NEW YORK, NEW YORK On Broadway - Reviews Thread- Page 26

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/27/23 at 10:46pm

BETTY22 said: "I wonder if the power of LMM will make these review less painful.

He has a massive fanbase."

How will the power of LMM make the terrible reviews received less painful. Huh!? He's not that powerful only responsible for additional lyrics.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/27/23 at 10:52pm

Noticed TDF finally entering the equation. In a crowded spring and summer for new musicals, filling the St. James 8 times a week will be a challenge. Reality.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/27/23 at 11:32pm

MemorableUserName said: "It's probably more accurate to say Green couldn't review the show because he has a personal relationship with John Kander going back several decades, as acknowledged in the feature, so didn't want to appear biased, or couldn't be impartial.

That relationship is why he wrote/what gave him access for the feature piece.

It's not that writing the piece is what precluded him from writing the review.

"

Per NYT ethical standards, yes it is. There is no universe where they would send a reporter to write a puff piece about a show and then have him sit down and review it. I'm surprised this is confusing or news to anyone, but as soon as Jesse Green wrote that piece about Kander, it was clear he would not be reviewing the show. (Note how rarely Green does pieces like that....)

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/27/23 at 11:35pm

RippedMan said: "Seems like the nyc Tourism board should really rally around this one."

I had the same thought and my friend pointed out that the politics in this town might preclude the City from backing/endorsing any one show over any others...

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 4/28/23 at 5:51am

PipingHotPiccolo said: "MemorableUserName said: "It's probably more accurate to say Green couldn't review the show because he has a personal relationship with John Kander going back several decades, as acknowledged in the feature, so didn't want to appear biased, or couldn't be impartial.

That relationship is why he wrote/what gave him access for the feature piece.

It's not that writing the piece is what precluded him from writing the review.

"

Per NYT ethical standards, yes it is. There is no universe where they would send a reporter to write a puff piece about a show and then have him sit down and review it. I'm surprised this is confusing or news to anyone, but as soon as Jesse Green wrote that piece about Kander, it was clear he would not be reviewing the show. (Note how rarely Green does pieces like that....)"

I'm surprised so many keep getting the cause and effect confused and can't figure it out.

Of course it was clear when he wrote the puff piece that he wouldn't be writing the review. But the puff piece wasn't the REASON he didn't write the review. The preexisting relationship is the reason he was never going to write the review, so he wrote the puff piece instead of reviewing it. Even if he hadn't written the puff piece, he still shouldn't and likely couldn't have been reviewing the show.

Can you follow this:

a) Green has a preexisting personal relationship with the composer going back 40 years.

b) Because of A, he can't and/or shouldn't review the new show.

c) Writes puff piece INSTEAD because he already won't be reviewing the show.

While people who write puff pieces should not be writing the reviews, in this case, C follows B. It did not cause B. This started with A.

Updated On: 4/28/23 at 05:51 AM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/28/23 at 7:31am

that may be perfectly true re WHY Green did the piece on Kander but thats not the point re the journalistic standard here. A is the reason why they chose the B and C route, but A is the unique quirk here-- take away and the B and C route still apply: a critic at the NYT will never review something theyve done other journalistic work on. That principle exists in and of itself, and is why without knowing any back story about his relationship with Kander, when you see his name next to the puff piece you should know the NYT is assigning someone else to review it.

[Chase Miller]

Posted: 4/28/23 at 8:14am

I recently found various audio clips of the show and Colton's voice sounds great. Not sure why his singing is getting criticized on here. He's a very strong singer.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 4/28/23 at 1:14pm

Can you follow this:

a) Green has a preexisting personal relationship with the composer going back 40 years.

b) Because of A, he can't and/or shouldn't review the new show.

c) Writes puff piece INSTEAD because he already won't be reviewing the show.

While people who write puff pieces should not be writing the reviews, in this case, C follows B. It did not cause B. This started with A.

LOVE. 

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 4/28/23 at 2:44pm

PipingHotPiccolo said: "that may be perfectly true re WHY Green did the piece on Kander but thats not the point re the journalistic standard here. A is the reason why they chose the B and C route, but A is the unique quirk here-- take away and the B and C route still apply: a critic at the NYT will never review something theyve done other journalistic work on. That principle exists in and of itself, and is why without knowing any back story about his relationship with Kander, when you see his name next to the puff piece you should know the NYT is assigning someone else to review it."

RETWEET

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 4/28/23 at 2:56pm

Robbie2 said: "How will the power of LMM make the terrible reviews received less painful. Huh!? He's not that powerful only responsible for additional lyrics."

