Is it time to revive the forgotten Broadway custom of NOT commenting on shows in previews?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:44pm

In the wake of MorganJames-gate, perhaps it's time to re-instill that little-observed and long-forgotten code of honor that says Thou shalt not comment negatively on a show in previews--even in this age of the Internet, even here on BroadwayWorld.

We all know that early previews are rocky. We all know that shows are not "frozen" until a few days before press previews. We all know that sometimes miracles happen in previews (but more often they do not).

And yes, we all know how long Spider-Man ran before declaring an opening--but that is an exception not that rule.

So, I ask the posters here, especially the posters who make a practice of going to first previews and posting about them: Do you think you could give the performers and creative staff the benefit of a preview period and wait until opening night to post your reactions?

Do anyone think this would be a good idea?

Or should we all admit that the only thing that separates us from the Morgan Jameses of the world is that, well...she is tacky and we are not.

[Wynbish]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:47pm

Isn't one of the fun benefits of a Gypsy run is having the Broadway community cheer on a show while it is trying to get used to running in its entirety in front of an audience? Pulling for the fellow thespian?

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:01pm

PJ,I agree with you in theory. However, it used to be (many long years ago), that shows in preview status charged less than the price once the show had opened officially; there were no full Playbills (just a single sheet, as I recall). The lowered prices were a good indicator that this was a show in progress, not necessarilhy the finished product. Now, full prices are being charged with absolutely no guarantee that the shows are anywhere near the finished product, however good or bad that that may be. Maybe some sort of comprimise would be more fitting -- hold off on commenting until the show has had a chance to get on its feet. Just a thought.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:02pm

I was at last night's 1st preview and I rarely go so early on in previews to anything. In fact, I was planning on going Tuesday all along, even before Monday's show was canceled. That said, I posted a review along with many others. I think that for the most part the reviews were very objective and all acknowledged some issues that were unfair to criticize or speculated that certain aspects would be rectified in the coming days.

In this day and age, I think it's a bit unreasonable that no one will comment on shows during previews. Before the advent of the internet and amateur reviewers, everyone needed to wait until opening night since no newspaper who had a reviewer would publish them before then. Now, we not only have Broadwayworld, but we also have other forums (ATC), Facebook, Twitter, and various blogs that make that an impossibility. With the tools we have at our disposal today, reviews and comments will be posted before opening night.

This isn't a secret anymore and while we may decry the abandonment of a custom, I think we need to accept it as inevitable. Since everyone involved in a production knows that comments will be posted as soon as the curtain falls on the first preview, all aspects of a production need to be adjusted accordingly. I think previews really need to be more "audience ready" than they would otherwise. Everyone knows this going in and no one should be surprised if someone comments on how a certain actor doesn't seem to know half of the lyrics.

As a bit of an aside, the Morgan James tweet was a bit of a different story. First, she is an actress and posted it under her name. The posters who wrote reviews could be a random person who stumbled on the show or it could be Stephen Sondheim, but by them not attaching their name to their comments, it doesn't have the air of feeling like something made out of jealousy or anger.

Furthermore, I didn't read a single comment in any review that was anywhere near as obnoxious or disrespectful as what Morgan wrote.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:03pm

PJ, I think it's impossible to do that in an age of Tweets, blogs, and message boards. A public performance is a public performance now. At least the "official" critics still refrain until the show opens (Spider-Man was hopefully a glaring exception to the rule).

Shows will just have to rehearse longer in private or arrange for private/invited audiences to see them before going "public." Almost like an advance screening, perhaps even for people who sign agreements saying they won't post anything public about it. I suppose with a legal document (like a non-disclosure agreement), they could be fined if they're caught. I doubt that would even work, though. Aside from being almost impossible to implement, you already see people attending advance movie screenings posting in great detail about them now, too.

I see no way to stop it. In fact, I see it growing more popular and common until the role of the "official" critic and the role of the preview is all but nonexistent. Hell, they've already done away with "preview pricing."

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:04pm

Where can I go through Morgan's gate?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:07pm

I think it's time to do away with theatre actors' internet access.

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:10pm

Maybe we should stop calling them reviews and just call them comments or thoughts.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:13pm

I love going to first previews and I don't feel bad commenting on them. Half the time I have mostly positive things to say about a show in early previews anyway. In my experience little changes from a first preview to opening night. Maybe a line here and there, but generally gone are the days when characters are dropped, songs are replaced and new design elements are added. Shows come to Broadway practically frozen.

Also the ticket prices are the same, so why not treat the show equally before and after opening? I just got tickets for the first preview of Glengarry Glen Ross. They were $80 for the last row in the mezz. If the production stinks I'm not scared to say so. If the producers want us to treat the production as less than finished they should charge less than full price.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:14pm

Yes, Best 12, I see your point. The Internet has changed everything and, unfortunately, not always for the better, I fear.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:17pm

Whizzer's right- most previews for shows tend to be presenting a basically finished product, and any changes that occur are minimal.

ITW is an anomalous example- the show is free and it's pretty obvious the first couple of performances are essentially final run throughs.

