Amazing! "Tarzan" with the grandkids? Awesome!

Then I ask a theater fan: How was the show? "Miscast. The second act dragged. The costumes were WAY off. The arrangements were sub-par, even for a local production. But you should see it."

Why do you suppose that is?

[philly03]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 3:13pm

Well, as of late years, I think expectations have been very high. "The Addams Family," for example had all those names attached, is charging a lot of money, and relies heavily on the franchise name as well as the stage gimmercky. It lacks any sort of strong plot, and is a very weak score. But with all the anticipation, excitement and expectations (especially since the cast is so noted for their Broadway accolades), what you get is average at best, and therefore worthy of bashing. (Which I have to say even friends of mine who don't usually see things were disappointed at what they saw, and they weren't even any sort of big "Addams Family" fans)

Then you have the people who follow the opinion of three or four other posters who post her every waking moment of their day about raving about this show, trashing this show, and new users usually tag on to their opinions. "A Tale of Two Cities" for example got pretty decent enough (for what it was) out of Sarasota, but when it was announced for Broadway several of the more constantly posting posters would past bashes of the CONCEPT ALBUM. A few of them in turn saw it, and may have their own opinion, but plenty of their followers "saw it" (aka they did not and couldn't name a song/scene/any lead minus the sour news-riden James Barbour) and continued the bashing. If the number of people who bashed that show had actually seen it, the attendance wouldn't have been that low!

I also think Broadway fans hate any type of SUCCESS from anyone other than Stephen Sondheim or a Broadway favourite, who financially, hasn't gotten success either. They don't like Phantom of the Opera because it's been running for 22 years and still outsells their other shows. They don't like Frank Wildhorn because he keeps writing despite lackluster reviews. They didn't like Tale of Two Cities because Jill Santoriello was too ambitious to write book music & lyrics.

I don't think saying things like "the second act dragged" is necessary too bad. "Sunday in the Park with George" is one of my favourite pieces, but I have no problem telling people the first act starts slow in my opinion!

[Mark_E]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 3:26pm

I always try and go in to a theatre and try and enjoy a show. In the past year or so I have started to enjoy a lot more things by trying not to over-analyse and to try and enjoy the show for what it is. A recent example is The Fantasticks in London. I knew it was going to be a very basic show and I enjoyed it for what it was.

Some shows I saw on UK tour a few years ago and really didn't enjoy were South Pacific and Guys and Dolls and I think it was because I didn't appreciate the material as much as I do now (although the production of South Pacific didn't really help). I am not desperate to see these shows again to try and appreciate them more.

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 3:28pm

I think part of it is because most people don't have enough experience seeing Broadway-quality productions to find fault in them. People who have seen a lot of shows can say 'this was a good Broadway show, this one, while better than a community theatre production, is NOT as good as many shows I've seen." Most would just say, "Wow, EVERYONE in this show can sing and act well, and the sets look great! This is so different from the production of Beauty and the Beast I saw last year with a cardboard castle and a tone-deaf Gaston!"

I've only seen one show ON Broadway, and I usually see about two professional productions a year (usually one touring musical and one regional DC production) and about fifteen high school or community shows. And I tend to think pretty much everything is good. I've loved every high school show I've seen except for the multi-lingual production of Alice in Wonderland that ended with Alice getting raped by Lewis Carroll.

I do something called Cappies Critics, where high school students in my area review and vote on local high school shows, and what usually happens is, we go to the critics' room, I'm thrilled with what I just saw, and then my mood slowly deflates as everyone spews bitter criticism about every aspect of the shows. Granted, I can always tell a great show from a not-so-good one, but I still like everything I've seen, and that's probably because I don't have much experience with Broadway-quality shows.

