Variety Article: Critics Hate Sondheim

Posted: 12/14/04 at 7:36pm

GREAT GREAT GREAT article from Variety:

Sun Dec 12, 4:18 AM ET
Robert Hofler, STAFF

(Variety) — According to the critical consensus of Gotham's theater reviewers, the greatest talent of the musical theater is 1) Stephen Sondheim, 2) Mel Brooks (news), 3) Scott Wittman and Marc Shaiman, 4) Abba.

If you guessed Sondheim, you are wrong, according to critical
consensus. No original musical or revival written by the esteemed lyricist-composer has received the across-the-board raves awarded "The Producers" or "Hairspray." "Mamma Mia!" may be pushing the point, but then, what Sondheim tuner ever got the money notices ("You'll enjoy yourself!") that were showered on that show?

For all Sondheim's Tonys and lifetime achievement awards, the critics clearly have a problem with him. And it just doesn't stop. Check out the latest round of mixed reviews, in this case, for the current Broadway revival of "Pacific Overtures."

Nearly three decades later, I thought Sondheim's show, written with John Weidman, had found its place in the musical theater pantheon. Wrong. When I read the reviews, it was like Jan. 12, 1976, all over again.

Back in the 1970s, I made a habit of going to Broadway musicals in previews, then returning later to see the ones I liked again. It wasn't an easy avocation sitting through "Dude," "Doctor Jazz," "Rockabye Hamlet," "King of Hearts," "Platinum," "Angel," "A Broadway Musical,"
"1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," "Rex," "Working" and -- the absolute nadir of my theatergoing life -- "Got Tu Go Disco" (it played nine previews and eight perfs). But this penance served me well. Today, when someone says, "This is the worst season ever," I can reply, "No, it isn't."

But there was Sondheim. In retrospect, it might seem like tuner nirvana to have witnessed the original productions of "Company," "Follies," "Pacific Overtures," "A Little Night Music" and "Sweeney Todd" (all directed by Harold Prince), but the sweet reality of performance always included the bitter aftertaste of the reviews. "Pacific Overtures" was so magnificent I could not enjoy either "A Chorus Line" or "Chicago" that season. "Sweeney Todd" made me not regret having been born a century too late to have seen firstrun Verdi at La Scala.

But after seeing those two musicals in previews, you had to endure the reviews, which too often read "ambitious but failed" or "ambitious but unsatisfying" in so many words.

I recently phoned the reviewers who wrote those words -- the few who are still alive and writing. What did they have to say for themselves now?

First up was John Simon. In his 1976 New Leader review of "Pacific Overtures," he wrote, "For tripe and pretentiousness combined, you can go to a contemporary musical, 'Pacific Overtures'...." His recent New York review of the revival was infinitely more upbeat.

On the phone, Simon is contrite. "It is better than, perhaps, I first thought," he says. "Some things can be immediately appreciated and others have to be digested more slowly, which is true of more lasting works. Very few of those can be grasped right away."

The Village Voice's Michael Feingold followed his original
mixed-to-downbeat review of "Pacific Overtures" with last week's mixed-to-upbeat one. The critic said his opinions about Sondheim have "clarified rather than changed" over the years. "I've always had problem with the works, because the works have problems in them that you can't shake off," he said.

Among them: "The general human value of the material tends to end up in second place to the specific problems inherent in the material.

" 'A Little Night Music' and 'Sweeney Todd' get produced the most because they have the strongest narratives. The others have become curios, which occasionally get produced in nonprofit theater."

"Pacific Overtures" is the first Sondheim musicalHoward Kissell
reviewed, for Women's Wear Daily. His was one of the show's few raves. Now writing for the Daily News, he recalls, "It remains one of the most extraordinary pieces I've ever seen. The other is 'Sweeney Todd.' "

Kissell is not surprised that the Sondheim debate has not abated. "How much effort does 'Hairspray' require?" he asks. "Sondheim does require effort, and over the years the audiences, as well as the critics, are less and less willing to do that."

