BONNIE & CLYDE Reviews — Page 9

massofman, since you have made so many comments on this thread, I read them, and I know I have the option of scrolling over them. You seem well-informed and have every right to your strong and contrary opinions. However, since you put yourself and your opinions out here in this public arena, I think I have the right to comment about what I glean from your statements. I think I have more insight into your personality than I have in any point you attempt to make about this production and your interpretation of reviews. As an MSW and Theater major with a great deal of experience, I do feel, IMO, you blur the line between emotion, fact, and some negative experiences which taint the credibility and pervasive attitudes you express. Don't bother to blast me...I have found scrolling the best way to cope with annoyances.

"How do people think Wildhorn should retaliate?

Dracula 2?"

Don't even say that! DRACULA is Japan just got released on DVD with a female Dracula and a Mina who kills herself at the end. If Bram Stoker was rolling over in his grave during the Broadway production, I cant only imagine now!

--

I'm not surprised - Wildhorn has never (& never will be) a critic's darling (until Count of Monte Cristo or Camille Claudel land in NY)... Jekyll received similiar reviews to this piece, mixed to negative and managed to play for 4 years. The word of mouth is good for this one (unlike WONDERLAND).

I'm not particularly a big fan of the score (and have said so for the past couple of years), but after seeing it play together, it flows quite well and is well-thought out piece. I'm surprised at how negative they are (especially for the brilliant performance by Melissa van der Schyff), but I think the show will plunge through for the Tony's in June as not much else is out there!

Titanic had Rosie O's show

EVITA (and Patti) were panned by critics, but the show was a hit, anyway. A producer's dream -- the critic-proof show -- and it went on to win 7 Tonys, including Best Musical.

I also want to concur with tazber that the film BONNIE AND CLYDE is a very influential and iconic film. It is regarded as the first film of the so-called New Hollywood. It is often referred to as "the film that changed Hollywood," since it broke a lot of taboos, such as its depiction of frank sex, its glamorization of criminals, and most importantly its depiction of graphic violence. For the first time, when someone got shot there was no cutaway; you actually saw bullets piercing flesh -- and blood. Lots of it, as the movie progressed. The finale when they're finally gunned down shocked audiences and many critics who were put off by the film's violence, and it inspired Sam Peckinpah's THE WILD BUNCH and Francis Ford Coppola's THE GODFATHER to push the enveloped even further.

Furthermore, Bonnie and Clyde themselves are not largely forgotten, either, as Teachout claims, but they're always remembered together. I see it in the media a lot, like when a male/female couple is on the lam or breaks the law they're always dubbed "a modern-day Bonnie & Clyde." Even young people today have heard of them (thanks to Eminem's "'97 Bonnie & Clyde" and Beyonce and Jay-z's "'03 Bonnie & Clyde") though they probably don't know very much about them. Just the basics, that "they were young, and in love, and they killed people," to use the film's tagline.

---

Absolutely SM2. Presenting criminals as heroes wasn't new (James Cagney made a career of playing gangster anti-heroes), but never with such visceral gusto.

It spawned an entirely new genre of criminals on the lam films.

Altman's Thieves Like Us
Malick's Badlands
Stone's Natural Born Killers

and so on.

So yea, I guess no one remembers the movie.

Anyway, this is what I meant when I said that Teachout often eschews context or worse, makes statements that lack any legitimate basis. Again, I'm not saying the show is good and his review is "wrong", but if his contention is that musical was ill conceived because the source material is too obscure to draw interest I absolutely disagree.

I think there is a tremendous potential for a show about B&C to be thrilling. I also think that this creative team has no idea how to mine that potential.

I'd wager that LaChuisa could write a hell of a show about these complex characters and their exploits.

---

"I'd wager that LaChuisa could write a hell of a show about these complex characters and their exploits."

Yeah, a hell of a bad one, if it's like any of his others.

As for the Bonnie and Clyde reviews, I fully expected them to be as they are.

The show is just bland, and bland just doesn't cut it.

