Bonnie & Clyde deserves better- Page 3

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 8:55pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 08:55 PM

[kdogg36]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 9:08pm

And at that point, one has to look at why that composer/writer/whatever ever tried to pass their work off in the commercial world... clearly they had no regard for what the public wanted and had no respect to take the audience in mind when they wrote their show.

This claim - that there's almost a kind of artistic malice behind every flop - could only hold if the creators knew that no one would like their work and tried to force it on the world anyhow. I think that's pretty much never the case. Artists hope their work will succeed, but sometimes they're wrong, because no one can have perfect knowledge of these things in advance.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 9:16pm

I think you need to start a separate thread, or pm me, because this has turned into the mother or all threadjacks.

"I believe that shows can be financial flops without being artistic flops."

"Where? On the other Broadway? The non-profit one? Something can be a flop and be an artistic masterpiece... but it is still a flop."

You're contradicting yourself a bit there, aren't you?

Miriam-Webster defines "flop" as "to fail completely". If a show has artistic merit, it has not failed completely - and what kdogg said.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 9:17pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 09:17 PM

[Pauly3]

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

bobbybaby85, when you say "make money", are you referring to recouping the cost of the show? Can a show win the Tony Award for best musical and be a flop? When Memphis won, it had not come close to recouping the original investment (and maybe still hasn't - I don't know). But it can hardly be called a flop (then, in between or now).

Perhaps more on point to this discussion, Wildhorn's own Jekyll & Hyde had 1500+ performances on a Broadway stage but never recouped costs. Running nearly 4 years can't be considered a total failure (even in your eyes?). A failure to produce a profit, absolutely.

Also to the point, the phrase "a big ole turkey" could more than easily be considered something other than a purely simple flop. Ok, you really meant "a simple business flop" - but you chose to use an emphasis that isn't simple - and (quite possibly) lead the reader to think you (possibly) disingenuous. Thus some backlash.

[CurtainPullDowner]

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

Was it VARIETY that came up with the definition of Hit; (made back it's investment) Flop; (did not)?
It's a simplified way of defining the term and it's on paper in black or white. If we are judging on Artistic merit we will never agree because one man's Art is another man's can of Soup, from the great Wagner and Tomlin.

I don't understand when people say the show recouped from the tour. That's almost impossible since the tour is a different entity and the money made does not usually go back to the original investors.

[dented146]

Posted: 12/13/11 at 1:54am

A tour is a separate entity but in most cases the money made on tour goes to the original investors as well as to the local theaters and investors. The original investors almost always have the first right of refusal to invest in the tour.

Tours generally do at least as well as Broadway from a profit stand point so it would be unlikely that an original investor would not also invest in the touring company.

In the case of Bonnie and Clyde the original investors will likely lose every penny from the Broadway attempt. If Wildhorn were to decide to try his luck in London he would need all new investors although some might want to roll the dice again. But if Bonnie and Clyde does a tour, I suspect the original investors would get first shot however the local people may have no interest. Updated On: 12/13/11 at 01:54 AM

[undercoveractor]

Posted: 12/13/11 at 3:00am

I shall remain on my high horse whenever I feel fed up with the seemingly endless amount of immature brick throwing that happens on these boards when shows struggle. I have not seen B&C yet and am certainly not a fan of other Wildhorn shows, but I will tell you that when 'fans' of the genre act like the Romans at the coliseum screaming for blood, the artform suffers. And YES I am aware that Broadway is commercial theatre....but I will scream until my last breath that there is a place for the shows I mentioned in my earlier post to thrive here. Give me a flop like SCOTTSBORO BOYS over a hit like MEMPHIS any day of the week Sir!
The saddle on this high horse shall remain filled with my stubborn and indignant ass as long as challenging and artful theatre attempts to play on the same street with the big, bland, and dumbed down.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/13/11 at 3:42am

Since you can prove financial success or failure, that is why that stands as the measuring stick for the show entirely. You cannot prove 'artistic' success. There are very few shows that you couldn't find SOME fans of. And in this day and age, lots of poeple like show simnply BECAUSE of its colassal failure.

Would I rather have 100 failures like Scottsboro Boys vs 1 success of Memphis? YES, a thousand times, yes. But there are a lot of people that are still lining up to see Memphis...and we need shows like Memphis to keep investors, well, investing.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/13/11 at 10:59am

Give me a flop like SCOTTSBORO BOYS over a hit like MEMPHIS any day of the week Sir!

