LYSISTRATA JONES Reviews- Page 4

[MTGeek]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 7:55am

I agree with Jordan. Not offensive, just a horrible show. So cliche and stupid. Talented cast but the subject matter and dialogue was painfully bad. Its on my list of worst shows with Spiderman-b/f the revamp and The Pirate Queen.

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 7:58am

Novanurse,

I found the show to be utterly jejune.

And I too found it offensive, because of its totally outdated conception of women. The whole plot is predicated on the notion that a woman's contentment is based wholly on the accomplishments of her man. How stupid, how retrograde can you get?

As stupid and retrograde as....... Lysistrata Jones.

And mighty offensive too.

As for the NY Times review, this is the saddest thing about this godawful excuse for theatre criticism: People will now be suckered into spending money on this junk, and boy, are they going to feel burned.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 8:29am

Unless, of course, they enjoy it.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 9:05am

Spoiler Alert!!!

"And I too found it offensive, because of its totally outdated conception of women. The whole plot is predicated on the notion that a woman's contentment is based wholly on the accomplishments of her man. How stupid, how retrograde can you get?"

What show were you watching...or should i say through what shade of jade glasses were you watching this. The main characters contentment was obscured by always losing in her own life. She said that like 8 times. She was looking for a way to change her own situation. She just chose the basketball team and her boyfriend as a means of ending that losing streak. I mean clearly HE wasn't that important to her as she ended up with a different guy at the end.

Also, im pretty sure that its never stated that the ONLY power women have is withholding sex. I thought it spoke more to mans weakness. But hey i think the feminist rants (as well as this rebuttal) are all just a bit too serious for this lighthearted bubblegum musical. Sorry you were offended.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 9:24am

(Possible spoilers.)

I am hesitant to see the show because as a woman, I am resistant to a musical (or anything, really) where the main conceit is that the only real power women wield over men is the ability to withhold sex.

Well, here's the thing. As some other posters have written, Lysistrata is basically unhappy with complacency in her own life and in what she sees all around her. Everyone's seemingly content to get accepted into their safety school, to be in dull relationships, and to run around the basketball court without ever winning a game. While the sex strike is what sets things in motion, if you see the show, you'll notice that, in the end, that gambit itself has rather little import. When the boys finally do win a game, and when certain characters find new partners, it's not because anyone was withholding sex from them.

I don't want to portray this show as something deep and meaningful, but it does have a point to make, and is lots of fun, so I'm a fan. And I know I'm a guy, but I honestly don't think it's offensive to women (any more than it is to men!).

Incidentally, someone at ATC really did say something offensive, suggesting that Ben Brantley only likes the show because he's basically a teenage girl. I probably shouldn't repeat moronic statements, but I think it's funny how it juxtaposes with the suggestion that Winer didn't like it because she's a woman.

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 10:11am

Whether her boyfriend's basketball team wins a game or not should be completely irrelevant to her own sense of fulfillment. And that her girlfriends latch on to her "cause" is equally preposterous. But let's face it. The whole show is junk, so any kind of "analysis" is pointless.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 10:29am

If thoughtful people are getting something out of it, then it's not junk. It's surely not nearly as good as some other shows in that respect, but probably better than others. Anyhow, what's the use in condemning something as "junk" when there are clearly people to whom it is not junk? It's not like I'm saying Lysistrata Jones is an obvious masterpiece that others are too stupid to appreciate - that would be ridiculous, since plenty of smart people are clearly not being won over by it. But that wouldn't be any more ridiculous than dismissing it as "junk," as if that's an objective fact.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 10:33am

Yeah!

[Broadwayfan15]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 10:42am

It's absolutely not junk. As a woman who is pretty fed up with the way women are portrayed in most media, I was not offended at all. Just the opposite. Lysistrada held the power and it wasn't just over sex. She wanted people to care and reach for the stars. In the end, she won the basketball game not the guys. Hardly a putdown on women. And along the way, she motivated the characters to actively join the world by leaving their stereotypic boxes. Bravo for Lyssie Jones. Hope people give the show a chance, it's a feel good experience.

[CurtisB]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 11:16am

I mostly lurk on here, but Jordan grates on my nerves. When he likes a show, he attacks those who hate it, and when he hates a show, he whines and cries and bashes to high heavens.

Is there a block button?

[jstarr2]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 11:37am

All the major reviews are up and scored on Curtain Critic now: http://www.curtaincritic.com/Shows/LYSISTRATA_JONES_REVIEWS-84.html

Overall 68
Cast 78
Music 68
Book 65
Tech 68

[kdogg36]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 11:44am

Yeah they won the game because they had blue balls from their girlfriends withholding sex. It's not some deep story that's point is easily missed if you're not paying reeeeeally close attention.

(Spoilers.) Jordan, I really do respect you and learn a lot from you. In this case, however, I strongly disagree with your dismissal of the show, as I saw more of a point than you did. By the time the boys win the game, sex is no longer the issue; they've been to the brothel and realized they needed something more than sex. Everyone's complacency has been upended and they're aiming higher than they have before.

Again, this isn't a philosophical masterpiece, and my analyzing it runs the risk of making it out to be more than it is. I just want to state that it's not pointless junk, and explain why I feel that way.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 11:56am

I wonder if people get this offended towards the portrayal of leading women in stuff like Oklahoma, Carousel, South Pacific, or Follies. Now, I haven't seen Lysistrata Jones, so I have no opinion on it, but reading through the various reviews and opinions of others, I got the general feeling this show was meant to be satirical silly fluff. But the analyses from those offended seem to indicate that it SHOULD be treated as if it were written to be dramatic and insightful. The reactions are so bizarre. Even if they close as flops, Bonnie & Clyde and Lysistrata Jones have created some of the most interesting discussions and reactions in musical theatre in a very long time.

