BONNIE AND CLYDE only selling tickets until Dec. 30...- Page 16

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 12/27/11 at 11:32pm

Well...I certainly cared for both Bonnie AND Clyde. And so did the people around me when I saw it.
I agree the show has faults, but I don't think it's fair to say that there is no way to side with the two leading characters and say the show does not do that part well when its only an opinion.

[Wishing Only Wounds]

Posted: 12/27/11 at 11:47pm

She never really chose the lifestyle; she was hoping for the best till the end... of course it could've been developed more, but I found myself torn at the end result for Blanche.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 1:06am

The character created as Bonnie is a dirty dishrag in this piece.
Her only excuse for staying with Clyde is "but I love him", you hear that everyday on Springer. He hits her, he shoots and steals and she says, "but I love him", to me, that's boring.
The fact that one of BWay's most talented, lovely rising Stars had so little to work with is part of the crime.

I know they did everything to distance this B&C with the successful movie, B&C, but the movie was able to make these crooks interesting.

[philly03]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 1:32am

Not that it really matters, but the characters I felt for most were Bonnie, but especially Blanche and Emma Parker (Bonnie's mom). I remember the first time I saw it I snapped out of it at the end saying "Wait.. why do I feel bad for Bonnie?" in the scheme of the finale. Melissa/Blanche broke my heart when Buck passes.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 5:11am

Of course it's an opinion. This is a discussion -- I can only add to it my talking about my opinion. THAT is a given.

Bonnie and Blanche are given the same ridiculous motivation: ____ is my man and I love him. Yet, we see NO reason (other than sexual) for this 'love'. I got tired of seeing Bonnie wrap he legs around Clyde and grind on him. That's animalistic and has nothing to do with love. (The scene where Buck dies was one of the few poignant moments.)

I also wish someone would talk about the excessive use of stage blood. I found it horribly distracting and lacking of artistry. AGAIN -- what kind of sympathy are we suppose to garner for characters that cause that kind of carnage? It goes against their own purpose. (Yes, I know shooting is bloody.)

Bonnie was willing to be famous for any reason. I have no sympathy.

Another issue: I don't like the bad guys, but I don't like the 'good guys' either. This goes to the root of the problem: EVERY single character was one dimensional and had only one motivation to play.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 9:32am

"Your last comment isn't called for here. I, in no way, am claiming a conspiracy theory or doing any whining."

Pauly, only the first paragraph of my post was directed specifically to you, that should have been clear when you saw the next paragraph was directed to "folks," specifically those poor folks who can't understand why anyone would disagree with them and think Bonnie and Clyde is a load of boring amateurish bad writing; folks who instead blame the show's failure on a conspiracy between theatre reviewers to do Wildhorn in, because he's just too dang good, dammit, and a maverick who won't play their insidious game.

As to your query about why I repeat my negative assessment of the show - well, that just makes no sense - if you and others can keep posting how you love it and it's so amazingly great and Jeremy is so hot and it didn't get a fair deal, why can't others repeat their disagreement? If I can save one poor tourist from wasting their recession-era dollars on this travesty, I believe I will have made one life better.

Updated On: 12/28/11 at 09:32 AM

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 11:36am

'If I can save one poor tourist ...'

First, I doubt poor tourists are coming to a theater chat board to decide what they'll see. They'll pick the titles they know, like 'Lion King' or 'Phantom,' etc., and 'Bonnie & Clyde' is a new show with no big-name stars, so they're unlikely to go.

Let's face it: There are those who LOVE 'Bonnie & Clyde' and there are those who HATE it. We're preaching to the converted. If you've already seen the show, nothing someone else posts will change your mind. Taste is so subjective. Some folks can sympathize with Bonnie & Clyde. Others can't. And so it goes. The reality is: It's incredibly tough to write a musical, let alone a good one, which is why so many of them don't succeed.

Most anyone can carp and criticize. It's much harder to create.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 11:54am

"First, I doubt poor tourists are coming to a theater chat board to decide what they'll see."

You are convicted of the over-literal murder of a joke.

And I think you forgot to proceed to your "second..."

[SamIAm2]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 12:00pm

"Some like to build up; others like to tear down ..."

Waymon_Wong, I think you've nailed it. I wonder what it is that is so polarizing about B&C. I don't remember many folks saying they are lukewarm about this show. Is it because it's about criminals, or by Frank Wildhorn, or something else? I'd be interested in others' thoughts.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 1:11pm

Yes, it's hard to create -- but that doesn't make it impervious to criticism. In fact, since they are creating "for us", we have every right to do so. Are we suppose to love it (or even like it) JUST because it exists?