Give me both. I like art and I like entertainment. And any combination of the two at varying degrees. What you find big, bland and dumbed down from the view atop a very high horse can be wildly entertaining for...almost everyone else. And those big, bland and dumbed down shows have been at the root of Broadway since its inception. I've always hated the implication that if an artsy show flops and a mainstream show is successful, then the creators and the people who enjoy them must be insulted and their intelligence and opinions must be insulted as well. And insulted by a VERY small minority. Why is this? What are the trying to prove and to whom?

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/13/11 at 1:23pm

Was it VARIETY that came up with the definition of Hit; (made back it's investment) Flop; (did not)?

No, they were just the ones who put it on paper, the terms were used before then.

And recouping the investment is the only objective way to measure the financial and business side of the production. A hit or a flop refers to the business - everything else is subjective.

A Tony award winner for Best Musical can certainly be a flop. Although the award can prove itself powerful. In more than a decade, only one Best Musical winner has flopped. If Memphis doesn't recoup before closing, it will be another example of a Best Musical Tony award-winner closing as a flop.

[undercoveractor]

Posted: 12/13/11 at 4:08pm

Mister Matt I believe you have partially missed my point, but that said I am grown up enough to apologize for insulting you. Do not get me wrong, I value entertainment as well....SPAMALOT was a lot of fun for example. I enjoyed and even loved parts of ROCK OF AGES, THE PRODUCERS, SISTER ACT, XANADU, and LYSISTRATA JONES to name but a few. And while, yes I did really hate MEMPHIS my comment wasn't so much a comment on that show as on another issue. I get so tired of people calling for shows to close with such hatred and vehemence that it seems like a witchhunt. I've been in shows that I knew were not great quality, but I wanted them to have some sort of run simply because I wanted us all to be employed.
So if MEMPHIS is given all of those accolades and given a chance to find it's audience then I hope that BONNIE AND CLYDE will be allowed that as well. I am well aware that there is a long tradition of Broadway shows existing for the sheer purpose of entertainment and that is great...but it can be entertaining and well written, directed, created etc. THAT sort of entertainment I can stand behind fully.

One other thing...many many of my issues with MEMPHIS come from the fact that I am a Southerner from that very region and the treatment of the people there rubbed me the wrong way. I have the right to feel that way just as much as you have the right to love the show.

And I am sorry that I came off as so rude to you.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/13/11 at 4:25pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 04:25 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/13/11 at 4:37pm

It's interesting...I took my mother to see Memphis. We're both Southerners, but from Texas. We both enjoyed the show (I wouldn't say we "loved" it), though she was more closely in tune with the era and the Southern attitudes towards music and race and as a result, commented on how much of the show stirred her memories of that particular time. As we were leaving the theatre, she said, "That really reminds me of the old-fashioned musicals". She was speaking more towards the structure of the show than its content, but I immediately understood what she meant. And this is a woman whose favorite musicals include Caroline or Change, Tommy, Rent, Billy Elliot, Next to Normal, Les Miserables, Hello Again and Falsettos.

I am well aware that there is a long tradition of Broadway shows existing for the sheer purpose of entertainment and that is great...but it can be entertaining and well written, directed, created etc.

Well, but that's pretty subjective, isn't it? That was the point behind my post. Women on the Verge was easily my favorite show last season and I thought it was actually quite brilliant. And while I was disappointed the critics panned it and it closed quickly, I didn't resent or put down any of the successful shows that so many others enjoy simply because I don't like them personally. I was hoping for the best with Bonnie and Clyde and I really wanted to see it, but it's just not meant to be. Rave reviews are not necessary to be a hit on Broadway as we all have seen, but Bonnie and Clyde simply isn't drawing an audience and that's not the fault of any other show.

[undercoveractor]

Posted: 12/13/11 at 8:49pm

WOTV was a heartbreaker for me MM. I loved so many things about it and wanted it to work better than it did. The score only seemed to get its due after the fantastic cast recording was released last spring. My greatest hope is that the creators will continue to tinker with it until they get it right...I think there is a really fantastic show in there.
And thank you for actually hearing what I wrote and responding intelligently ...like an adult. I look forward to sharing opinions with you again.

[CowardlyLyon]

Posted: 12/13/11 at 10:10pm

*Spoilers- do not Read if you don't want to know. This is a review that I wrote of "Bonnie & Clyde"


by Christopher T.
Bonnie and Clyde- An emotional response, and some criticism, of the new Broadway musical.



