A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC Reviews.... — Page 3

Most likely. He didn't care for the production when it was in London. This is hardly a surprise. I'm more interested to see what the other critics say.

---

Considering that he had generally positive things to say in London (and a flat out rave for Hannah Waddingham, this change of heart is fascinating.

Wow, Michael Sommers loved it. Who's next? Who's next?

---

Another example of Brantley's confused reviews. At least he raved about Lansbury.

I get the sense that Brantley's only favorable review for a musical is going to be for FELA! He raved about it Off-Broadway and couldn't fathom some of the show's flaws when it opened uptown. Plus, his rave for the Off-Broadway gave so much attention to Ngah (or however you spell it) that it would have been embarrassing for him to re-review the show with anything but a rave. But I digress.

Please, Addams Family, do whatever has to be done to fix it out-of-town so that Brantly will not be able to ignore it.

---

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 06:58 PM

Variety seems Mixed-to-Positive with raves for Zeta-Jones and Lansbury
It might be just Mixed. I'm bad at judging these things.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117941777.html?categoryid=33&cs=1

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 07:06 PM

The review is practically a slap in the face to Nunn. This is mixed at best. He loves Lansbury, heavily likes Zeta-Jones, Whitaker and Lazar and has mixed/negative feelings about everything else. This would be a mixed/negative review if it weren't for Lansbury's glowing notice.
*EDIT my post is about Variety*

---

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 07:14 PM

Man, the Hollywood Reporter did NOT like Trevor Nunn's work at all. Slap in the face.

I'm so thrilled that the two leading ladies are getting such wonderful remarks.

I'm getting more and more excited to see this!

---

^CZJ has Christiane Noll and Kate Baldwin, and potentially Bebe Neuworth (sp) and Kristin Chenoweth as her competition.

USA Today gives it 3 out of 4 stars. Big rave for Lansbury.



http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/reviews/2009-12-14-nightmusic14_st_N.htm

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 08:04 PM

Ms. Lansbury can rest well tonight, and begin writing her Tony acceptance speech tomorrow morning. LOL

I think both Lansbury AND Zeta-Jones will have an amazing shot at the Tony. Neurwith's role apparently isn't great. And we don't know how Chenoweth will fare, though most think she is miscast. Ragtime and Finian could unfortunately be closed by then, and that will hurt the chances of Noll and Baldwin.

I also think Hanson and Lazar have a great chance of being nominated.

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 08:18 PM

ljay---After reading Brantley's review of Lansbury and her rendition of Liaisons, I'm beginning to see how the departure is working. You mentioned that it was very different from her book scenes, and he did a good job of explaining why.

The video clip felt out of step to me by itself, but in context with the rest of the show, I can see how it would work as a contrasting "window" into her past. It's almost as if her personality is changing during her reflections of those romances. If she had played the rest of the role this way, it would have been a huge mistake, but I'm beginning to see how this interpretation might work.

And good for Lansbury for getting fairly uniform raves, even in the bad reviews.

I figured most of the negative critiques would go directly to Nunn for his choices, but I'm surprised that some of it is coming down on the writing (Sondheim and, in particular, Wheeler). I wasn't expecting that. Especially from Brantley, whom I would have guessed had seen at least one or more successful productions of this show in the past. While I wouldn't call it a "perfect" musical, it's one of the most romantic musicals ever written, and the writing is first-rate.

It's also a comedy of manners, and that's where I think the direction might be missing here. The characters aren't as two-dimensional or vapid as Brantley thinks. If the show is directed properly, there are many instances where the characters are saying and doing one thing, while clearly thinking and feeling something else. It's all about the subtext, not the text. That's how it's written, and the directorial choices can either add compelling layers to it (as it should) or merely reflect the literal words, which would be a big, dull mistake.

So why didn't Brantley pick up on that? Instead he mostly criticizes the material, not the choices being made in this particular production.

That, to me, is very short-sighted for someone in his position at the Times.

---

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 09:39 PM

As Wickedfan noted, I've also heard that Brantley actually DIDN'T like it in London, although he loved Waddingham and Lipman.