I have nothing against Wildhorn -- I haven't seen enough of his work to make that sort of judgement. I went into B&C with the highest of hopes, and after looking forward to it and highly suggesting my HS kids choose to see it on our annual trek.

Within 15 or 20 minutes, I was bored to tears. I stuck it out hoping there would be SOMETHING that I could hold on to that would improve what I was watching. It only got worse.

I have been on the other side -- I loved Spring Awakening when others here hated it. I still loved TALKING about why. I didn't take it personally that people felt differently than I did. I could see that the show was flawed, but it moved me and I saw it more times than I care to admit.

These are DISCUSSION boards, there is little discussion without dissent, whether over quality, interpretation, character choices or direction.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 1:16pm

Honestly I’m shocked at the negativity towards this show, I for one think it’s far better than most of the musicals that have opened recently. I actually liked the score a lot (which for me is rare since I don’t like Wildhorn) and I thought the book was good, not amazing but good. And the show was heightened even more by a terrific cast.

As for the whole ‘the women only stayed with their men for love’ debate I think it’s only half true and also as we have learnt from history love can cause people to do many things. Staying with someone for love is not a cop out or a gimmick to move the show forward it’s something that happens every day. The bottom line is Bonnie probably did stay with Clyde because of love, that’s what made them so dangerous yet so naive at the same time.

I also think it was made very clear that Bonnie was looking for excitement and she certainly got that with Clyde, he told her all the things she had been longing to hear (something else they do often in the show). On top of that she’s desperate for fame and attention (something else the show puts forward many times). When she realised that things had gone too far (after Clyde killed) she stayed because (I thought) she had made her bed so was going to make the best of it. However, yes, it was love that kept her with him, anything was better than the life she was living......at least now she felt like she was living.

Blanche was staying with him because she was hoping and praying he would see the light and turn his life around, something else they handled well, in her eyes if she kept with him and kept trying she could save him.

To me the book moved very well (we could have done with a bit more of the 2 falling in love but I can see why that was not the case) and the music went hand in hand with it which again is rare for a Wildhorn show.

I can totally understand why people are angry this show is closing, it deserved far better, however it’s easy to pull apart the faults of a Wildhorn show because that seems to be the ‘thing’ to do. The bottom line is he listened to criticism that had been heaped on him and the past and really worked hard to not let this fall in to the same trap, sadly to many people are quick to ignore that and just keep bringing up his past disasters to judge him on, and that should not be the case.

I have to say that if this was in the UK and I was reviewing the show for the publication I review for I would have given this a positive review, is it perfect? No, but it’s solid.

However many people on here have their own opinions about what they thought of the show (that’s fine, many hate Follies etc, that’s just theatre) and each person should be allowed their own opinion, I totally respect the people who did not enjoy the show , as long as they did not like the show and not the fact it’s Wildhorn.

For what it’s worth I wanted the theatre to burn down during watching Jekyll and Hyde, The Civil War was a mess from start to finish and Dracula (which I saw during previews) is up there in my top ten worst shows of all time.......so I aint a crazy Wildhorn fan who just loves all he does, I just happen to think Broadway just lost a very good show.

[capnkidd]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 2:04pm

"You are convicted of the over-literal murder of a joke."

For it to qualify as a joke, doesn't it have to be funny? *rimshot*

Some people enjoy tearing things down and riling people up. That's part of the interwebz. You clearly are one of those naughty boys. Own it. Don't go spoiling that persona by wrapping the nasty in a cloak of pseudo nobility, or trying to pass it off as a "joke".

I think Wildhorn is a hack, but bashing on and on about him, and demeaning those who like him is not only mean-spirited but pointless, unless you get off on it. You're serving only yourself. Tell the truth, newintown - are you typing with one hand?

[newintown]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 2:15pm

Well that was definitely funnier than mine.

But come on - does anyone actually think I care about helping tourists save money?

And, like I pointed out to poor little songanddance last week -I applaud as well as condemn; unfortunately, many people on here seem to only remember the negative posts.

You may well be one of those naughty boys, capn.

[SamIAm2]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 2:18pm

dramamamma, I'm not criticizing those who disagree with me about the show. I respect that each of us responds to art in our own way. That is part of what makes the arts magnetic to me, in fact. The vehemence both on the part of those who love it and those who hate it tells me that the show is stirring up strong feelings. This is good. This is what art is supposed to do. It seems especially true of Bonnie & Clyde. I'm just guessing, but there are probably a thousand or more comments about this show on these boards, a show that has lasted not quite a month. Even those who were bored describe their boredom in anguished terms, not apathetic. What about the show is stirring up such strong, diverse feelings? It intrigues me.

