ADDAMS FAMILY Reviews- Page 5

[bwaybri2]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 11:18pm

The reviewers and blood-lovers on this board may not see the big picture of what Addams Family is doing for Broadway, but the tourists will. I sat through Addams Family two weeks ago with a group of 30 tourists that I brought to the City. They loved it. And while I did not, it quickly became apparent that this is a show that will find a niche for a year or two with the ticket sales from tourists.

As an outsider to the NYC theatre scene I appreciate any show that brings non-theatre types into the house.

It is what it is - Say Lah Vee

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 11:18pm

songanddanceman, actually, let's nix both those predictions and get behind Everyday Rapture!!! hollaa!!!

allofmylife, well put.

and blaxx has been perfectly objective : ).

Man, poor Jerry Zaks is goin' dooowwwnnnn...101 Dalmations and now this.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 11:26pm

I appreciate shows that bring non-theatre types into shows, but I don't think that gives them an excuse to be bad productions.

That first paragraph of the Brantley review was wonderful.

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 11:28pm

There's a way of getting folks that don't normally go to theatre without sacrificing the integrity of the source material.

[bwaybri2]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 11:31pm

bts - agreed - but now that Addams Family is frozen and won't ever become the next Billy or Rent or end-all-be-all, it can still bring in an audience that will enjoy it for what it is.

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 11:44pm

"Imagine what Marc Shaiman could have done with these characters."

I don't know but I'm sure he'd find a way to work in a "River Deep, Mountain High" number.

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 11:56pm

This could easily be snubbed of a Best Musical nomination now.

[raggballad2]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 12:03am

As much as I enjoyed watching the show just as a night out at the theatre, I don't think it really deserves a nomination for Best Musical. It definitely doesn't deserve to win (in my opinion, even though I had a fun time!)

I was expecting negative reviews, but this was still very sad for a show that I think had great potential to start with, and then some hope after the out-of-town tryout and time in between to really try to get this show "right." It's so sad...

[SNAFU]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 12:05am

It is too bad. I had high hopes for this when I heard it was in the works. Seeing the opening number on Letterman, I suddenly realized that singing Addamses was not such a good idea.
I have a special place in my heart for these characters but I believe I am going to pass.


on another note... I loved Raul Julia so much! What a sexy Gomez!

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 12:12am

Anyone can sing if the words coming out of their mouths make sense for the characters AND they are witty, perhaps a little sinful, cutting and surprising. When the biggest surprise in the opening number is "LINE DANCE", you sink in your chair and check your watch.

That being said, the girl who plays the Wednesday was delicious on Letterman. And Bebe really did look like death warmed over (though not sure if that was in character or not.)

[BwayTday]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 12:16am

There are so many characters that shouldn't sing, but with the right feel, lyrics, etc. they work.
Updated On: 4/9/10 at 12:16 AM

[Amneris]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 12:30am

i think a lot of people who are happy about bad reviews are so damn pathetic. I look at the lack of maturity of every show that you guys laugh about poor reviews and it makes me sick. Youre not theatre fans. Youre a bunch of lonley a-holes. Why do you bother supporting the performers you enjoy when you wish for their failure?

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 12:49am

Who was happy about the reviews?

[SNAFU]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 1:01am

I haven't read one post on this thread of someone who was happy about the bad reviews Amneris.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 1:10am

Most of the people on this thread are sad that this show is under-performing and some of us have theories as to why, but I still believe this board remains a generally positive experience.

I have learned a great deal from some of the knowledgeable people here, from the singers and dancers who have appeared on Broadway (all the way back to "Pal Joey" in 1940, to the dressers, make-up people to the fans from around the world, many of who have knowledge that makes me look like a neophyte..

Broadwayworld.com is a far more satisfying experience than many sites which have forums that are basically Bastille sewing circles.

Schadenfreude is only a dessert topping here, not a main course.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 1:13am

Amneris, calm the hell down. If you're referring to my post saying the reviews were hilarious, I meant they were literally funny. I'm not happy it got bad reviews by any means. The reviews are just pretty funny reads.

"Lonely a-holes"-- Really? And you're the mature one?

"Why do you bother supporting the performers you enjoy when you wish for their failure?" -- That isn't even worth dignifying with a response because it's just an ignorant and stupid statement on so many levels.

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 1:40am

I'm sorry, but every single show has a lot of (presumably talented) people working on it, and people who have their livelihoods depending on it. But if a show is terrible, it deserves to get terrible reviews. Most people don't go to theatre very much, and if they're going to plunk down their $250+, they shouldn't be coerced into spending it on a show they won't enjoy simply because them seeing it is supporting "the theatre" or the performers.

