American Psycho - closing week audiences- Page 4

[JayG 2]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 8:29am

It is as contemporary, relevant, cool, good-looking,  and entertaining as Hamilton. There! It had to be said.

Oh and American Psycho is a lot easier to follow.

[Jane2]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 9:08am

" in your opinion you didn't think it was good, it would seem the large majority of people who watched it loved it."

I have two problems with this kind of statement. 1. It's meant to make the person who didn't like the show feel like there's something wrong with them for not liking it. 2. It's not even true. The large majority did not love it. Hence, it was a flop that closed early.

Updated On: 6/6/16 at 09:08 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 9:10am

" Yes... thirty years ahead of its time. "

In what way?

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 9:20am

songanddanceman2 said: "Evic in your opinion you didn't think it was good, it would seem the large majority of people who watched it loved it.

 

And plenty of shows with short runs, especially ones that offer something truly different get remembered and I would bet my life on it that this one does. Also remember this was a hit in London as well.

 

"

 

How, exactly, do you know the opinion of the large majority of people who attended AMERICAN PSYCHO over its 10+ weeks? Did you administer surveys at the conclusion of each performance? Did you talk to the majority of patrons following each performance? To make such a blanket statement only further highlights your inability to objectively view the artistic merit and qualities of this particular musical, and proof that you fail to understand why this show will not be remembered five years from now.

[newintown]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 9:33am

It's always entertaining when fans of flops applaud themselves for their hyper-advanced aesthetic values and prescience by claiming the flop was "ahead of its time."

I've seen a lot of "art," and I confess that I've never seen anything that I could call "ahead of its time."

But a commercial musical based on a quarter-century-old novel (by a writer considered by many to be something of a hack), featuring an 80s-style pastiche techno score (padded out with decades-old pop tunes) written by a 46-year-old has-been pop singer, with a book by a 43-year-old comic book writer whose only other commercial theatre credit is the astoundingly amateurish Spider Man... whatever you could call this combo, "ahead of its time" certainly doesn't seem to be applicable.

[newintown]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 9:39am

"Also remember this was a hit in London as well."

Really? A six week run at a 325-seat theatre to mixed reviews is now considered a "hit?" What's a flop?

[groucho797]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 9:53am

Jane2 said: "" Yes... thirty years ahead of its time. "

In what way?"

I'd start by saying that I don't know many shows that cite Depreche Mode and New Order as inspirations for a score, though I think in time those influences will prove useful again.

Lighting, choreography (especially), staging - pretty graphic for Disney's Broadway. Subject matter - I don't know that audiences were particularly ready to be entertained by a sociopath, regardless of how he was created. I think in 30 years folks might be ready to see Timon and Pumbaa chopped into little pieces, but not right now.

I do have to laugh at those of you who are hating this show in every conceivable way, as if 1) those of us who liked the show are WRONG for liking it,  or 2) that you'll somehow convince us of the error of our ways. As long as I live, I'll never know how The Addams Family got a tour - but I wouldn't waste a second of my life demanding that people hate it. It seems so incredibly pointless.

 

[newintown]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 10:14am

"I don't know that audiences were particularly ready to be entertained by a sociopath, regardless of how he was created."

Do you mean like Sweeney Todd (1979)?

"I do have to laugh at those of you who are hating this show in every conceivable way, as if 1) those of us who liked the show are WRONG for liking it,  or 2) that you'll somehow convince us of the error of our ways."

I'm not so sure of all that, but there are several approaches to Flop Love - one is to just say (as I do about The Scottsboro Boys) "I really liked this show, but others didn't, and it flopped. Moving on." Another is to say "This show was ahead of its time, and it flopped because most people just aren't as perceptive as I am to quality." That attitude tends to stick in the craw, y'know.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 10:26am

I'm a huge fan of the show and I don't feel it was ahead of its time. Broadway has had plenty of sex, anti-heroes, dramatic staging. I always think of Jeanine Tesori in the doc Show Business. She says how putting up a show is "throwing the spaghetti against the wall and seeing if it sticks." She discuses intangible energies that you can't account for that make a show a hit, as well as the "emotional temperature" of audiences at the time of release. 

I always found this so true. Caroline, IMO, was brilliant and a huge flop. Fun Home, which I liked  less than Caroline, recouped and was a huge hit. 