We've already seen some of LMM's power on this show. Lin is the single biggest name on Broadway today, and it's a name that indicates quality. He has done major press appearances for the show (Colbert, CBS Sunday Morning, etc) and there's no way this would have done $900K+ a week in previews without him, nor would it have had quite the level of pre-opening press. I don't expect we'll see him doing much press going forward (he's a busy man), but he's been generous so far.

What remains to be seen is how far that name value can go and how long his power lasts for this show.

Over the next month he'll also be doing press alongside Alan Menken & Rob Marshall for LITTLE MERMAID, which is a similar "Lin writes lyrics for someone who inspired him as a kid" situation.

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/28/23 at 5:35pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Robbie2 said: "How will the power of LMM make the terrible reviews received less painful. Huh!? He's not that powerful only responsible for additional lyrics."

We've already seen some of LMM's power on this show. Lin is the single biggest name on Broadway today, and it's a name that indicates quality.He has done major press appearances for the show (Colbert, CBS Sunday Morning, etc) and there's no way this would have done $900K+ a week in previews without him, nor would it have had quite the level of pre-opening press. I don't expect we'll see him doing much press going forward (he's a busy man), but he's been generous so far.

What remains to be seen is how far that name value can go and how long his power lasts for this show.

Over the next month he'll also be doing press alongside Alan Menken & Rob Marshall for LITTLE MERMAID, which is a similar "Lin writes lyrics for someone who inspired him as a kid" situation."

yeayeyayea Whatever you  say! Ru his press agent. 

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/29/23 at 12:49am

Ha this is their marketing for the show.Hello, Tourists!

 

In my eyes, show is worthy of 4 TONY noms: Choreography, Orchestrations, Set Design and Lighting Design

Updated On: 4/30/23 at 12:49 AM

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/29/23 at 3:05pm

Can the New Musical New York, New York Make It Here?

A visually dazzling tribute to the city that never sleeps but a show whose substance never quite matches its sparkle.

https://www.vogue.com/article/new-york-new-york-broadway-musical

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/30/23 at 4:32pm

The Washington Post 
Peter Marks

Start spreading the news: Broadway’s ‘New York, New York’ is a snooze
A lyrical assessment of Broadway’s sappy new stage version of Martin Scorsese’s 1977 film, “New York, New York.”

NEW YORK — (Sung to, well, you know.)

Here come the reviews,

While some may be kind,

I think they made a hash of it,

“New York, New York”!

¶

It’s based on a film,

But what comes to mind

When Kander teams with Lin-Manuel:

“Boy, what a grind.”

¶

(chorus)

They paint a city of pink sunsets and bland cliches.

And though they dance up a storm, all we get is a haze.

¶

Here’s Stroman’s big splash,

A tourist construct,

But if it’s laughs you’re looking for,

It’s better at “Shucked.”

¶

The sets in the St. James

Look great through Boritt’s frames,

Still what a dull “New York, New York.”

¶

(chorus)

The grinning actors grope for meaning that lies beneath.

But “New York’s” sugary plot can’t be good for their teeth.

¶

My critical blues,

Never melted away,

They need a brand new start with it, this meh “New York”!

¶

You wait for way too long

To hear that timeless song.

You’re glad it’s through, “New York … New York”!

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 4/30/23 at 8:47pm

‘New York, New York’ Review: New Kander and Ebb Musical Is a Love Letter to Big City Gusto

https://variety.com/2023/legit/reviews/new-york-new-york-review-broadway-musical-1235595785/

 

If there is a megawatt star in “New York, New York,” the new musical from Broadway titans John Kander and the late Fred Ebb (with additional lyrics by Lin-Manuel Miranda), it’s right there in the title. Aside from the occasional f-bomb and pantomimed scurry of rats, the show that opened at Broadway’s St. James Theatre is a love letter to Manhattan so unabashed that its vibe might be best expressed in cityscape and heart-eye emojis. Cynical? These New Yorkers? Fuhgeddaboudit!

Though inspired by the 1977 film directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Robert De Niro and Liza Minnelli, “New York, New York” is more accurately described as a musical-length rhapsody on the dreams crooned out in its title song, made famous by Frank Sinatra and naturally performed here as a big-band finale turned audience singalong. A crowded cast of characters has come to chase their dreams, and most of them want to be musicians. 