A little rock never did the country no harm! Wildhorn has broken his streak: Fans were abysmally worried that Frank's music would never soar again along the Great White Way. Mere months after “Alice” fell on her face down the rabbit hole. this new musical shines brightly on its own. I am happy to report the birth of a new untainted and unaltered organic and fresh “book musical”! (with very little dancing to be spoken of.) Most of Wildhorn's hits that we know and love (Jekyll, Scarlet Pimpernel, Dracula, Civil War) are anchored in classic literature, some even with popular movie adaptations paving the way to peek an audience's interest. Once again, the story of Clyde Barrow and his “gang” of unfortunates sing as high as the rafters, yet the show is undeniably grounded and tied to a historical vein that pulses and feeds the piece's creativity. We are treated to stunning historically accurate photography and periodical clippings that set the tone. These images remind us, every minute, that these events undeniably happened (no matter how fantastical or horrible they seem). This ain't no tall tale- its a damn fact. The visual hints and helps educated my aesthetic. In general the set design, use of projections, and costume design were fantastic, and worthy of a favorable nod.

Somehow America finds it more profitable to champion the criminal and to villainize the law; a seemingly immoral pointer guides the show-biz compass. So often the infamy of the “wild west” serves as the backdrop for an immature boys' charade. However, this piece of work taps into Clyde's psyche (impeccably sung and acted by a dashing Jeremy Jordan) where we hear his side of the story. Clyde's songs serve as hearty justification for his violet actions, and we blame his unfair upbringing squarely for his crime. Yet somehow I feel this trick has been overplayed, and feels remarkably similar in content to Chicago, [and to a certain extent Catch Me If You Can, Producers, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels] in that “I'm going to live this life of crime until the bubble bursts”. I can think of half a dozen more ways that Americans idolize exactly what should be discouraged. I'm not saying its right or wrong, just peculiar. This musical explains away the murders, the robbery, the sinfulness, with a sort of crazy “God will Forgive” motif that fails to synthesize any positive statement, and is instead resigned to humor.

This is a good musical for men to come view. In general, machismo prevents them from listening to a song full of 'feelings,' yet Don Black (lyrics) and Ivan Menchell (book) give Clyde a voice full of fear, love, anger, and regret. This musical capitalizes on the Barrow brothers fall from innocence- and the shame and relapse in trying to break from one's past. One theme, the hope for a new life, a new start, is a remorse echoed throughout the cast of characters. We really feel their hope for a second chance (or third or fourth) on their own terms.

The passion between stunning leading lady Laura Osnes (Bonnie) and her beau Clyde caused my partner and I to speculate on a budding or blooming romance between these two fine actors. Or perhaps they were just that good at their job of making me believe their love. Regardless of fact or fiction, these two shared more than a little tongue. Yet at no point did the onstage intimacy detract from the story or make the audience feel uncomfortable. Rather, it served as a gift to remind us of the lengths to which you'll go when young and in love. These two singers have voices like cream. Their vocals are gilded or so terribly perfect that even the perils of steering near a twangy pop sound was never an annoyance, but rather heartfelt and down-home. The score's fusion of gospel, bluegrass, and folk give the bit-hungry ensemble alternating turns to be hilarious, reverent, ravenously spiritual. The incorporation of the true life Bonnie Parker's poetry into the book added authenticity, and well serves some quiet moments commemorate her too-soon taken talents. In the end, despite the nineteen people in the cast, its a two 'man' show, with Osnes and Jordan delivering more realism, emotion, and soaring vocals with every twist down the plot's inevitable plunge toward ruin.

It goes without saying that this piece will be Tony-nominated. I feel it will find a fine base of tourists from Texas and the still “Wild West” of our country who love and admire this legend. My overall impression was that this musical is so 'manicured' – so 'placed' that it could use some shaking up. Every gunshot was perfectly timed so that you could still enjoy that masterful music. Every shirt was soiled in such a way. It's just too perfect to believe.

I enjoyed this show, and hope it finds a home regionally. However, it might not be right to stay here in New York. I put my blessing upon it, and take my vows of affirmation of Wildhorn's music.

by Christopher T.