There is no accounting for anything. In a different year Hamilton may have been received lukewarm. Theatre is received in the energy of the given time. You can't change that. 

I also agree with newintown that to imply people who didn't like it aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate it is very rude. 

AP is however one of my favorite shows. I think smaller theatre companies will have a blast with this and it will do great business for them. 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 10:40am

I don't see that anyone is trying to change anyone else's mind.  People are addressing the grandiose statements being made.  

 

I liked the show, didn't hate it at all, I'm just realistic about how it will be remembered.  

 

Ah, sigh, The Scottsboro Boys.  Damn, I loved that flop.

[Broadway Forever2]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 10:47am

I appreciate that people have different tastes and this shows has developed a dedicated cult following (much like the movie and the book)  and I haven't seen it but acting like it's some forward, super original never done before musical is odd. I mean it's based on a book from the 90's with a pretty popular movie.  

Updated On: 6/6/16 at 10:47 AM

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 10:49am

To say it is ahead of its time in terms of subject matter is bizarre. There are plenty of musicals about murder and other equally disturbing things. It could have made a big impact in terms of its music (not many Broadway musicals with EDM style music) but unfortunately in the eyes of a lot of people the score just wasn't good enough to do so.

No-one is wrong for liking this (or any) show but stop saying that it's a shame that people didn't get it. I got it and so did everyone else, it's just that 'it' didn't appeal to some as much as others. 

[groucho797]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 10:56am

E. riley said: "Looking forward to your post mortem. I really don't want this show to be forgotten..."

I’m flattered to hear that. I mention in passing that my 18-yo son loved the show. As promised, here’s sort of a “post-mortem” (more like a series of random musings) about the show (warning: too long, don’t read):

The final show reminded me more of a rock concert than a Broadway show. Funny how everyone loved Pink Floyd: The Wall when it toured. Frankly, I think this show and PF:TW share some DNA – both lead characters experienced rather unpleasant meltdowns (accompanied by a very loud score). Perhaps this show should tour that way instead – perhaps it would be more likely to find an audience that way.

The venue was appropriate for this show: small, claustrophobic. No escape from the onslaught. I don’t think I’d have enjoyed it quite as much if I had to view it from half a mile back.

Major props to Theo Stockman as Tim Price; his icy delivery kept stealing scenes, imho. On the surface, Price acted as sort of a guardian angel, but he was deliciously devilish. I think Theo’s credit was too far down in the program.

I Am Back: simply put – grim. As in Joker/Killing Joke grim. I can’t think of many shows where the protagonist holds court over a blood-soaked stage and an equally bloody pile of bodies. Additional acknowledgement to the blonde who was gyrating slightly upstage left from Bateman during the number. I’m sorry that I couldn’t tell which actor you were, but it was clear that your date with Patrick wasn’t going very well at all. I hope you’re recovering ok.

This Is Not an Exit: reminded me of parts of Genesis’ “Lamb Lies Down on Broadway” tour. Both works have such a hallucinatory feel to them. Yes, I brake for hallucinations.

When I first saw the show in previews, the audience was in shock for most of Act 2; there was almost no applause. They responded enthusiastically at curtain call just the same. That stunned silence appeared to have evaporated during the run as time went on, but I almost miss those initial reactions. Eh, I’m over it.

Is the show a period piece? Yeah, and the period is now. Swap the Walkman for an .mp3 player and nobody will notice.

Perhaps those of you who wanted to see the show and didn’t get there in time can take comfort in knowing that there’s an excellent chance of a budding young psycho evolving not two doors away from your home. Hell, the internet is lousy with them.

I describe the show as an electrical storm that suddenly arises over an unsuspecting populace. Some will run shrieking to the safety of their homes (and perhaps a nice safe recording of Lion King). Others will simply walk away, saying “I ain’t staying out in this mess! I have Hamilton tickets.”

And a few crazy souls will linger outside and marvel at the force of nature unfolding before them. I’ll admit that I was loony enough to stand outside and get struck by lightning four times during the show’s run. I don’t regret a second of it - but I will probably catch myself comparing other shows to this one and saying “Well, the show was OK…. But I still miss Psycho.”

Cult shows have their detractors; I’m still trying to figure out the second half of Rocky Horror (admittedly, I’m not trying very hard). I hope this show finds a new life somehow.