The sensory splendors of director and choreographer Susan Stroman’s production — a tap line across an unfinished skyscraper, nighttime snowfall in Central Park, umbrellas blooming in a rainstorm — conjure boldly romantic and relatively timeless visions of the city. Set at the end of WWII and debuting at another time of tenuous renewal, “New York, New York” radiates an infectious optimism, as if hoping to deliver an antidote to a city and to an industry still in beleaguered recovery. 

It has much of what Broadway lovers would want from such a musical, including songs by Kander and Ebb (some written for the film and others from their vault) plus half a dozen more written for the show by Kander in collaboration with Miranda. Jazzy, buoyant and infused at times with Afro-Cuban beats, the score makes a winning play for familiar pleasure centers and delivers a few memorable highlights, especially as its characters find musical success. Less distinctive and far lighter on verve than “Chicago” or “Cabaret,” the score reflects songwriters in a hopeful and affectionate mood. 

The book by David Thompson, co-written with Sharon Washington, includes a diverse sprawl of urbanites beyond its leading lovers, a booze-soaked, flailing musician played by Colton Ryan (the film adaptation of “Dear Evan Hansen&rdquo and a self-assured, aspiring Black singer played by Anna Uzele (“Six&rdquo. There’s also a Black trumpeter and veteran who laments the hypocrisy of post-war discrimination (John Clay III), a young violinist who escaped Europe and wants to attend Julliard (Oliver Prose), the teacher he begs to help him and whose son hasn’t yet returned from the war (Emily Skinner); and a Cuban mother and her queer, bongo-playing son (Janet Dacal and Angel Sigala) who live under the shadow of an abusive patriarch. 

There are still others between scenes, including a maid who gets whisked onto the opera stage to deliver a full-throated aria during a dreams-really-do-come-true sequence in the second act. It’s a lot of striving to pack into a single show, and demands a similar sort of tolerance for too-muchness as New York itself does. But it’s all rendered with spectacular stagecraft, including Beowulf Boritt’s soaring and dynamic interplay of fire escapes, alleyways and iconic landmarks; evocative projections co-designed by Boritt and Christopher Ash; and lighting by Ken Billington that captures certain snapshots in the day that any New Yorker would say defy description.  

That New York upstages any drama on stage in “New York, New York” may be inevitable to its inspiration and design; all of its characters simply want to make it here, though two of them also sometimes want love. Ryan’s bandleader is big-hearted, goofy and a bit sideways, like a wise-cracking Old Hollywood star, an accent he strangely affects when he sings with otherwise suave appeal. And Uzele’s star-on-the-rise is self-assured and tough, knowing she can’t afford to fumble opportunities the way her screw-up white lover does. The “Six” star fares less well as the role’s vocals call for greater sophistication, and chemistry between the pair can hardly be said to propel the story.

But the production’s zealous faith in New York — in its mythology of endless possibility and renewal — is near impossible to resist. Anyone who’s managed to carve out a place for themselves here, after being told they didn’t belong elsewhere, will likely feel a pang watching characters who are social outcasts and immigrants strive and achieve, despite being sketched in loose detail. Their triumphs, and the restless energy of the city, are vividly embodied in the dynamism of Stroman’s production, in the fluidity and grace of its agile choreography and the churn of its stage pictures and interludes.

And there’s a forward-looking nostalgia to “New York, New York” that feels alive to the peculiar and half-dazed mood outside its doors. New York has always run on a mix of blind faith bordering on delusion, and the people who flock here are full of it. Clichés, like stale bodega coffee, exist for a reason. They keep the city going even after it’s crashed and burned.

 

[Bryce 2]

Posted: 4/30/23 at 8:59pm

What does Ben Davis do in the show? I haven't heard anyone talk about him, or even seen him mentioned in reviews. He has a lovely voice, but I imagine he doesn't get to show it off in this.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/30/23 at 11:36pm

Robbie2 said: "Ha this is their marketing for the show.Hello, Tourists!



In my eyes, show is worthy of 4 TONY noms: Choreography, Orchestrations, Set Design and Lighting Design

"

This is smart, this is why all these random awards are coveted even if they don't matter to theater snobs like us. 

[BJR]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 7:28am

It's wild how definitive people speak when they're speculating. Makes me wonder when I'm guilty of that.

It's not worth fighting over, but Green's existing relationship with Green is not why he didn't review, as he's reviewed other Kander shows. (Hell, he'll review Cabaret if it comes over.) It was specifically the profile feature or the review.

