#176
Posted: 5/1/09 at 9:30am
This show is a celebration of mediocrity. I think most of the reviews are spot-on, if not a bit too kind.
#177
Posted: 5/1/09 at 9:30am
I hope Dolly sticks around Broadway. She owns some really cool properties I think would make great shows. Thomas Shumacher should get Dolly and Julie Taymor to rework that project "A Few Good Ghosts."
#178
Posted: 5/1/09 at 9:35am
Hopefully that show has a character whose backstory can be that she was a poor child who grew up to wear to a lot of makeup and wigs.
#179
Posted: 5/1/09 at 9:47am
Well "Ghosts" is a story about two people in Appalachia who fall in love after being brought together by ghosts that live in folk-art dolls. It was a very odd duck at Disney animation but the people that worked on the development loved it.
Her properties usually surround that "poor child grows up and does good" thing. Write what you know, you know?
Her properties usually surround that "poor child grows up and does good" thing. Write what you know, you know?
#180
Posted: 5/1/09 at 9:47am
NY Daily News - mixed (*** out of 5)
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/arts/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_dolly_partons_tunes_work_in_9_to_5.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/arts/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_dolly_partons_tunes_work_in_9_to_5.html
Updated On: 5/1/09 at 09:47 AM
#181
Posted: 5/1/09 at 9:49am
I think people are taking offense to so much of what Brantley is saying because it hits too close to home, that is, it is very very accurate.
I agree with almost all of his points and his harsh criticisms of a show should not be something we didn't expect as he's done so in the past. If the fans of this show think the "feel good Musical" thing is enough to carry it, then it will be enough to advertise it word-of-mouth regardless of reviews.
I, for one, am tired of the notion that we need "fluff" on Broadway in order to escape the harsh realities of today. There were shows in existence during the Great Depression and the World Wars that don't deserve that moniker (Anything Goes, Kiss Me Kate, etc.) and there is a far delineation between what some consider to be classic musical theater masterpieces (albeit escapist treats for their era) and "9 to 5." What's more, a show doesn't have to be sequined-covered candy in order to provide escapism. I can just as easily lose myself in "August: Osage County" as I can watching "Carousel."
I agree with almost all of his points and his harsh criticisms of a show should not be something we didn't expect as he's done so in the past. If the fans of this show think the "feel good Musical" thing is enough to carry it, then it will be enough to advertise it word-of-mouth regardless of reviews.
I, for one, am tired of the notion that we need "fluff" on Broadway in order to escape the harsh realities of today. There were shows in existence during the Great Depression and the World Wars that don't deserve that moniker (Anything Goes, Kiss Me Kate, etc.) and there is a far delineation between what some consider to be classic musical theater masterpieces (albeit escapist treats for their era) and "9 to 5." What's more, a show doesn't have to be sequined-covered candy in order to provide escapism. I can just as easily lose myself in "August: Osage County" as I can watching "Carousel."
#182
Posted: 5/1/09 at 9:53am
I have no problems with "fluff" or "escapist theater" as long as it's done well. Recent examples would be Hairspray, The Producers, or Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.
9 to 5 is not done well. At all.
9 to 5 is not done well. At all.
#184
Posted: 5/1/09 at 9:59am
Hopefully that show has a character whose backstory can be that she was a poor child who grew up to wear to a lot of makeup and wigs.
Phyll, have I ever told you how much I love you?
Phyll, have I ever told you how much I love you?
Formerly SirNotAppearing - Joined 3/08
#186
Posted: 5/1/09 at 10:08am
#187
Posted: 5/1/09 at 10:11am
*shrug* It's unfortunate that the show wasn't received all that well. I personally really enjoyed it, had a GREAT time at opening last night, laughed pretty much nonstop. I didn't think it was mediocre at all. I thought the cast and performances (from Allison Janney and Marc Kudisch all the way down to the ensemble) were outstanding, the score was incredible, and SO catchy, and the book was witty, sharp, and clever. I am honestly stunned that these are the reviews this show brought in, but what are ya gonna do?
I think this'll be a big hit regardless, and definitely a best selling tour!
I think this'll be a big hit regardless, and definitely a best selling tour!
#188
Posted: 5/1/09 at 10:15am
"I, for one, am tired of the notion that we need "fluff" on Broadway in order to escape the harsh realities of today. There were shows in existence during the Great Depression and the World Wars that don't deserve that moniker"
I don't think it's just escapism. I think it has everything to do with showing the money. If you lay down $120 for a ticket you better get at $120-looking-feeling-sounding-show.
