THE MUSIC MAN Reviews- Page 4

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 10:01am

ShowBro said: "Georgeanddot2 said: "Jordan Catalano said: "ShowBro said: "With these mostly underwhelming reviews, here is yet another potential door left open for C,OC in June. Ammirite @Jordan?"

I think “Company” was always going to be COC’s major competition for Revival."

Is Company not considered the frontrunner for Best Revival?"

Why, because Sondheim died last year? Mostly joking here."

Well there's that, but it also seems like a super buzzy and much loved production.

[Dylan Smith4]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 10:04am

Just read Jesse Green's review of Music Man and I cannot believe what he has said about the show! NYT needs to find a new theatre critic! One who actually has taste in musical theatre!

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 10:53am

By all accounts, there are things Rudin's micromanaging could have fixed during rehearsals/previews. Like we might not have had the rewritten Shipoopi lyrics, and some of the other cut lines might have been restored. I think Hugh became "the muscle" after Rudin's departure –– not that he isn't collaborative, but he became the loudest voice in the room.

But remember, this MUSIC MAN was never the same situation as DOLLY. Rudin's DOLLY was largely a souped-up recreation of the original production, to the point where the choreography was deemed ineligible at the Tonys.

MUSIC MAN deviated from the set design, it had all new dance arrangements/orchestrations (and added choreo), it cast the leading actress against type, and it doesn't lend itself as well to the glamor of DOLLY, which is set in New York at the very end of the Gilded Age. MUSIC MAN is supposed to look a little shaggier. (The set design is a problem of this revival.)

DOLLY was also something of a surprise because we hadn't seen a commercially-produced revival like that in quite some time. And for those of us who saw all 3 Broadway Dollys, our love for it might have grown beyond that first viewing.

Hugh also probably would have been better in the part 10 or even 5 years ago. This isn't me saying "he's too old for the part;" Harold can be 53. But Hugh is coming to this after an interesting run in post-Wolverine movies, and the energy of Oklahoma! or Boy From Oz has sort of shifted as he has naturally aged.

Updated On: 2/11/22 at 10:53 AM

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 11:00am

I know Rudin's name has come up a few times, and I have to admit, I'm not truly clear on how much power does a lead producer have in the day-to-day creation of a show? Can they get to a point where they move from setting all the pieces, to basically co-directing? 

In the case of this one, were a lot of the decisions already made when the show was set to start in 2020, was there anything significantly changed when he was dropped?

[Tag]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 11:11am

everythingtaboo said: "In the case of this one, were a lot of the decisions already made when the show was set to start in 2020, was there anything significantly changed when he was dropped?"

The professional barbershop quartet was let go.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 11:15am

everythingtaboo said: "I know Rudin's name has come up a few times, and I have to admit, I'm not truly clear on how much power does a lead producer have in the day-to-day creation of a show? Can they get to a point where they move from setting all the pieces, to basically co-directing?

In the case of this one, were a lot of the decisions already made when the show was set to start in 2020, was there anything significantly changed when he was dropped?"
 

It varies depending on the person, but Rudin was a notoriously powerful producer who was deeply involved in the creative elements. Not so much as a co-director, but as the person whispering in the Director's ear or giving mandates to the creative team and shaping the show throughout previews.

Many of the decisions were made prior to his departure last May. The creative team was already in place, and much of the show was cast. However, Jerry Zaks has said that the designs didn't become finalized until last summer; some of the smaller roles still had to be cast/recast; and there was certainly an examination of the script & score for the more "insensitive" things as they worked to create a more "equitable" environment. Rudin laid all the ground work for this production and made the deals happen, but there's still a solid 1/3 of the process that he wasn't around for.

It's not quite the situation of his recent films THE HUMANS and MACBETH which were basically done by the time he departed, and his hands are more visibly all over those films.

[UrNotAMachine]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 11:23am

massofmen said: "Maybe...cancelling one of the greatest entertainment producers of the last century wasn't the best idea.
Maybe broadway shows need intelligent successful producers to guide creative teams to help make the show spectacular.
Maybe..A lead producer would have helped bring the show to where it needed to get to. Maybe we can allow people to apologize for their actions and let them try again rather than banishing them to the upside down without understanding the consequences of our actions."

 

So when someone spends decades being an abusive asshole, we're supposed to let their publicists write out a quick apology and then give them their old job back without consequences? Maybe you're right and Rudin's producing talent was exactly what this show needed to be brilliant. But you can't treat people like dirt for years and years and then expect to be welcomed back with open arms because you said "sorry" once.