I suppose that the one thing that does disturb me at times in reading the comments is when the comments become disrespectful, either toward the artists or toward other commentators. There's a special place in my heart for those who are able to create and, whether we like or dislike the creation, I think that the artist still deserves a basic respect. I wish that I could create like that, but I can't.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 3:22pm

-- Pauly, only the first paragraph of my post was directed specifically to you, that should have been clear when you saw the next paragraph was directed to "folks," specifically those poor folks who can't understand why anyone would disagree with them and think Bonnie and Clyde is a load of boring amateurish bad writing; folks who instead blame the show's failure on a conspiracy between theatre reviewers to do Wildhorn in, because he's just too dang good, dammit, and a maverick who won't play their insidious game.

As to your query about why I repeat my negative assessment of the show - well, that just makes no sense - if you and others can keep posting how you love it and it's so amazingly great and Jeremy is so hot and it didn't get a fair deal, why can't others repeat their disagreement? If I can save one poor tourist from wasting their recession-era dollars on this travesty, I believe I will have made one life better. --


Newintown, because you specifically were commenting to me (in your first paragraph), and because there were no "folks" who had recently talked of conspiracies or doing any whining (in this thread), it wasn't a giant leap to assume the comments in the next paragraphs were directed at me as well. So it was not clear despite your intentions.

I never said you (or others) should not be able to disagree with those who love the show. I wondered *why* you choose to do it over and over again. I don't think it normal or typical to talk about that which you don't like as much as what you do like. So those of us repeatedly talking about B&C because we like it does not seem out of place (IMO). Whereas you (and others) who want to continue talking about what rubbish you think the show is seems a bit out of the norm.....unless you simply enjoy conflict.

Added to the above, the comments you now say were directed at "folks" were not a response to any recent post in this thread. Given that, you give the impression you enjoy tearing down (or was it get off like someone else mentioned?).

[GatorNY]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 3:23pm

I agree with you SamIA2. I think the reason why is because lots of people were enthusiastic prior to the opening, they enjoyed the show. It got bad reviews, which ticked off the people who liked it, which in turn ticked of the people who didn't like it. The "dislike it" crowd has enjoyed their "I told you so moment" immensely, and this reinforces their feelings of superiority. Plus, everyone knows that in the world of theater, if you like and appreciate Sondheim you're intelligent and have good taste, whereas if you like something like Wildhorn or ALW you're an idiot and lack any taste at all.

Updated On: 12/28/11 at 03:23 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 3:30pm

"I don't think it normal or typical to talk about that which you don't like as much as what you do like."

I look forward to the thread you'll create wherein you can tell us all what is "normal," and what is not. I'm so glad we have someone as psychologically astute as you are to make that distinction. Lord knows I couldn't.

"...the comments you now say were directed at "folks" were not a response to any recent post in this thread."

Now, now, Pauly, don't be disingenuous. It doesn't become you. As a devout B&Cer, you're fully aware that this site is chock full of comments about reviewer bias and a conspiracy to do Wildhorn in. Don't pretend otherwise. It's not pretty. I confess, though, that I'm mystified how you came to hold the notion that one can only respond to recent posts. People refer to posts from long ago and other threads all the time. If you stick around after your internship is over, you'll see what I mean.

"Given that, you give the impression you enjoy tearing down."

Given your posts, you give the impression that you're a shill. Even?

Updated On: 12/28/11 at 03:30 PM

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 3:49pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 03:49 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 4:12pm

folks who instead blame the show's failure on a conspiracy between theatre reviewers to do Wildhorn in

Over the holiday, I spent a few days hanging out with a friend of mine who has been a theatre critic for one of the biggest markets in the country for several decades and I was curious about his thoughts on the very subject. He is not a Wildhorn fan, though he has covered most of his shows (with mixed-to-negative results). And though he didn't use the word "conspiracy" (which is usually reserved for pompous snide comments around here), he did believe that Wildhorn simply will not get a good review regardless the quality of his material. I believe his exact words were, "Wildhorn could write Gypsy or Sweeney Todd and he would still get panned." He believes the majority of critics made up their minds on Wildhorn years ago and that the only success Wildhorn can achieve in the US is commercially if he can provide a major vehicle for an existing celebrity.

So, while I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy" as if all the critics are sitting around a table planning world theatre domination or calling out a hit on Wildhorn Sopranos-style or anything, the notion doesn't really seem to be quite so absurd that critics could have possibly walked into the show with the review basically already written.