I can't believe people are saying, the AP review could save them or there are enough pull quotes to run. The reviews are terrible, the big one (TIMES) is awful. Jeremy Jordan becoming a star from this? Uh uh, his singing is being praised but not so much his acting. If they do manage to run this a while, he will be the big loser, stuck in a flop playing to half houses and missing out on NEWSIES, (which the major NY critics have not reviewed). If the 38 producers can get the $ together to keep it afloat, they will lose their shirts. It's a lose/lose situation all around.
But we'll see what happens...
Flops like J&H don't run 4 years anymore, theatres are gobbled up by Star vehicles and revivals. The talent on the stage is large and these actors shoild all work again soon, the theatre could get a new tenant and crews will work also.

Critics Critics Critics
What can one say about critics.

They all went crazy for Venus in Fur which I thought was an excruciatingly
boring evening in the theatre.

Then Brantley knocks Wicked for having so much spectacle and being over produced and then knocks Bonnie and Clyde by implying its underproduced---- "since a 6 million dollar budget can only stretch so far"

Critics spin on a dime.. "too much dancing"/ "not enough dancing"

The score to Bonnie and Clyde is infectious and I can not believe the critics in their
Wildhorn loathing missed that. Even Brantley called it "Mildy tuneful" and for Brantley/ that is a rave.

Calhoun directed the piece as a compelling piece of theatre that transports you to the period. It made you plug in childhood dreams forging out your future which was a theme I thought everyone could relate to.

I am confused and disheartened by these reviews.

Okay. Now that I have bashed the critics.. I will give my minor criticism
Having seen the show in Sarasota, once in previews and on opening night...

1) They should have reprised "The World Will Remember us" more which they used to do. In Sarasota, People left the theatre humming that song because it was a great tune and it was reprised. I believe they used it at the end of the show and that worked better for the end than what they have now.
2) They needed a music and story editor. They should have cut 10 minutes out of each act.

Would that have changed the critics minds? Probably not.

3) The preacher (who was fine the first two times) was obviously struggling with his voice. When he sang with his flu on opening night, the whole audience cringed. Why the producer or the stage manager did not have the foresight to put on the understudy for opening night is beyond me.

A little thing like that can give permission to the critics to lambast the entire evening. Bad judgement call on the producers/stage managers part.

Anyone know if there plans for a cast album. Somewhere along the way I read about it.

I keep thinking about The Addams Family which was not well received and it has lasted far longer than expected. I hope Mr Jordan does not become like another Aaron Tveit. Great talent but shunned by Tony nomination committee. Aaron went on to Hollywood. Mr Jordan has Joyful Noise out soon.

I hope the obcr becomes a reality. I hope I get to see B&C again and I become a member of the great audience the show finds.

---

They were taking names and e-mails last weekend for news on pre-ordering a cast recording, so I'd guess there are plans to have one.

The preacher (who was fine the first two times) was obviously struggling with his voice. When he sang with his flu on opening night, the whole audience cringed. Why the producer or the stage manager did not have the foresight to put on the understudy for opening night is beyond me.

A little thing like that can give permission to the critics to lambast the entire evening. Bad judgement call on the producers/stage managers part.

Critics don't attend the opening night performance.

That is true, but I saw the final preview and he sounded sick then, so he was clearly struggling for a few days. I'm not saying that he is the reason the reviews were so bad, I'm just pointing out that the reviewers probably did see him when he was sick.

---

ADAMS FAMILY = Nathan Lane

The audience went out humming THE WORLD WILL REMEMBER US because they already know it as IT DON'T MEAN A THING IF IT AIN'T GOT THAT SWING.

Word of mouth has been mostly positive on these boards but it has not yet translated to ticket buyers.

The new theater review aggregator Curtain Critic just posted/scored all the reviews out so far and there it has a 47 overall, 64 cast, 33 book, 52 music, 60 tech:

http://www.curtaincritic.com/Shows/BONNIE_AND_CLYDE_REVIEWS-70.html

Their summary: "The most common complaint from critics about Bonnie & Clyde is that, as fun as many find it, the production lacks overall edginess that would have made it a truly successful musical. Reviews generally conclude that fun but forgettable songs are sung by a strong cast that doesn't have much to work with character-wise. Critics take aim particularly at a weak book and lyrics."