Updated On: 6/6/16 at 10:56 AM

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 10:57am

I think the piece is "ahead of its time" in the sense that I believe its reputation will continue to grow, and with time, the merits of the book/music/ lyrics will be more routinely appreciated.

But for commercial Broadway, this piece was always going to be a risky sell.  And that has to do with its subject matter, which despite the cult status of the book, film, whatever, is always going to turn off more potential audiences than its going to appeal to. 

I think we should just applaud the producers of the production who braved bringing it to Broadway, likely knowing that its chances for recoupment were highly unlikely.

I look forward to the Roundabout's revival in 15 years.

 

Updated On: 6/6/16 at 10:57 AM

[groucho797]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 10:59am

newintown said: "I'm not so sure of all that, but there are several approaches to Flop Love - one is to just say (as I do about The Scottsboro Boys) "

You win that point. I crawled out of Scottsboro Boys - devastated, but glad I saw it.

[justasmalltownboy13]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 11:03am

I saw it twice really and enjoyed the show. I love the source material and it was great for what it was, though I wish it lasted longer. I love a good campy musical and I'm glad I saw this one - Disaster! was also a favorite this season.

[theatreguy12]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 11:20am

So I guess we shall agree to disagree.  It's okay for those of us who liked it.  It's okay for those who didn't.

To minimize its impact from either perspective is wrong, because theater is a personal experience.  

For those who liked it to minimize the thoughts of those who didn't by saying they just don't get it isn't necessarily correct.  Nor is it correct for those who didn't like it to call into question the theater aesthetic appreciation of those who did like it by questioning how anyone could like it, calling it a mess, etc.

It's okay to say I loved it.  It's okay to say I really didn't like this show.  I think it could have been better if… Etc.

There are plenty of shows that I loved that closed early….starting with The Scottsboro Boys. An important story to be told.  Others I didn't... like Urinetown.  Which ran for almost 1000 performances.  Go and figure.

 

[newintown]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 11:44am

"I daresay that the producers brought it over because it was a huge hit in London..."

Again with this erroneous claim - where did this idea start? The show ran for six weeks in a small non-West End theatre. It got some good reviews and some bad reviews. No one raved over it, and it made no money for anyone. It was in no definition a hit in London.

[E. riley]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 11:47am

Jane2 said: "" Yes... thirty years ahead of its time. "

In what way?

Taste is subjective. Clearly you didn't like it. Got it. Many did. Only time will tell where it will fall in the future of Musical Theatre's rich history.

An artistic offering of any sort is subject to many outside forces. Timing is a huge one. I find this show to be prescient but I think it will have it's due in a revival at some point. That is my guess and prediction. In my humble opinion, when it comes to musicals there often needs to be a "sap" factor. Which I love btw. This one was heady and glossy, intoxicating and smart.To Many. I don't really know if it was ahead of it's time but it feels that way. I guess it's just one possibility for explaining what happened. I don't know if it was marketed poorly or opened at the wrong time but I am so happy I got too see it.

It's not everyones cup of tea.....get that. Ben Brantley's review which could have had a very positive impact  at bringing an audience was so off. He was obsessed with how great the bodies looked and it seems as if he missed the show. Some people didn't understand or care for the way the show satirized superficiality and IMO misjudged it as superficial.

It was smart, dynamic and arresting TO ME and others ...I get it not to you. 

"

 

[E. riley]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 12:07pm

groucho797 said: "E. riley said: "Looking forward to your post mortem. I really don't want this show to be forgotten..."

I’m flattered to hear that. I mention in passing that my 18-yo son loved the show. As promised, here’s sort of a “post-mortem” (more like a series of random musings) about the show (warning: too long, don’t read):

Love your "post mortem". It's awesome.I hope you (and others) will keep musing because it takes the sting out of it closing so soon......

 

 

 

 


"

 

 

 

 

[PianoMann]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 12:13pm

I saw the matinee yesterday and very much disliked the show.  I certainly admired much of the design, but I found most of the elements individually weak and together they did not form a cohesive whole.