Updated On: 12/28/11 at 04:12 PM

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 4:38pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 04:38 PM

[broadway7117]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 4:51pm

I believe Wildhorn does write for specific venues. A few of his shows have been commissions from production companies in Japan and South Korea. "Never Say Goodbye", "Tears of Heaven" for example.

Some of his European work has also been specifically geared towards European audiences and like 80 piece orchestras.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 5:03pm

But that's not a conspiracy... It's called a reputation and it's part of every business model.

Oh, I know it's not a conspiracy, which is why I pointed that out.

So why should anyone give him another shot? He's lost a lot of people money and cost a lot of people jobs. No, his reputation follows him that he writes horrid shows and thinks nothing wrong with it. Let the critics hold him to his history.

Probably because people with money still like his work and invest in his shows. That is all it takes for anyone to have a shot. His "reputation" is not that he admits to writing horrid shows. His reputation is not having a profitable Broadway production. The critics don't have to "hold him to his history" if the reviews to his previous works have already been published. You think they should simply base all future reviews on all past productions? That's one of the most ridiculous notions I've ever heard.

Frank Wildhorn not only lacks as a composer, he lacks as a viable business person in the world of American commercial theatre.

You know he's not the director or the producer, right? And in the world of American commercial theatre, (oxymoron aside, also in the world of international commercial theatre), he has become extremely popular and made LOADS of money.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 5:04pm

Some of his European work has also been specifically geared towards European audiences and like 80 piece orchestras.

Rudolf is a beautiful example of this. And I enjoy the score to Carmen.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 5:13pm

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The storytelling of how Clyde is treated in prison was really good".
Couldn't disagree more, we see him in prison (he's been before as a teen so he must be familiar with prison "affairs")
----------------------------------------------------------------
Not true. While Clyde had been arrested several times, he'd never been convicted of a crime until 1930, when he was 20. So while he may have spent time in jail, it certainly wasn't prison. In fact until the arrest which caused him to break out of jail, he'd never been charged, since there was never enough evidence.

His escape, with Bonnie's help (and it was much easier than what the musical portrays), caused the judges to increase his sentence...while he was sentenced to 14 years, they were to run concurrently and he would have been out in two. But the escape changed that, to which he was sentenced to serve that time consecutively. And what made his sentence unique is that, under sentencing guidelines, he was a first-time offender and should have spent time and a "light" prison facility instead of the hard labor he was sentenced to.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
, we are told he's someone's bitch, we never see the guy (must be a huge dude cause Clyde's in amazing shape) then Clyde gets a weapon beats a pole and somehow escapes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The thing is the real Clyde was 5'6", so the guy didn't have to be big. And Clyde didn't do it alone: another inmate helped him kill his abuser.



-----------------------------------------------------------------
That's pretty bad storytelling, and I believe except for a line his mother says, it's never mentioned again
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't necessarily call it bad storytelling, but it definitely wasn't necessary or integral, since his real escape happened before he was sentenced to a prison.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 12/28/11 at 5:21pm

-- Now, now, Pauly, don't be disingenuous. It doesn't become you. As a devout B&Cer, you're fully aware that this site is chock full of comments about reviewer bias and a conspiracy to do Wildhorn in. Don't pretend otherwise. It's not pretty. I confess, though, that I'm mystified how you came to hold the notion that one can only respond to recent posts. People refer to posts from long ago and other threads all the time. If you stick around after your internship is over, you'll see what I mean.

"Given that, you give the impression you enjoy tearing down."

Given your posts, you give the impression that you're a shill. Even? --


Newintown, I'm not the one pretending. And we are not even.

I will admit to having a sort of agenda. I liked Bonnie & Clyde, and I want to promote it so the good people involved can keep doing what they are doing - and more people come to know the show and (hopefully) experience what I experienced (what's not normal about this?). None of my comments have been over the top, have they? In my original critique of the show - and in a subsequent comment, I even stated the show was slow in parts. As well, I don't believe I have made a single comment pushing or pleading people to go see this show. Not typical shill behavior, so your attempt to put me on the same plane (or opposing plane) as you is a stretch. However, it is not surprising that you would go there.

Your contention that responding to comments made in other threads is typical is bordering on ludicrous. Let's be more specific: When you responded to me in this thread (yesterday), you made additional comments responding to other posts in other threads (from other people). Those same comments were already echoed by you in other threads, so why the need to bring them up again in this thread when nobody was talking about anything remotely related? There's no ryhme or reason for it.....unless you're _______________???



Updated On: 12/28/11 at 05:21 PM