In its pre- Frank Rich days, the New York Times offered no comfort for Sondheim aficionados. Richard Eder, now retired as a legit critic, wrote a respectful but mixed review of "Sweeney Todd." His predecessor, Clive Barnes, nixed "Company" and "Follies," but thought somewhat better of
"Pacific Overtures." In between, he actually liked "A Little Night
Music."

"None of Sondheim's works has received that completely unconditional love that some shows have," Barnes says. "The thing one has to respect about Sondheim: Even critics who have a long record (of liking) Sondheim, they don't all like, or dislike, the same shows. There is no predictability."

Today, Barnes greatly admires the "Pacific Overtures" score, but a check of his original Times review finds him somewhat less charitable: "Leonard Bernstein quite often seems to be trysting with Madame Butterfly in the orchestra pit," he wrote then.

Not available for comment was the ultimate Sondheim naysayer, Walter Kerr, who thumbs-downed everything from "Company" to "Sweeney Todd."

Sondheim brought out the persnickety worst in Kerr. In his Times reviews, Kerr faulted "Pacific Overtures" for not picking sides between the Japanese and the Americans. "A Little Night Music" had too many scenes for its own good. And "Sweeney Todd" broke the cardinal rule of musical theater when its hero sings ("Pretty Women") rather than seizing the moment to kill his nemesis.

In case anyone forgot Kerr, more than one critic felt it necessary to quote from his 1976 "Pacific Overtures" review in order to dismiss the current Broadway revival.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 7:41pm

That is because they are know-nothing jerks.
That's my view, and I'm sticking to it.



"And "Sweeney Todd" broke the cardinal rule of musical theater when its hero sings ("Pretty Women") rather than seizing the moment to kill his nemesis."

And what the hell was this guy smoking?

Updated On: 12/14/04 at 07:41 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 7:57pm

the fog machines at wicked...

[Joshua488]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 8:06pm

Or they just have their own opinion. Yes, contrary to popular belief (on this board, at least), people are entitled to think differently.

Maybe something YOU thought was fantastic, someone else didn't care for. It can happen. And it doesn't make either of you better than the other.

Didn't we all learn this in elementary school? Yet again, we wonder why there's so much hatred in this world...

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 8:09pm

Critics hate everyone except themselves

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 8:10pm

Yes, but from the get-go major critics have never warmed to Sondheim.

Some of their reviews start out positive but turn negative--often citing odd critiques that make no sense--almost like they came in not wanting to like the show/production because it is Sondheim.


I do not mind when regular people do not love Sondheim as much as I do, but theatre critics as a whole have never given Sondheim a fair shot.

Updated On: 12/14/04 at 08:10 PM

[Ellie3]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 8:19pm

Maybe that's because they don't like people getting too big for their boots, and resent his 'genius' image. Or maybe because of his 'genius' image they mark extra harshly, because they feel people shouldn't immediately laud his shows, just 'cos they're Sondheim. Or maybe they're just bitter. Or maybe they just don't like themselves.

Posted: 12/14/04 at 8:21pm

Josh of course they have their own opinion. Still they fault Sondheim for things they wouldn't fault others--they hold him to this weird impossible standard.

Lahr faulted the Sondheim Prince shows for dealing with deep issues rarely touched by musicals in a "superficial manner". First, I disagree with this--but secondly the criticism seems more to be just that Sondheim dared to tackle such an issue at all. Shouldn't a critic at least partially appreciate the effort?

I think also, not mentioned in this review, is, Pacific Overtures aside, most SOndheim *scores* not shows necesarily) get much better reviews now than they did at the time. Company and Follies are held up as classic *melodic* scores where as the contemporary reviews nearly all hated the music (Follies having the double damnation of having unmelodic modern music, and pastiche songs that tried too hard--even though nearly all are seen as classics now)

E

[showfan2]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 10:05pm

First of all...I must start out by saying that I think Sondheim is a GOD.....

That being said...most of his shows are flawed.... with the exception of SWEENY TODD. The books are not well developed....although most have amazing moments.... SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE made me want to create so badly.....create anything! alas not much I can do in my apt alone....as I am not a writer or a painter.... INTO THE WOODS I enjoyed very much...but there is still something that distances the audience...too may words? how many times can we sing "into the woods" but when you break into "no one is alone" and "children will listen" I feel connected and I feel "I" matter
It's interesting that each song he writes has its own structure... one that usually has an entire beginning middle and end unto itself.... Look at the numbers in A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC or even MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG If only the entire show could be so complete....Maybe that is why SWEENY TODD is so great...it's all song....