I'm with SouthFLMarc and at times with Brantley, but there is a breakdown here in NYC between art and mass art. WE NEED TOURISTS. Producers have seen nothing but record box-office receipts in some of the darkest years politically and economically. As much as I wanna scream "Broadway is dead", it isn't,, infact it's probably more alive than ever. It's just smarter way of doing business.
The reason Ben Brantley comes off as a such a douche bag is because he's essentially a haughty gourmet critiquing McDonald's latest entree.
Maybe he should just stick to plays.
I don't think it's just escapism. I think it has everything to do with showing the money. If you lay down $120 for a ticket you better get at $120-looking-feeling-sounding-show.
I'm with SouthFLMarc and at times with Brantley, but there is a breakdown here in NYC between art and mass art. WE NEED TOURISTS. Producers have seen nothing but record box-office receipts in some of the darkest years politically and economically. As much as I wanna scream "Broadway is dead", it isn't,, infact it's probably more alive than ever. It's just smarter way of doing business.
The reason Ben Brantley comes off as a such a douche bag is because he's essentially a haughty gourmet critiquing McDonald's latest entree.
Maybe he should just stick to plays.
#189
Posted: 5/1/09 at 10:16am
While I do have to agree with some criticsms, I also think Brantz n' Co have to admit that you're getting your money's worth with this show. 9 to 5 LOOKS like $120 a ticket.
Formerly SirNotAppearing - Joined 3/08
#190
Posted: 5/1/09 at 10:23am
agreed.
9 TO 5 is also good for tourism and out-of-town visitors/traffic.
movie is fairly recognizable and I believe you get Dolly fans (who aren't Broadway fans) into the theatre.
I think everyone is blowing the mediocre reviews out of proportion. It wasn't panned, and there were a couple of Positive reviews.
Again -- Unlike many of the smaller struggling musicals, 9 TO 5 honestly doesn't need Ben Brantley or anyone else (and Ben knows that).
Their producers and investors are stocked for the long haul. They will be just fine.
9 TO 5 is also good for tourism and out-of-town visitors/traffic.
movie is fairly recognizable and I believe you get Dolly fans (who aren't Broadway fans) into the theatre.
I think everyone is blowing the mediocre reviews out of proportion. It wasn't panned, and there were a couple of Positive reviews.
Again -- Unlike many of the smaller struggling musicals, 9 TO 5 honestly doesn't need Ben Brantley or anyone else (and Ben knows that).
Their producers and investors are stocked for the long haul. They will be just fine.
#191
Posted: 5/1/09 at 10:33am
I think bringing up that we "need tourists" is such a cop-out.
Broadway was not always a tourist attraction, as late as the early 80's shows were still frequented primarily by people from the tri-state area, matinee gray hair ladies and the out-of-towner business traveler. Times Square was not an attraction at that time and the shows were created for entertainment value but also as artistic achievements. To pander solely to the tourists is what will kill Broadway, or what has been slowly over the past few decades (specifically after the gentrification of Times Square in the Giuliani era). Look at the recent "flops" that people have considered to be artistic risks, then look at the reasons why many of them did not survive. [title of show], Grey Gardens, even GYPSY weren't recognizable enough for tourists to buy in to.
I'm not saying that "9 to 5" is the 4th horseman of the Broadway Apocalypse, but the movie>stage, dumbed down, Disney-fied, review-reliant, American Idol starring, stunt-casted, jukebox commodities just might be
Broadway was not always a tourist attraction, as late as the early 80's shows were still frequented primarily by people from the tri-state area, matinee gray hair ladies and the out-of-towner business traveler. Times Square was not an attraction at that time and the shows were created for entertainment value but also as artistic achievements. To pander solely to the tourists is what will kill Broadway, or what has been slowly over the past few decades (specifically after the gentrification of Times Square in the Giuliani era). Look at the recent "flops" that people have considered to be artistic risks, then look at the reasons why many of them did not survive. [title of show], Grey Gardens, even GYPSY weren't recognizable enough for tourists to buy in to.
I'm not saying that "9 to 5" is the 4th horseman of the Broadway Apocalypse, but the movie>stage, dumbed down, Disney-fied, review-reliant, American Idol starring, stunt-casted, jukebox commodities just might be
Updated On: 5/1/09 at 10:33 AM
#192
Posted: 5/1/09 at 10:38am
I loved the show and watching the red carpet was such a blast! I hope they run for a good long time. Congrats to the cast and crew.
thanks to Jacobsnchz14 for the avatar
#194
Posted: 5/1/09 at 10:50am
"my big question is, where is "withoutatrace" during this bloodbath? Most likely seeing something for the 10th time i assume."