Updated On: 7/17/10 at 03:28 PM

[Boredathome]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 3:34pm

I think the original poster makes a valid point. I have noticed as well that it seems as though in order to assert oneself as an 'expert' it is easier to use negative comments rather than positive, but that's not specifically indicative of this board, it seems to be a growing trend in art criticism in general, but specifically theater critics.
I myself went to see The Addams Family thoroughly expecting to hate it, but my brother was in town and wanted to see it and even though I was in a lot of pain, since it was the first time I had gone to see a show since my accident, I completely enjoyed it. I thought that while it wasn't incredibly original, it was a prime example of an old-fashioned musical comedy with a fun score that moved the story along and a cute, witty book that made me laugh more than a few times. I find it ironic that despite it's being snubbed by the Tony's it is doing very well at the box office and I think deservedly so.

I did think the story was uneven, but were scripts of the original television series ever more? They were just as fun but certainly not masterpieces. I think the show reflected that quite well while resonating with a modern audience, all in all a successful endeavor on the part of the creators.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 3:41pm

For starters, I think it's a mistake to think that this board or even ATC is representative of theater fans in general. That said, I think the difference is education.

If you see a great deal of theater, it is habit to assess, to compare, to be critical. Odds are you've seen it done before, and you've seen it done better. It's hard not to notice flaws when you have that experience. There's a difference between being critical, and being negative, though. For example, I don't understand why any show should ever be bashed. It's a waste of time and energy, and more often than not, serves only to show how "clever" the naysayer is. I never lend much credence to reviews, professional or otherwise. Not everyone has the same tastes. There's no universal right or wrong.

As to why the people who are not regular attendees of theater being so pleased with it, well, there's your answer right there. It's a novelty. They haven't yet learned to be so hyper-critical as many eventually do. I'm perfectly capable of seeing flaws in a show while still enjoying other aspects of it and recommending it to others, but unless they're like-minded, I'm much less inclined to share what I saw as short-comings. Let them figure that out on their own, if they even will, and if they don't, good for them. It isn't my place to "educate" them.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 3:45pm

I think that a lot of us have very high expectations for shows. For example, many people were disappointed with the current Dreamgirls tour, saying that it really couldn't compare to the original production. When you stop comparing it to the original production and let it stand on its own, you can probably have a much better time at the show. Now, when tourists compare this Dreamgirls tour to their hometowns' crappy community theater productions from a few years ago, they have lower expectations than those of you who who saw the original production, and therefore have a much more enjoyable time. When I saw Billy Elliot, I had the mindset that I wouldn't enjoy it, and I walked out loving it, while I know of many people who said that they thought it didn't live up to the hype. When I saw Jersey Boys, I had too high expectations to really enjoy it. The same thing happened at In the Heights. I find that I enjoy shows the most when I walk in knowing little about the show, and I am just slightly excited for it.

[mikem]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 4:46pm

I think there are a lot of factors.

-I think in general, it is hard for a second version of anything to surpass the first version that you experienced, which set the template for what the material "should" be like. If you read the book first then saw the movie, you often like the book more. If you saw the movie first, it's often the reverse. This is especially true if the first version was a really acclaimed performance or an indelible production.

-People who go to the theater a lot and are passionate about it know what the theater is capable of, and want the show to be an "A+" every time. They want the "B" show to be an "A+" (and feel they know how to make it an "A+") while the casual theatergoer may be just fine with the "B."

-People who rarely go to the theater are seeing the show because they really want to see it, so they are pre-disposed towards liking it (without having the almost unreachable expectations that many of us can develop). Many people on the board see a lot of theater, without necessarily being drawn to a particular production that strongly.

-If you go all the time, the "specialness" of the experience wears off, and that "specialness" elevates the enjoyment of the experience. If you had your favorite food every day, it might not seem as exciting to you.

-Similarly, a lot of stagecraft is old hat to us but are exciting to casual theatergoers. (Not just special effects, but fancy costumes, big dance numbers, etc)

-Some (not all, but some) casual theatergoers are more starstruck than hardcore theatergoers who have seen many celebrities on stage, and some are excited just to see a famous person up close.

-Comments posted on the board tend to be extreme in either direction -- if you think something is pretty good but not spectacular, you may not bother to post about it.

Just some thoughts.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 4:56pm

The people you call "theater fans" spend various amounts of their leisure time thinking about these issues and discussing them with friends. They develop more expectations about these productions and those expectations leave them more likely to be disappointed.