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 10:21pm

I'm not going to defend the New York theatre critics as a whole, but I will say this:

I think that many of the better critics are more critical of Sondheim because he is so brilliant.

Sure, he is nearly without peer. Which opens his work up to criticism not against what else is running at the time, but his own work, historically. It's years after the fact now, and can't we all agree that FOLLIES is a better show than PACIFIC OVERTURES? Granted, PACIFIC OVERTURES is still a better musical than 95% of the things that grace the Broadway stage today. But I suspect that critics feel the need to grade on a curve, as it were. And Sondheim isn't competing against ABBA, he's competing against himself.

It's very easy to look back at things from a historical perspective and pronounce judgments. It's not so easy to get it right the first time. But look at the facts: Frank Rich, who was Sondheim's biggest defender in print from the late 70's to the early 90's, was loathed by most everyone involved in the theatre during his reign at the NY Times. Now we can say "Hey, look, Frank Rich was right!" But hindsight is always 20/20.

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 11:04pm

Stephen

Sondheim

Kicks

Ass

'Nuff said.

Posted: 12/14/04 at 11:34pm

I think his shows grow on you. I think people need to hear his music over and over again before they can appreiciate it. People Miss the point. I used to not like his shows that much, but now that I have listened to them and seen them, hes a theatrical genious.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 11:38pm

As usual, Michael Feingold hit the nail squarely on the head.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 9:09am

Robert Hofler, paraphrased:

"I'm cooler than you because I loved Sondheim before you did. Nyah"

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 9:28am

The problem, as I see it, is that although the critics are definitely entitled to their opinions, they weild far too much power over the general public when it comes to forming an opinion about a show they haven't seen yet or would have bought a ticket to, had it not been for the bad review. Critics should not have that kind of power. period. The general public must stop being spoonfed and start thinking for themselves. The "Dumbing-down" of Broadway sickens me more and more each day - and I blame things like Reality TV...what utter dreck - people don't have to think for themselves anymore - they let the television, computer, and cell phone do all the work for them.
I pity the state of disgrace this world seems to have fallen into.

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 10:33am

I have to say that I kinda have the same problem with SWEENEY TODD. Just slit his throat, for God's sake!!! But then we wouldn't have the rest of the show and the rest of that glorious music.

As for everyone agreeing FOLLIES is better than PO, I won't necessarily jump on that band wagon. After seeing this production (flaws and all), I feel like I've discovered one of his greatest achievements. When I wrote about the show here, I mentioned that it was emotionally distancing...however, I've clarified (thank you Michael Feingold) my opinion. Weeks after, the emotionality of the piece has hit me at a gut level. I find it achingly beautiful.

Finally, I have a problem with using the term 'flawed' for Sondheim shows. It seems that when musicals are presented in a non-linear fashion, they are deemed 'flawed', as if by their very form, they are inherently less than a straightforwardly narrative piece. I find this thinking to be rather limited. On its own terms, many of these shows are astoundingly constructed. Problem is, our vocabulary as a collective can be very narrow in scope, so things that are slightly outside of that we see as 'wrong' in some ways.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 10:48am

Sondheim has always been a champion of ambition, if not the proof of execution. Big ideas that please educators and snobbish fans, emotional letdown endings that don't satisfy the basic dramatic needs to theater as an evening of storytelling.

I've long preferred Kander and Ebb who were experimental but far more successful creatively and commercially, over Sondheim who keeps laboring a few big ideas such as mixing revue and linear storytelling, often at the expense of making any point whatsoever.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 11:35am

Johnpapa, you're certainly entitled to prefer Kander and Ebb over Sondheim. You're obviously not the only person that feels this way.

I am puzzled by something you said in your message, however.

"Sondheim who keeps laboring a few big ideas such as mixing revue and linear storytelling."