[gibsons2]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 8:39am

Chase Miller said: "I recently found various audio clips of the show and Colton's voice sounds great. Not sure why his singing is getting criticized on here. He's a very strong singer."

I think these are the same people who claim here that the stage sets are "cheap" whereas in reality NYNY scenic design is absolutely marvelous and innovative. You would think some people here made it their lifetime goal to trash this musical at all cost and would tell you not to believe your own eyes and ears.

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 8:59am

BJR said: "It's wild how definitive people speak when they're speculating. Makes me wonder when I'm guilty of that.

It's not worth fighting over, but Green's existing relationship with Green is not why he didn't review, as he's reviewed other Kander shows. (Hell, he'll review Cabaret if it comes over.) It was specifically the profile feature or the review."

It's wild that this argument about something that doesn't really matter (why a critic didn't review a show) has consumed multiple sites, or that people who say something isn't worth fighting over proceed to do just that. ("This isn't worth fighting over...buuuuut I will have the last word!"

I'll just add the argument that reviewing a new production of a decades old piece is different from reviewing new work, but you are correct that Green reviewed a new piece in 2013 (in a way that very much reads to me like he was pulling his punches, couching his criticism in ways that feels kind to Kander.) 

This is starting to feel like splitting hairs because it seems like most of us are saying the same thing for different reasons. Of course it was specifically the profile feature or the review (unless people are seriously arguing that Green wrote a puff piece having no idea he wouldn't be able to write the review, then was banned from doing so by his editors). The debate, at least from where I'm sitting, is why he chose to write the puff piece, knowing it would mean forgoing reviewing a major show. Is it that he knew he couldn't be impartial (and that 2013 piece strongly indicates he wouldn't have been able to be harsh if needed to a piece that already had toxic buzz) so wrote the puff piece instead? Or is it that the puff piece feature, and Kander himself, mattered more to him than writing the review? Either way, doesn't it come back to...the personal relationship?

[GoldenGiggery]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 9:06am

I’ve seen this show twice now; once in previews and once after opening, and I truly do not understand all the polarization this show is receiving. Is the book a shining star? No. However, having seen the whole season now, I’ve not had a more joyous time at any other musical. It’s simply a really great time, and the music as a whole I found very effective. If it were all original, this would be an easy Original Score winner. Idk, it just seems like if a show isn’t a show trying to explore something deep or an obvious knee-slapper, critical reviewers don’t think it warrants space. Sometimes a roaring good time is enough. 
 

I would nominate this for Musical, Lead Actor, Lead Actress, Direction, Orchestrations, Choreography, Scenic Design, and Lighting. 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 10:53am

From Broadway Briefing. This settles it!

According to a press representative for “New York, New York,” the score — with music and lyrics by John Kander and Fred Ebb with additional lyrics by Lin-Manuel Miranda — will not be eligible for Best Original Score."

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 2:08pm

Cast recording coming:

https://www.instagram.com/stories/lin_manuel/3093236337176342589/

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 2:51pm

GoldenGiggery said: "I’ve seen this show twice now; once in previews and once after opening, and I truly do not understand all the polarization this show is receiving. Is the book a shining star? No. However, having seen the whole season now, I’ve not had a more joyous time at any other musical. It’s simply a really great time, and the music as a whole I found very effective. If it were all original, this would be an easy Original Score winner. Idk, it just seems like if a show isn’t a show trying to explore something deep or an obvious knee-slapper, critical reviewers don’t think it warrants space. Sometimes a roaring good time is enough.


I would nominate this for Musical, Lead Actor, Lead Actress, Direction, Orchestrations, Choreography, Scenic Design, and Lighting."

You are so right about there being two acceptable lanes and otherwise a show gets panned by certain critics. I loved the show too and was flummoxed by the negativity and downright cruelty of some of the reviews - espeically for a show that got such high praise from the Wall Street Journal and Variety, like you said, just super polarizing vs most shows w/ such vitriol just getting bad to mixed reviews. Snobs are going to snob I guess.. if the show survives the NYT and Wapo reviews (the Wapo review of course not even being a review, but a lazy and contrived attempt to get cheap laughs at the expense of a 96 y/o legend of Broadway and his long decesased lyricist, for which Peter Marks ought to be strapped to a plane at LaGuardia and sent on over to Cleveland), I'd think that suggests a lot more staying power given the title and creative team than one my anticipate. Will see what the grosses, i.e. the most important critic, do through June!

Updated On: 5/1/23 at 02:51 PM

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 2:59pm

"Cast recording coming"

Yay, great news for fans of this show like me!