The ones you call "regular attendees" go with few if any expectations and are less frequently disappointed.

But when presented with a production like Bartlett Sher's South Pacific, very few of the theater fans "go negative."

That production pretty much drew raves across the boards, even from the cynics and those old enough to have seen the original.

[BosBroad]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 5:46pm

Like others have said, I think the difference can be both expectation and lack of exposure.

Look at the positive responses from audiences to Chicago's ridiculous stunt casting - where most of the choreography (and characterization) was removed. If you haven't seen the original revival cast, maybe the stunt casts would seem great. The music, spectacle and jokes would be impressive.

Frankly, I wish I hadn't seen the original cast. Then, I could enjoy it again....

But regarding something like Addams, I think it's just a willingness to go in ready to have fun and expectations of nothing more. Nothing wrong with that.

Posted: 7/17/10 at 6:22pm

"If you see a great deal of theater, it is habit to assess, to compare, to be critical. Odds are you've seen it done before, and you've seen it done better."

Exactly- they enjoy criticizing more than they enjoy enjoying....

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 6:24pm

I think a lot of times, people feel like being negative makes them seem smarter; they're harder to impress, they're more discerning, etc. So they go out of their way to be like that. It's sad, because fans of the art should obviously want to see good work, but they should also want to love what they see. I'm not saying you should love everything you see just because you love theatre, either. But I think a lot of it is more about appearances than just being honest with yourself. It's okay to love something.

Updated On: 7/17/10 at 06:24 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 6:33pm

I go in to most shows WANTING to love it, really. But I am a critical audience member (movies, tv, theater). If it doesn't work for me, I can't change it.

I think theater fans know WAY more about production today, than even 10 to 15 years ago. We find out casting decisions right away, we instantaneously hear about the out of town try-outs and previews. We start to judge even before we've purchased our ticktet.

The "casual" theater goer just want to be entertained. There's nothing wrong with that wish either. When I bring my HS kids to NY each year, there is a part of me that hopes they love everything we see; there is another part of me that hopes they will watch critically. I don't want them to love it JUST because it's on B'way.

THEN you add these things called "discussion boards". These just BEG for constructive criticism as THAT is soemthing to talk about. Have the "mutual admiration society" thread gets boring.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 6:57pm

That's obviously true for a lot of people, Joe, but I think you're exposed to more of it, and more virulent forms of it on the internet, where the anonymity allows for people to be more extreme. Working in the business, it is often my job to find flaws, especially during production, or even later in the run, so the errors can be corrected. It becomes an ingrained habit to notice these things.

But as a patron, while I still notice these things, I put them aside and just experience the show.

"It's more about appearances than just being honest with yourself. It's okay to love something."

Very true, and it's also okay to dislike something, but in my book, it's not okay to say that because you dislike something, for whatever reason, everyone else should too. For me, an example is Passing Strange. Everyone swore I'd love it, and... I really, really didn't - but when I came out for intermission, people I knew, savvy theater-goers, were touched to the point of tears. Just totally blown away. I was baffled. I'm not the kind of person to leave at intermission, but this was the only show I'd considered making an exception for. Clearly it spoke to them in a way that it did not with me, and who was I to rain on their parade?

ETA: "Have the "mutual admiration society" thread gets boring."

See, here I completely disagree. I can go on at length and in detail on what I love about a show or a performer and never get bored. I guess it's what you choose to focus on and if you have a taste for criticism. Even the worst trainwreck of a show has something fascinating in it for me. OTOH, that night after seeing Passing Strange, I had drinks with a bitchy theater queen friend, and viciously shredded the show - but that was in private and with someone I knew already hated it.



Updated On: 7/17/10 at 06:57 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 7:03pm

and it's also okay to dislike something

Oh absolutely -- I thought I implied that, but sorry if not. And agree with the rest of that paragraph, too.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 7:06pm

Oh, you were clear - I was just using that as a springboard

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 7:16pm

think a lot of times, people feel like being negative makes them seem smarter; they're harder to impress, they're more discerning, etc. So they go out of their way to be like that.