Abusive assholes in this industry need to be shown the door. Period. And If, as a consequence of their removal, a revival "The Music Man" doesn't end up as good as it could have been, then I guess I'm okay with that tradeoff. 

 

[austinyourface]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 11:39am

A revival of a tried and true property like The Music Man should not need an exceptional producer guiding it to make it work. It’s the goddamn Music Man, ffs. 

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 12:02pm

I will say I'm glad that someone on Twitter caught this from the DEADLINE review. Hopefully they rub Barry and David's faces in it:

"Hard-hit and laid-up just weeks ago by Omicron, The Music Man, which opened Thursday at a celebrity-packed Winter Garden Theatre, certainly seems to have made a full recovery, at least if cheerful enthusiasm is any indication. (And for the record, producers Diller and Geffen displayed little indication of over-concern about Broadway protocol, sitting maskless in the audience throughout much of the evening.)"

[bjh2114]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 12:02pm

Dylan Smith4 said: "Just read Jesse Green's review of Music Man and I cannot believe what he has said about the show! NYT needs to find a new theatre critic! One who actually has taste in musical theatre!"

Except the review was spot on...

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 12:03pm

Georgeanddot2 said: "
Is Company not considered the frontrunner for Best Revival?"

 

100%. I’d say it’s pretty much a sure bet it’s going to win  

 

[allofmylife]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 12:10pm

There is only one review that counts and it is four words long.

Fifty. Million. Dollar. Advance.

[dexter3]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 12:17pm

Ok, I'm surprised by the negativity towards the show...I saw it and thought it was a joyous, fun production.

Also, Jesse Green is single-handedly helping the NYT reviews become irrelevant. He just seems to be out of step with the world. I'm hoping he's ok...it's like he's using his reviews as a cipher for his sad, cantankerous view on life and theater. 

[austinyourface]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 1:04pm

dexter3 said: "Ok, I'm surprised by the negativity towards the show...I saw it and thought it was a joyous, fun production.

Also, Jesse Green is single-handedly helping the NYT reviews become irrelevant. He just seems to be out of step with the world. I'm hoping he's ok...it's like he's using his reviews as a cipher for his sad, cantankerous view on life and theater."

While I’m not a fan of Green, I’m not sure how his lukewarm take on this show, which is in line with a number of other reviewers, and frankly a quite a bit of word of mouth around town, is indicative that he’s out of step with the world. 

[FirstNighter2]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 1:16pm

Owen22 said: "FirstNighter2 said: "How you can screw up The Music Man is beyond me. It’s time tested and pure Americana. They cut a song. From a classic American musical comedy. Why? They added a tap number. Why? They put a big red wall up. Why? So many odd and disrespectful (to the property and the audience) decisions — all of which have been a topic here for the last two months. It’s not as if they didn’t have notice. It’s that they didn’t care. And that’s what makes this revival so easy to skip.


They did NOT screw up The Music Man. They did NOT screw up The Music Man. They did NOT screw up The Music Man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a first rate revival with star performances that is the essence of the pure joy of musical theatre. No, I did not get the otherworldly rush I got from the Hello, Dolly! revival (which is odd as Music Man is a better, way more creative musical) but it came as close to anything I've seen in the years since
"

The Washington Post disagrees, saying: “The enterprise is a golden-age opportunity squandered. All I kept thinking as I scarpered out of the Winter Garden was: They didn’t know the territory.”

If you decide to mount The Music Man, a tried and true piece of theatrical perfection, that has stood on its own for nearly 60 years, and you get these kind of reviews, you definitely screwed it up. 
 

There is absolutely no excuse for getting these kind of reviews for a piece like The Music Man. 

 

[FirstNighter2]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 1:16pm

Owen22 said: "FirstNighter2 said: "How you can screw up The Music Man is beyond me. It’s time tested and pure Americana. They cut a song. From a classic American musical comedy. Why? They added a tap number. Why? They put a big red wall up. Why? So many odd and disrespectful (to the property and the audience) decisions — all of which have been a topic here for the last two months. It’s not as if they didn’t have notice. It’s that they didn’t care. And that’s what makes this revival so easy to skip.