I agree that Sondheim has a couple of big ideas that occur in many of his musicals. I'm not sure what you mean by "mixing revue and linear storytelling." While there are a number of Sondheim revues (SIDE BY SIDE, MARRY ME A LITTLE, PUTTING IT TOGETHER), Sondheim had nothing to do with the creation of any of them.

COMPANY and FOLLIES do mix revue with linear storytelling, but he hasn't done that for years. None of his post-FOLLIES musicals use that technique. And that was decades ago.

Can you illuminate your point? I'm curious.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 11:49am

Company, Follies, Assassins, Bounce all use the 'it's a revue but it's not a revue' style of writing (and Pacific Overtures might also, but I've never seen it and only read the script once, forever ago.)

That's a fairly noticeable percentage of his creative output being spent on one inventive storytelling structure.

In between we got Sunday and Into the Woods which were structurally the exact same show (first act makes one specific point, second act extrapolates on those themes with a completely different tone.)

Merrily had a unique idea, but, still it gets a lot more credit for the idea than it does for the execution in the theater.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 12:12pm

Ah, I forgot about ASSASSINS. He did use that format in that show. However, I don't think that BOUNCE fits into that category, and I'm certain that PACIFIC OVERTURES doesn't.

You are correct about the Lapine musicals, however. They both have an incredibly similar structure (although not a "revue" structure). My pet peeve is Lapine's tendency to bring his dead characters back to life... usually on a treadmill. Lapine uses this device in nearly all of his musicals, that is, the dead returning to comment on the action of the play. It's a device that works best in SUNDAY, but doesn't work as well in WOODS or FALSETTOS.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 12:44pm

"Or they just have their own opinion. Yes, contrary to popular belief (on this board, at least), people are entitled to think differently.

Maybe something YOU thought was fantastic, someone else didn't care for. It can happen. And it doesn't make either of you better than the other."

Amen, Josh.

I have a real love for Sondheim more than any other composer. But no one made a law saying critics had to love him.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 12/20/04 at 12:25pm

PACIFIC OVERTURES is most certainly written in a hybrid of revue and linear format as each number prismatically reflects a different aspect of Japanese culture just as the score of FOLLIES, COMPANY, ASSASSINS, etc. reflect their subjects. SUNDAY and INTO THE WOODS, however, are built upon a theme-and-variations structure between the two acts. It's interesting to note, however, that the only two musicals Sondheim originated (i.e., his ideas) are SWEENEY TODD and PASSION, two structurally conventional and linear narratives. As David Shire notes in an interview earlier this year in Film Score Monthly, concept musicals generally take the revue format they do because there simply isn't enough narrative to warrant a linear approach, an abolutely correct assessment.
Updated On: 12/21/04 at 12:25 PM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/20/04 at 12:34pm

I agree with something that was said earlier - critics are much harder on Sondheim because he's so brilliant. They don't judge him at the same level as they judge other, younger composers maybe. Either that, or they just feel threatened by his brilliance!

[Plum]

Posted: 12/20/04 at 1:57pm

Why would they feel threatened by him? He's not a theater critic.

You know what? I have a confession to make. The first Sondheim musical I listened to was Company, and I didn't like it. I listened to it a second time because I thought some of the lyrics were good and I knew it was a Very Important Musical. And you know what? Second time was the charm.

My point is, critics don't get that second time. Sondheim's musicals need time to percolate in your brain. I appreciate Follies about 20 times more now than I did when I first bought the OBC. I hear things in Pacific Overtures I never heard the first 14 times I listened to it. And that's because I have the benefit of headphones and repeated listens, something critics don't.

It's easy to get Hairspray or The Producers the first time- there's not much complexity there, nothing to be peeled back. What you see is exactly what you get. It's easy to write a review of that 2 days later.

If I disagree with a critic, and especially if I disagree with his or her reasoning on a consistent basis, I just won't read them anymore. But I'm not going to call them all bums by trade just because they don't fall down to worship Sondheim.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/20/04 at 2:05pm

I was joking about the "threatened" thing, that's why I put a "!" at the end of it. I dont know what made me think that an exclamation point would clarify the fact that I was joking. But, I was.