I definitely think this is often the case.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 7:27pm

The more theater you see, the more discerning you tend to become. It's natural. People who see one show a year are more likely to love that one show than the person who sees every new production that opens in a season.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 7:33pm

I always go into shows wanting to enjoy it- because, more often than not, I've paid and would love to see that my money hasn't been wasted.

And honestly, even when the show isn't great, I usually end up enjoying myself. I recognize what elements of the show didn't work, but won't come on here to rant about how I wish I had eyes gouged out instead of seeing the show.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 7:59pm

"I go in to most shows WANTING to love it, really. But I am a critical audience member (movies, tv, theater). If it doesn't work for me, I can't change it."

I consider myself a very critical audience member. I notice the tiniest of errors. I'll tell you where you dropped a line or changed your blocking. I'll know when a lighting cue is off. I'll hear one slightly wrong note or know if you changed a lyric - but I also notice the most subtle little gestures and choices that some actors make, the extra liitle trill they made or how they held that sweet note two seconds longer than usual, took one extra beat for dramatic effect or got a laugh they never did before - little things that I find such a joy, but will likely go unnoticed by someone less aware, and very often, I've found, it's some little thing that they are doing only for themselves and are surprised to learn that anyone has noticed. If all you're looking for is something to criticize, you will surely find it. Sometimes you have to have to pay attention to get the magic.

"honestly, even when the show isn't great, I usually end up enjoying myself. I recognize what elements of the show didn't work, but won't come on here to rant about how I wish I had eyes gouged out instead of seeing the show"

100% agree, kad. I'd always rather be entertained than disappointed, so I can almost always find something in a show that entertains me. It's in my best interest
Other than the afore-mentioned PS, I couldn't tell you the last show I saw that I didn't enjoy - and I have seen hundreds and hundreds. I might be able to come up with some I didn't like if I thought about it long enough, but why would I want to do that?

ETA: Great thread Joe. Thanks.

Updated On: 7/17/10 at 07:59 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 9:04pm

I certainly mean to sound that any little thing could "ruin" the experience for me. Like you, I notice little things: but that is not always bad. I love to see variations in interpretations and deliveries...I love when new life takes a breath.

I was referring to the show as a whole "not working" for me. I was bored at Memphis, and didn't buy the romantic relationship at all. I could see much talent on stage and really appreciated the choreography, but I cannot bring myself to say I liked the show. I can almost always APPRECIATE the effort.

Posted: 7/17/10 at 10:36pm

When I took my Nephew to see Wicked, he had anticipated it for MONTHS. He watched it, seemingly enraptured and then when it was over, said it was "Overrated." I asked him what he meant and he said "Well, people say it's the best thing ever and it's not." I asked him if he liked it: Oh yes, definitely, can we go see it again? I asked him if it was the best show he'd ever seen: Yep. I think so! So, how is it over rated? "I dunno." he said "it just is."

I decide then I wasn't going to be a critic any more- I watch for enjoyment so my goal was going to be to enjoy.

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 10:43pm

I have been seeing multiple Broadway shows a year for almost 15 years, and have honestly enjoyed every single one. Sure, I enjoyed some more than others and can find flaws in almost anything, but I can't comprehend how anyone who calls himself a "theater fan" can hate most (or even some) of what he sees. Someone who is truly a fan of the art of theater should be able to find some positive aspect in any show.

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 11:32pm

Well, I guess it's something similar to when two people are married and suddenly start finding each other's habits annoying.

[mikem]

Posted: 7/18/10 at 12:38am

I agree with the earlier posters who said that part of the issue is that it is somehow more cool to be negative about a show than to love it. Bizarre but true.

I also think that it is somehow considered a bad thing by many people if a new show is crowd-pleasing. Hairspray somehow managed to get away with it, but almost every new show that tries to be populist gets slammed for being commercial entertainment. I think that some of that comes from wanting theater to MATTER in a way that I don't think that we expect from other art forms. But some of it I also think comes from snob appeal.

I also think that it is easy to get too cerebral and rather than think, "Did I enjoy it?" to think instead, "Was it as good as it could have been?"

Updated On: 7/18/10 at 12:38 AM