The two biggest detractors were the two most important: the book and the score. I found the tone of the show entirely inconsistent and the pacing of scenes to be haphazard. I agree with the consensus that the first act is stronger structurally than the second. There were two to three points in the second act where I thought the show would most certainly end, but it kept limping to its unsatisfying conclusion. I found the score ineffective and highly redundant; I know many have praised it for its ability to capture to "vapid" nature of the era and specifically the music of the era, but that doesn't excuse it from being entertaining in its own right.  I don't find satire for satire's sake to be inherently entertaining or enjoyable, certainly not over the course of two and a half hours. My friend and I both agreed during intermission that it's quite troubling when the most effective musical moment in the first act was a song not written for the show. I did find, surprisingly, Jean's songs to be the best because of their moments of introspection. Again, some might say that those songs "pander to traditional musical constructs," but without it the score becomes showy without substance, which I found much of it to be.

I have to commend the entire ensemble for their commitment to the material and effort to pull it off. I found Benjamin Walker particularly impressive, especially the manner in which his performance elevates the material as much as he could.

I want to address Brantley, too. I would hardly label him a capable theatre critic anymore, but I happen to fully agree with his review on this one, particularly his central argument: 

“American Psycho” is a mess. That’s not because of all that sloppy, sloshy blood, but because of its terminally undecided tone. And it’s not the kind of mess you wallow in, hooting at the glorious chaos of it all. Its conflicts of intention cancel one another out, leaving you numb."

After the first few numbers, I thought I would enjoy the messiness and camp of the show, but scene after scene I became complete numb and disinterested in the proceedings, as Brantley asserts. I couldn't wait for the show to come to an end. And yes, Brantley does mention the "hardbodies" repeatedly throughout the review, but he had reason to as the production made those scantly clad bodies a focal point, if not the focal point, of the proceedings.

Just as Patrick sings "I want it all" in the show's anthem "Selling Out," I wanted all of the pieces of this production to fit together into a theatrical event. Instead I found it to rely too heavily on the flashy production elements and its hardworking ensemble and too little on the fundamentals of a good show.

[haterobics]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 12:30pm

PThespian said: "Be that as it may it was certainly presented as being a London hit in the ad campaigns that preceded its arrival here.

Look at any of the posters that were in subway stations."

Didn't they just say it was fresh from a sold-out run in London? That's true. Now, was it a long run? A big theater? No.

[Jane2]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 12:56pm

 

groucho said - "" Yes... thirty years ahead of its time. "

In what way?"

"I'd start by saying that I don't know many shows that cite Depreche Mode and New Order as inspirations for a score, though I think in time those influences will prove useful again."

It's "Depeche Mode." Anyway, using songs from 30 years ago, is being 30 years ahead of its time? smh

"Lighting, choreography (especially), staging - pretty graphic for Disney's Broadway."

That's nothing new, let alone 30 years ahead. Did you see Ghost? That's one off the top of my head that already did that.

"Subject matter - I don't know that audiences were particularly ready to be entertained by a sociopath, regardless of how he was created. I think in 30 years folks might be ready to see Timon and Pumbaa chopped into little pieces, but not right now."

Sweeney Todd, anyone? Behind the times, not 30 years ahead.

"I do have to laugh at those of you who are hating this show in every conceivable way, as if 1) those of us who liked the show are WRONG for liking it,  or 2) that you'll somehow convince us of the error of our ways. As long as I live, I'll never know how The Addams Family got a tour - but I wouldn't waste a second of my life demanding that people hate it. It seems so incredibly pointless."

I doubt that you're laughing. Anyway, you have it backwards, those of us here who didn't love the show are supposed to feel that we are wrong. 

Also - do NOT count me in as one who hated the show in every conceivable way. I already stated that I loved the choreography, the score, the sets AND the cast. I thought the story was too thin and didn't translate well to the stage. So, count me out of your list, thank you.
 

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 1:03pm

Ok first of all the majority of talk on Twitter, message boards etc is all positive, the majority seemed to love the show, yes of course some don't like it and that's fine, that's theatre and I mean no disrespect to anyone who didn't.

 

NewinTown I'm from the UK and the show received largly positive reviews with one or two mixed. 

 

The show didn't flop because the people who watched it didn't like it, it flopped because not enough people went, it was only going to be a hard sell.

 

Sorry but anybody who thinks this won't be remembered is kidding themselves 

[Jane2]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 1:06pm

"The show didn't flop because the people who watched it didn't like it, it flopped because not enough people went, it was only going to be a hard sell."

Did you ever hear of word of mouth? And you're right -  it flopped because not enough people went. That's the dictionary definition of flop.