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:18pm

With that in mind, maybe the producers can go back to reduced price previews. Some shows do but many/most do not.

[Wynbish]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:18pm

I mean, people tweet pictures of what pizza slice they are about to ingest through their duck kiss face.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:19pm

I think it's a good idea, but completely unfeasible in practice. Like imploring everyone not to feed the Xenia trolls on here, all it takes is one person to break rank.

And I do kind of agree that from an audience perspective, there's nothing about it being a preview that means you're entitled to less of an experience. Yes, I agree that people should (and generally do) know that a preview performance means the show is not set, but as there are no (or no longer?) such things are preview prices, then the audience member shouldn't be held to a lopsided tacit agreement with the production.

But that said, in relation to Morgan James, what she said was just stupid and tacky. But the internet has taught me that Broadway Performers as a rule aren't particularly Mensa types. But I've learned that about the general population from BWW, so I'm not singling anyone out. People in general aren't very good about thinking critically and about the consequences of their actions. It's just more unfortunate for a more public person when they become a victim to their own ignorance.

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:21pm

Don't forget too that the first preview can be used as a form of boosterism:

"Holy ________! Run to get your tickets now because there won't be any after the reviews come out!"

Or, "You can start inscribing (fill in the blank)'s name on the Tony Award!"

We have seen examples of that here.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:22pm

Was this ever a custom?

I thought preview gossip help create bad reputations for many flops eg Merrily and Dance a Little Closer/Close a Little Faster.

Or do we have to go back further?

[artscallion]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:24pm

You can never go back to before...unless you're prepared to have every inevitable preview review thread devolve into an argument over whether the thread should exist thread.

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:24pm

The idea of PalJoey's moratorium on massacring 1st previews a positive one. They are still finding footing etc. I understand that most broadway shows are charging full price, and that to some warrants an entitlement to say as they please for good or ill but I also know that in most theatre I have done, the cast is still finding footing right up until opening night. It may be good... but its not great theatre until it is frozen, and run a half dozen (or more) times to really seal the deal. You might be turning in a good performance but until everyone else's choices are locked, its still a crapshoot. So its gonna look rough around the edges.

That all being said I am an avid reader of Whizzer's first preview commentaries... mostly because I have never read one that I consider to take no prisoners or cut too deep.

[castlestreet]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:27pm

I wish it were so- but wishes don't amount to much these days...

We live in a world where anyone with an internet connection now has a public voice, and as stated here, that public voice has no editor that looks over it first, or a legal department, and bam! suddenly we are all members of the media! People post things all the time on here, Facebook and Twitter, that if given the chance, they would probably take back in a heartbeat.

In just the last week I have seen a fairly well known comedian take a beating because he had the poor taste to make a joke about the movie theater shooting the morning after it happened on Facebook, and Richard Jay Alexander on a regular basis puts his foot in his mouth on Facebook- once making one of his routinly nasty comments about SMASH, when Mark Shaiman took him to task over the fact that he is his friend on Facebook and how dare he constantly rip apart something that a friend of his is working on.

Tact people- most of us just don't have it anymore.

The bottom line I think is to the original point- previews are not what previews used to be, therefore, that practice has simply gone out the window.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:28pm

I think tactful constructive criticism is useful during a preview period, regardless where it is posted.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:40pm

I think the key word is 'custom.' It's not a rule. It's about tact and decency and respect for the artistic process. I used to the feel the same way about preview prices, but then realized I can't hold the actors or creative staff responsible for the choice of the producers not to offer preview discounts. Though, these days, there are MANY ways to get discounted tickets to previews.

People will do what they do. All I can be responsible for is my own behavior. If more people decide that, for them, reviewing a first preview might be a little unfair, then good on them.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:41pm

You also have to know what not to criticize at a first preview and what's "in bounds." Should actors know their lines? Yes. Should they have a perfectly developed character and have every bit of timing down? No, though great if they are a decent way along in this process.

Sound issues and set malfunctions are expected and can be noted, but never complained about. That's really what previews nowadays are used for. It's not for the creative team to change the show, aside from minor tweaks. Previews seem to exist for the technical aspects of the show to be ironed out and for the actors to gain hold of their performances.

I try not to be (too) hard on the performers unless someone is egregiously bad. Performances at a first preview are usually excellent though- the cast is often bursting with excitement to be in front of an audience and the crowd is generally much more enthusiastic than at a normal performance. It's easy to think of every show as a "massive hit" judging first preview audience response.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:48pm

I've been asking around the Broadway folks I know, old and young, actors/writers/directors/designers, and none of them have ever heard of this "custom."

A show that's selling tickets is eligible for evaluation. It's always been thus. We can go even further and say that any work of art put before the public is eligible for evaluation.

Forbidding negative comment before an arbitrary opening date is censorship, which never works out well for anyone (except the censor, perhaps, and then only temporarily).

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 03:48 PM

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:48pm

Seriously what did Morgan Whatsherface do and where

[Playbilly]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:48pm

Paid critics, yes, I see your point. Paying (esp. full price) audiences, no. It's part of the buzz -- for good or ill -- to get word of mouth be it verbal or virtual.

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 03:48 PM