[roadmixer]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 1:47am

I would like to come to the rescue of the newb who started this thread. It was
a valiant attempt to ask people refrain from bashing opinions of the show, the
show itself or other people's posts especially directed to those who haven't seen the show. This Is completely logical if the object of the thread is to have a discussion by people who have seen Bonnie & Clyde about whether it wasn't
given a fighting chance in the media or if It was undercapitalized, bad time of year to open, not enough marketing... whatever! It should be a right for any poster to try to keep his or ther thread narrowed to the topic that they started with - do people feel like B&C didn't get a chance.

Sadly, by now, the OP is aware that many people on these boards are here to flame, denigrate, muckrake and generally behave in a bitchy, childish and reprehensible way. These boards have become mostly about how bitchy and hurtful people can behave toward each other and it's really sad. Every voice should be heard but not when the posting is based on not having seen the show in question and really only serves to criticize someone else's opinions. I hope people can try to be a bit more civil and on-point and then we all might get something out of this process more than a feeling of resentment and bile welling up as we re-post trying to "out-bitch" the last bitchy remark!

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 2:26am

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 02:26 AM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 3:27am

Bzzt! So sorry, bobbybaby85. You lose. Roadmixer is not "Hitler". By referring to him as such, you have invoked Godwin's law, the point in an internet conversation where some one has to resort to the insulting and over the top absurdity of comparing the situation to Nazis or Hitler. It results in instant disqualification. Your consolation prize is 2 tickets to Bonnie & Clyde - taxes, transportation and accommodations not included.

Thanks for playing, please see yourself out.






Godwin's Law Updated On: 12/14/11 at 03:27 AM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 3:27am

Also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum Updated On: 12/14/11 at 03:27 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 11:02am

undercoveractor - I love a good debate when it doesn't descend into immature nastiness, even if we just agree to disagree (I feel like I'm summoning Gaveston, who is a newfound kindred spirit). As for Women on the Verge, I actually thought it worked very well, but it was based on source material that was fragmented and stylistically unconventional. But being an Almodovar fan and familiar with the film, I felt like the musical was the perfect balance of Almodovar's style and fleshed out the story to create something even more comprehensible and cohesive than the film (plus, the new ending wasn't quite as ambiguous and cynical). Reading the reviews of the critics and their comments regarding the film, I sort of felt like they either weren't very familiar with the film or hadn't seen it for a very long time. I never expected the show to be a hit, but I'm so glad I didn't let the reviews keep me from seeing it when I had the chance. I would have missed one of my favorite musical theatre experiences on Broadway (and a cast of my dreams). Likewise, I hope people choose to see Bonnie & Clyde to judge the show for themselves rather than assume any negative comments will simply align with their own opinions. You never know when a show may surprise you.

ghostlight - Thank you! The Hitler comment was so...Fox News.

"I've been in shows that I knew were not great quality, but I wanted them to have some sort of run simply because I wanted us all to be employed."

That is probably one of the most selfish things I've ever read on this board... and horrible justification for why you don't want a show to close.

Actually, it's sort of the opposite of selfish when it involves the welfare of others. And if the person involved is in a show, it sort of makes sense they want it to run so they stay employed. Just like working any other job. I don't want my company to go bankrupt because it would mean I'd lose my job. I know I have no control over that, but it's not selfish of me to want to stay employed or to hope that my company is prosperous so I can stay employed. It's common sense and economics. To me, the selfish perspective would be, "God, I'm in a lousy show. I hope it closes soon and we all get fired."

[newintown]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 11:31am

"Reading the reviews of the critics and their comments regarding the film, I sort of felt like they either weren't very familiar with the film or hadn't seen it for a very long time."

If a musical stage adaptation of a film is done well, familiarity with the source material is not necessary.

Of course, most film-to-stage adaptations today (Shrek, 9 to 5, Legally Blonde, etc.) rely upon audience familiarity with the film. The librettist doesn't have to work nearly so hard that way.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 11:55am

If a musical stage adaptation of a film is done well, familiarity with the source material is not necessary.

I was speaking specifically about the critics' comments that mentioned the film and the work of Almodovar. I wasn't saying that familiarity with the source material was necessary for viewing an adaptation, but it makes sense if you're going to reference and comment on it in your review.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 12:09pm

True. But that's an inherent problem with adapting a very popular, well-known source (which is about all we get now, since writers and producers are desperate to reel in an audience with something they already know, audiences today being far from adventurous).

I wonder how many contemporary reviewers compared Oklahoma! with Green Grow The Lilacs, Carousel with Liliom, or Fiddler On The Roof with "Tevye and his Daughters."

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 2:27pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 02:27 PM