Not to mention that the idea of women using sex as manipulation or placing such vital importance on athletes and sport as "outdated" seems more idealistic than realistic. I don't advocate stereotypes, but just tune in to some reality TV and you can easily see where the creators came up with the idea.

[tazber]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 1:20pm

Wasn't the notion of women using sex as power one of Camille Paglia's main ideas?

Anyway, I didn't think the show was offensive to the fairer sex (misogynistic phrase alert!!), just offensive to good musical theater.

[tazber]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 2:00pm

I was looking forward to a fresh and energetic satire of an age old classic updated to refect contemporary views about war and sexual politics (and perhaps to illustrate how little has changed).

What I got was a third rate production age old jokes updated to reflect how low the bar has been set for contemporary cliches to be considered worth Broadway prices.

And no, I wasn't expecting The Road (that's still my favorite thread on this show, btw). Just a good time and maybe a laugh or two. But to be honest, I did laugh more while reading The Road.
So, maybe my expectations were too low after all.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 2:04pm

I found joy in the Donny and Marie Christmas Show, so maybe I'll like this. But what do I know? I left Priscilla at intermission.

[dwwst12]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 3:14pm

I mostly lurk here too, but I have to chime in.

I understand that taste is taste. But I can't really relate when I see people call a production "horrible" or report leaving at intermission. Maybe I simply haven't seen enough shows, or avoid ones I think I won't like. But I've seen around 60 musicals, and there is literally ONE that I would put into that category (name available upon request!).

Doesn't almost every score leave you with *one* memorable song? Or a few laughs? Or one standout performance or bit of choreography that makes it worthwhile? If you're an actor or a director or a set designer, isn't it interesting to think about the choices that were made vs. the ones you would have made? If the show is a hit, and you hate it, isn't that interesting to ponder, rather than something to make you angry? If you end up in the audience of a train wreck that closes after a single performance, isn't that kind of awesome?

My philosophy is that a bad night at the theater is pretty much better than most other nights.

[leefowler]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 3:49pm

dwwst12,

My feelings exactly!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 3:53pm

My philosophy is that a bad night at the theater is pretty much better than most other nights.

My philosophy is, if you're miserable and not enjoying yourself, then leave and do something you enjoy. I've sat through a lot of stuff over a long period of time and that includes terrible shows or productions where I stuck it out through the whole show. As a result, I know when I am miserable to the point where I simply do not want to waste any more of my time forcing myself to watch something I truly don't like. I can leave at intermission having gleaned enough from the production thus far to weigh the value of my time, energy and sanity against the production that is contributing to my unhappiness. If I were a critic and being paid to watch, I'd stay. If I have friends in the show, I'll stay and support them. If I paid for a ticket, I'll leave when I want (which in the case of a couple of excruciating shows could be 15-20 minutes after it starts).

In the case of Priscilla, I was actually coming down with some sort of flu or something during the first act, but honestly, had it captured my attention, I would have stayed. But I was actually really REALLY bored. And I've never felt the desire to go back and see the rest.

If you're an actor or a director or a set designer, isn't it interesting to think about the choices that were made vs. the ones you would have made?

I don't have to force myself to stay to the end of a show I don't like to think about that. Usually, I leave because I already know what I hate about it. I'm just not a masochist. Well, not when it comes to theatre.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 9:28pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 09:28 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 10:43pm

I like the restaurant comparison when it comes to theater - Would you continue to eat a meal that you thought was disgusting simply because the chef put in time an energy to make it for you? No.

[PopAria]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 11:45pm

I stayed until the end and enjoyed it more than I enjoyed Sister-Act. I loved the choreography and most of the music was alright. The quality of the music was much lower compared to Bonnie & Clyde's score. But I did like more than just 1 song.


They've got to figure out a way to make it seem like a college person's musical more than a high school girl's musical. For some reason I went in thinking it's going to be some terrible piece of high school musical trash.

I didn't enjoy Alexander Aguilar playing a Hispanic person. It was about as bad as Wonderland's "El Gato" last spring and Sister-Act's latino man played by Caesar Samayoa. HOWEVER bad his Hispanic character may be, He can sure dance his AZZ off!! and his body in that underwear had me ready to propose. Updated On: 12/15/11 at 11:45 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 11:56pm

I don't think there's anything wrong with leaving at intermission (unless you've been comped, in which case it's inexcusable), but I never have. I always take away something from a performance. It might be one person's performance or an odd special effect, whatever.

Theater can transport me, but I've never had it make me miserable. I don't understand how it could.

"I like the restaurant comparison when it comes to theater - Would you continue to eat a meal that you thought was disgusting simply because the chef put in time an energy to make it for you? No."

I've never understood this comparison, and I keep seeing it. If your food is disgusting, it's disgusting. It has no chance of getting better. Many times I've been bored by a first act, only to be surprised by the second.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/16/11 at 12:27am

The comparison is just saying if you're not enjoying something, why would you continue to endure it if you don't have to?

[SNAFU]

Posted: 12/16/11 at 12:33am

There is a reason why BRK'LYN had no intermission!