THE ADDAMS FAMILY is a lazy, bloated, cynical musical machine that was so obviously conceived purely as a cash cow. I obviously can't read minds, but I would imagine most-to-all of this cast (and probably others) entered into it as a purely financial endeavor, and/or a namebrand-enhancer/resume-builder.

It deserved to get terrible reviews, and I'm happy it did. Attack me for saying such a thing if you must, but I'm sorry, when legitimately BAD theatre gets an easy pass from critics/audiences, it devalues the entire artform.

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 2:00am

MiracleElixir --

If something is bad, call it bad. Absolutely. Even in this case, where I disagree quite vehemently and am in the distinct minority, I don't begrudge anyone voicing their feelings about the show no matter how negative.

BUT...you (and quite a few of the critics I've read) cross the line when you ascribe motivation. As you yourself note, you cannot read minds. I can't speak for "Addams", but I am well-acquainted with a number of those folks who were part of the creative and/or producing teams for several major Broadway musicals that were received as poorly as "Addams", and in every single instance, I can tell you that the shows were conceived and executed with the best of artistic intentions and efforts. The people writing and producing these shows believe passionately in the art they are making. The fact that their efforts are unsuccessful should not call into question their motivation for creating the art in the first place. They tried. They failed. They're human. Hopefully, next time, they will do better and succeed. But the fact that they failed -- even if it's egregiously and spectacularly in your eyes -- shouldn't then lead to a comment on their character, to the suggestion that they're just in it to make a buck with no concern for artistry or the overall integrity of American musical theatre. That's just offensive and cruel, with at a minimum, no verifiable basis in fact. You have every right to disparage their art to your heart's content. But to comment so harshly on that which, by your own admission, you cannot know is just hurtful and wrong.

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 2:10am

To clarify, I don't think anyone set out to make a bad show here (nor does anyone ever set out to intentionally do such a thing).

I just, purely based on how wretched the material was in this specific instance, can't imagine anyone in this cast entered into this project because of its artistic merits.

I'll go on the record as saying as much about something like... oh, say, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN as well. As soon as, say, Megan Mullally got her hands on the script/book/score/etc., she had every opportunity to not sign on, and/or jump ship, but (I think) she sensed a moneymaker and got in on the ground floor.

Again -- of COURSE, I don't know -- just giving my opinion based on the end results.

But really, my point was that virtually every single show has talented people involved, and it shouldn't be forbidden or sacrelige to be happy when a bad show gets bad reviews (or when a good one gets good reviews).

Some theatre DOES deserve to fail.

[Q]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 2:27am

I smell a hit.

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 2:29am

Not to put too fine a point on it, MiracleElixir, but you didn't just comment on the actors' motivations for taking the gig.

You wrote that the show was:

"so obviously conceived purely as a cash cow."

That's the part that bothered me most. Even if you think any or all of Lippa, Brickman, Elice, McDermott, Crouch, Katz, Twist, Zaks, Trujillo, Oken, Furman et al have done horrific work, I still honestly believe they meant well. I'm not naive enough to think they didn't ALSO want to be financially successful, but I think they care deeply about their art as well.

By the way, while it's surely not enough to vindicate my positive feelings for the show, it was nice to find one established (if consistently unpredictable) reviewer who legitmately loved the show:
John Simon on Bloomberg

[Q]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 2:32am

"so obviously conceived purely as a cash cow."

Because no one else would EVER produce for money in show BUSINESS.

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 3:13am

.... Did I EVER say "The Addams Family" is the first and only show to be a financial endeavor? And obviously no one is criticizing a creative team for making a show they want to be profitable, but this is one (like many others) where it seemed to be priority # 1, and unfortunately didn't have the goods to go along with it. Whatever, I think you all know what I meant.

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 3:16am

Because no one else would EVER produce for money in show BUSINESS.

Yes, but this show was too obvious.

I also don't doubt that everyone had the best intentions of doing a good show (doesn't make sense to attach yourself to something that would comprise your reputation just because), but I seriously doubt that if producers didn't want to exploit the franchise, all (or most) of the creative team and cast would have come up with the idea to develop an Addams musical on their own.

They were obviously in it for the money first (who can blame them? Work is work), but you also have to accept the consequences of comprising your artistic integrity in one way or the other to make a living.

[broadwayman17]

Posted: 4/9/10 at 3:37am

NY1: Mixed
http://www.ny1.com/6-bronx-news-content/ny1_living/theater_reviews/116636/ny1-theater-review---the-addams-family-/

"It's no big secret that veteran director Jerry Zaks took over at some point and he's succeeded in turning "The Addams Family" into an ordinary Broadway musical. There's one big problem with that, since the Addams' are supposed to be anything but ordinary."