ADDAMS FAMILY problem- Page 6

Posted: 12/9/09 at 5:02pm

Sorry I don't usually abuse the caps lock like that- Just can't imagine why someone who apparently has not seen the show feels it necessary to attack someone who has and formed a different opinion of it.

I do think he might be on to something, though- imagine how much time and money could be saved by theater critics if they don't bother to see the show before reviewing it. I guess they could write up all the season in a couple of weeks and take the rest of the year off.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/9/09 at 5:15pm

I never criticized the show, only the book and the score. And I am much more familiar with the score than someone who saw it live once or twice, even you. I truly gave this a chance, but no "cool set" is gonna save this score and book. And, remember, the only song I like from the score, "Clandango", you found quite poor, so we shall agree to disagree. Either way, I don't need to spend $140 to know a bad score and atrocious book when I hear it.

I will not respond to you about this again, JoeKv.

I am perfectly justified in criticizing the score and book as I have, whether you like it or not. I have a feeling if I loved the score and book things would be much different. Ah, well... this whole enterprise is a case of what could have been.

P

P.S. The score sucks. Get over it.

Posted: 12/9/09 at 7:23pm

You think it's possible to judge a show without actually seeing it. I do not. We agree to disagree once again. And when you made criticisms that seemed so of-base I wondered if you'd actually seen the show you danced around it (like a Vampire, perhaps) for weeks. I think you owe it to let people know where you are coming from: You read the book and heard the score (somehow) and hated it. At least you sort of admit you've been ripping apart a show you've never even seen. Sort of.

I'm glad we got that settled.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/9/09 at 7:36pm

I never claimed to see the show but I am VERY well-versed on the book and score, more so than even you, and I never claimed otherwise.

And agree to disagree it will be, though I can guarantee the critics (at least in NY) will largely fall on my side of this argument, for whatever that's worth.

P

P.S. I did not need to see FOLLIES to know it was brilliant and I had far less to go on with that show than this one and even then I would never voice opinions on an entire SHOW I did not see, but only the elements I am familiar with... after all, a score and book are a completely different matter and those are the only ADDAMS elements I have criticized. A good set can't usually save a bad score and an awful book, as I've said repeatedly here and elsewhere.
Updated On: 12/9/09 at 07:36 PM

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 12/10/09 at 1:58am

Pardon my ignorance, but how are you VERY familiar with the score and the book?

I'm seeing the show this weekend and can't wait to form my own opinion. But in the meantime, I'm fascinated by your passionate dislike of the show...oops, sorry...you're not saying you don't like the show, because you have NOT seen it. You're just saying you think the score "sucks" and don't have many kind words for the script either. Split hairs, much?

In any case, to my knowledge, the show has been cut by roughly 30 minutes even since its first preview in Chicago just a few weeks ago. And to my knowledge, the score hasn't been recorded formally in any fashion.

So do you work on the show? Do you play in the pit? Are you an usher at the theatre? How can you be so intimately familiar with something that is constantly in flux and which doesn't exist in recorded form?

Of course, who knows? Maybe I'll end up agreeing with you and all of this skepticism is misplaced...! In the meantime, though, your need to not just be repeatedly negative at every available turn, but seemingly brutally so, just gives me pause about the objectivity of your evaluation.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/10/09 at 2:00am

And this is the out-of-town critic...

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 12/10/09 at 2:35am

Interestingly, Chris Jones in the Tribune finds a great deal more merit in the show than you (and Gavin and some others) seem to find. So thanks for sharing. I'm somewhat encouraged now, though perhaps that was not your intent in posting.

Actually, I'm quite bit MORE encouraged, because your post prompted me to check out the other out-of-town critic (Hedy Weiss in the Sun-Times) whose feelings are vastly more positive and make even more optimistic and excited to see the show and decide for myself.




ADDAMS Chicago Sun-Times Review

Posted: 12/10/09 at 11:09am

SO much for the "AND I WILL NOT discuss this AGAIN" pledge from our pal PGenre. So I'm not the only one who thinks it odd he has an almost pathological hatred for a show -sorry, just the book and score- he hasn't even seen.

[idinadefygravity926]

Posted: 12/11/09 at 10:16pm

I just think I should mention that, although the show has not yet opened on Broadway, it IS a "Broadway Musical." So Wednesday's number, "Pulled," may be the classic "I Want" number that screams Broadway, but I would think that's probably because it IS Broadway.
Also, many composers find it a necessary component of a musical, because it gives audiences a pretty clear idea of what that character wants throughout the show, Whether the characters are drastically different from us or not. Can't gothic, creepy people like Broadway too?

Just a thought :)

[idinadefygravity926]

Posted: 12/11/09 at 10:30pm

Oh.
And about all this "hate the book/score, but I haven't seen the show" nonsense.
A show isn't made up of merely its book and score. The real meat of a show is the way it is put onstage, and brought to life. Often the best parts are the ad-libs the actors throw in, which I'm sure you won't find in your mysterious depth of knowledge about the Addams Family's constantly changing book/score.
Really, just don't try to bash a show until you've seen it. You're pretty much guaranteed to lose that argument to those of us who HAVE seen it.
...and loved it, I might add.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 12:20am

"Often the best parts are the ad-libs the actors throw in..."

You don't know what you're talking about, idinawhateveryoucallyourself. Unless it's so noted in the script, NO actor is allowed to take any liberties with the text, improvise or (your fantasy) throw in ad-libs. All writers' work is protected by the tenets of the Dramatists Guild and any actor who would violate them would be summarily fired.

Updated On: 12/12/09 at 12:20 AM

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 12:27am

any actor who would violate them would be summarily fired.

No they won't...

Posted: 12/12/09 at 3:00am

If there was no difference between reading a script and hearing the score and actually seeing a show, I'd have saved an awful lot on theater tickets in my day.

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 3:21am

Enchanted,

In principle you are correct, but in practice, that simply isn't the case -- especially with noted (and gifted) improvisors such as Nathan Lane and Jackie Hoffman. Indeed, with actors of that nature, the authors often give them latitude to do a certain amount of improvising. Nathan certainly exercised that right during "Forum" (following in Zero's footsteps) and Jackie did the same in "Xanadu". The authors have the right to step in and taje action if they disapprove of a given improv-ed line and forbid the actor from performing it again (and if that is unsuccessful, they can pursue action through AEA), but the act of improvisation itself is very rarely cause for termination.

[idinadefygravity926]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 3:29pm

Enchanted-
not only is that rule not practiced nearly as strictly as you're saying it is, actors flub lines. That's just the way it is. If every time an actor put an ad-lib in a performance they were fired, no show would EVER have the same cast for more than a few days. People improvise things, and unless the director is very strongly opposed to what the actor said, they don't do anything about it.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 3:38pm

OK so who wants to make a bet that those two ^ are the same person, possibly both sock puppets? Too many coincidences.

P

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:57am

Wow Pgenre -- even I didn't think you were this pathetic.

I truly have no clue who posted the note following mine, but why you find the need to question the possibility that two people reasonably knowledgeable about theatre might have similar answers to the same question is a mystery to me. And why you find the need to be insulting about it (sock puppets? I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean) is even more baffling.

Then again, maybe the latter is not so surprising. You seem to enjoy offering up sarcastic and unprovoked insults for what I can only imagine are reasons that provide you with some sense of self-worth and superiority. If that's what you need, so be it. Like I said at the top -- pathetic.

Posted: 12/13/09 at 9:41am

Anyone who doesn't agree wholeheartedly with his bizarre proclamations is not only wrong, but somehow fundamentally flawed. Don't take it personally.