So far, I have seen the show three times, and will likely be going back for a fourth and fifth time in May. I was out on a date last night (that ended this morning) so I am just getting around to reading the reviews now. I am very upset about Brantley's pan of the show (and his harsh comments on Stephanie Block which were completely uncalled for), but based on word-of-mouth that I have been hearing and based on the audience response for the show the three times I have seen it, I still think it will be a hit. I did think it deserved positive reviews, but I hope this doesn't put the cast in a bad mood. If audience reactions continue to be as positive as they were in previews, I'm sure the cast will still love performing in the show and enjoy their long run on Broadway.
"I can't imagine the Nominating Committee viewing the show with as much negativity as Brantley did. His review was so irrational, it can hardly be taken very seriously."
Thank you, Foster, for saying this. I agree that the Tony Nominating Committee will be much more generous with "9 to 5" than Brantley was, and I'm still hoping for nominations for Musical, Score, Book, Choreography, Sets, Janney, Hilty, Block, and Kudisch. I guess we'll find out on Tuesday morning...
So far, I have seen the show three times, and will likely be going back for a fourth and fifth time in May. I was out on a date last night (that ended this morning) so I am just getting around to reading the reviews now. I am very upset about Brantley's pan of the show (and his harsh comments on Stephanie Block which were completely uncalled for), but based on word-of-mouth that I have been hearing and based on the audience response for the show the three times I have seen it, I still think it will be a hit. I did think it deserved positive reviews, but I hope this doesn't put the cast in a bad mood. If audience reactions continue to be as positive as they were in previews, I'm sure the cast will still love performing in the show and enjoy their long run on Broadway.
"I can't imagine the Nominating Committee viewing the show with as much negativity as Brantley did. His review was so irrational, it can hardly be taken very seriously."
Thank you, Foster, for saying this. I agree that the Tony Nominating Committee will be much more generous with "9 to 5" than Brantley was, and I'm still hoping for nominations for Musical, Score, Book, Choreography, Sets, Janney, Hilty, Block, and Kudisch. I guess we'll find out on Tuesday morning...
#195
Posted: 5/1/09 at 10:52am
"Broadway was not always a tourist attraction," But it is now Blanche, it is!
The history of Broadway has certainly had it share of artistic successes and artistic achievements. That said it cash is king. In the olden days songs were written just to show off singers. Shows were paint-by-number.
You mention the Bridge-and-Tunnel set, well sure they come but Broadway extends beyond the tri-state area now. Most of these musicals have legs (wheels) and have terrific traveling shows.
I think the bar should be high for shows but I completely understand why a Grey Gardens and Gypsy would turn people off.
Cash is ultimately king of Broadway NOT art. If you strip away all the glitz and celebrity casting you still pay $120 a ticket. That's a helluva lot of dough to spend on brick-walls and unknown talent. As much as I cringe to say it critics these days should critique the viability of shows rather than substance.
The history of Broadway has certainly had it share of artistic successes and artistic achievements. That said it cash is king. In the olden days songs were written just to show off singers. Shows were paint-by-number.
You mention the Bridge-and-Tunnel set, well sure they come but Broadway extends beyond the tri-state area now. Most of these musicals have legs (wheels) and have terrific traveling shows.
I think the bar should be high for shows but I completely understand why a Grey Gardens and Gypsy would turn people off.
Cash is ultimately king of Broadway NOT art. If you strip away all the glitz and celebrity casting you still pay $120 a ticket. That's a helluva lot of dough to spend on brick-walls and unknown talent. As much as I cringe to say it critics these days should critique the viability of shows rather than substance.
#196
Posted: 5/1/09 at 10:52am
No, I'm pretty sure it's going to ruin their moods and you'll be able to see how miserable they are from this point on which will just ruin the performances for Tony voters and it might end up getting a special Tony for Saddest Ensemble.
Mark my words.
Mark my words.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#197
Posted: 5/1/09 at 10:53am
"I was out on a date last night (that ended this morning)"
Thanks for that.
Thanks for that.
#199
Posted: 5/1/09 at 11:11am
Sorry, I was just trying to establish why I was completely absent from this thread last night, as I usually like to comment on review threads. (frankly though, I'm kind of glad I wasn't around to read these pans as they were happening)
Still, I fully support "9 to 5" and it will be interesting to see if these reviews have a negative effect on attendance.
Still, I fully support "9 to 5" and it will be interesting to see if these reviews have a negative effect on attendance.
Updated On: 5/1/09 at 11:11 AM
#200
Posted: 5/1/09 at 11:18am
Good for you WAT... you certainly deserve what started last night and concluded this morning!!!