They did NOT screw up The Music Man. They did NOT screw up The Music Man. They did NOT screw up The Music Man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a first rate revival with star performances that is the essence of the pure joy of musical theatre. No, I did not get the otherworldly rush I got from the Hello, Dolly! revival (which is odd as Music Man is a better, way more creative musical) but it came as close to anything I've seen in the years since
"

The Washington Post disagrees, saying: “The enterprise is a golden-age opportunity squandered. All I kept thinking as I scarpered out of the Winter Garden was: They didn’t know the territory.”

If you decide to mount The Music Man, a tried and true piece of theatrical perfection, that has stood on its own for nearly 60 years, and you get these kind of reviews, you definitely screwed it up. 
 

There is absolutely no excuse for getting these kind of reviews for a piece like The Music Man. 

 

[BwayStarlette]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 1:55pm

I love the Music Man. I love love love Hugh and Sutton. But when I saw this a month ago... my heart was crushed. It's is boring, and the reviews are accurate. I thought maybe they were both still sick, tbh, because it was at once high energy and very sleepy. 

[The Other One]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 1:58pm

"If you decide to mount The Music Man, a tried and true piece of theatrical perfection, that has stood on its own for nearly 60 years, and you get these kind of reviews, you definitely screwed it up. There is absolutely no excuse for getting these kind of reviews for a piece like The Music Man."

Dick Van Dyke and Matthew Broderick didn't exactly hit pay dirt with it either.  Maybe it's a tougher show to pull off than you realize.

[OhHiii]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 1:58pm

dexter3 said: "Ok, I'm surprised by the negativity towards the show...I saw it and thought it was a joyous, fun production.

Also, Jesse Green is single-handedly helping the NYT reviews become irrelevant. He just seems to be out of step with the world. I'm hoping he's ok...it's like he's using his reviews as a cipher for his sad, cantankerous view on life and theater."

....I hope YOU'RE ok, because his review of this show largely reflected most of the sentiment expressed here by a focus group of pretty seasoned theatergoers.

I agree, many of his reviews are garbage and his snark calls into question his journalistic integrity (and, frankly that of his editor Scott Heller), but THIS is the review you're gonna psychoanalyze him over? K...

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 2:47pm

The beautiful stars of a great show.

[A Director]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 3:14pm

Here's a pull quote from Peter Marks.

You get none of that. This Professor Hill seems less a traveling salesman than a song-and-dance man on a second-class national tour.

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 3:14pm

This "bring Rudin back!" narrative is absurd. First of all, he was involved. He just took a backseat. Second of all, he's so radioactive that there are a number of Broadway stars who refuse to sign on the dotted line if he's involved.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 3:15pm

I love when people think reviews are irreverent when they don't agree with them. Love 'em or loathe 'em, I absolutely believe they serve a value. If anything, they provoke discussion, just take a look at this thread, and why we have review threads at all.

(Say what you will about Jesse Green but the Times just hit 10M subscriptions, so clearly they know what works or them.)

[broadwaybaby4423]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 3:22pm

I saw the production on Wednesday night and I think Jesse Green's review was spot on. He nailed it when he called the show flat. In my opinion it's as flat as the barn wall they're performing it in front of. I think overall he did a great job explaining where this production went wrong. The creators did not trust the material. In my opinion the scandal with Rudin frightened the creative team and they tried to water down the production as much as possible to avoid any further controversy. The show doesn't know what it wants to be. Sutton and Hugh aren't bad, but they've both been better. The Music Man's been better. The team is promising us a show full of Tony winning Broadway stars in an incredible 500 dollar a ticket show, but at the end of the day their sales pitch is as phony as Hill's is. After all the hype you wonder how they couldn't come through, but in the end they don't deliver. Sure they've given us the equipment and the uniforms, but they haven't actually taught the band how to play or the show how to sing. 

[OhHiii]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 4:01pm

everythingtaboo said: "I love when people think reviews are irreverent when they don't agree with them. Love 'em or loathe 'em, I absolutely believe they serve a value. If anything, they provoke discussion, just take a look at this thread, and why we have review threads at all.

(Say what you will about Jesse Green but the Times just hit 10M subscriptions, so clearly they know what works or them.)"

To be fair, I'd be willing to bet money that Jesse Green's reviews have zero to do with a single one of those 10M subscriptions. I think the point some people are trying to make is that the reviews are irrelevant because this particular production doesn't need them to survive. People just needed to be reminded Hugh was in the show and it's open. I would also say the value of reviews has diminished quite substantially in the past few years. Struggling shows get raves and the needle doesn't move. Hits get panned and they survive. So the relevance of reviews in the digital age? Jury's out.

That's different than dismissing opinions out of hand because they don't align with their own.