Bonnie & Clyde deserves better

First: if you only have negative things to say and haven't actually attended a performance, please refrain from participating here.

I live in California and had not been able to see the show until last night (Saturday, 12/10), and so I now make my remarks having seen and experienced the real thing.

While I am familiar with and admit to liking a lot of Frank Wildhorn's previous works, I would never have guessed the music in Bonnie & Clyde was his. The score for this production is really very good, regardless of who composed it. The show as a whole, is very entertaining as well. While I did not immediately love it, I had several of the songs in my head all night long and into Sunday. My appreciation for the show has grown while reflecting on what I had just seen and heard. I think all involved with the show deserve better than what appears to be an upcoming an early closing.


Many ask "why a musical about thugs" or "why a movie remade into a musical"? On the surface, I echo (or did echo) those same questions. But do a little research, or better, just go see the thing. The story told in this musical isn't simply about thugs, nor is it a remake of a movie. It's about two very young people, what they came from, what lead them to their lives as criminals, and most importantly (for this particular telling) the relationship between those two people. It's a different take on a very compelling story of what the creative team felt was the plausible relationship of these very real people. And it's good....very good.

The reason I didn't love it (initially) is because I didn't care so much for the non-musical aspects of the show. The developement of the characters and those parts of the story came off a bit slow for me. However, even the acting of the speaking parts, which I would re-do if I was the "new decision maker", was very very good. When the music starts and the players sing, the show really becomes something special though.

I think the show's faults are far far far outweighed by its strengths - which are awesome performances and outstanding music.

In the end, somthing really stood out: The theater was darn near 100% full - I don't care what the average ticket price was that night, the entire theater rising to it's collective feat to applaude the cast says something about the entertainment offered by this show and its extremely talented cast and creative team.


Bonnie & Clyde, on this night, deserved this appreciative audience's response. I think it deserves a lot more audiences and a lot more appreciation.

Updated On: 12/12/11 at 02:07 AM

PlayItAgain, I haven't seen it or listened to much of it so I don't have an opinion but that is so silly, to argue that the box office would reflect the quality etc.. It is brought up so often here I feel stupid to be the one that has to say it, though. But bad shows do well (SPIDER-MAN) and good shows do poorly (SCOTTSBORO BOYS). The box office receipts might sometimes be related to the quality of a show but it is not necessarily the case.

---

Updated On: 12/12/11 at 03:53 AM

well thats only half of what he said...i think the emphasis was on if you ONLY have negative things to say...and have NEVER even seen a performance...which makes sense to me. How can you make an accurate judgement and never see the show?

I haven't seen the show but have hard some songs which were nice. I hope the show lasts for a while so I can see it and make my own judgement. I like to see all shows do well.

Why do the Bonnie and Clyders continue to propulgate this myth that if you don't like the show you must not have seen it?

I sat through the show and found it to be marginally better than Wildhorn's other nonsense. Act 1 was dreadfully boring, mostly because nothing happened. Act 2 was entertaining enough. The leads were charismatic and did their best, but are much better than the material they're given.

Honestly, Jeremy Jordan's considerable talents are much better served in Newsies than in this.

Is it wrong that I enjoyed DRACULA more than this show?

"No show "deserves" to close within a month of it's opening."

Of course it does, if they can't sell enough seats to meet their budget. Where do you come by such a naive philosophy? (You should use "its" in this case, not "it's.")

Broadway is a business, not a charity for bad writers.

Charity cases do not receive Broadway openings. Charity cases often don't see life outside of a staged reading, at most. Once any production reaches this level of acclaim, it's at the mercy of the general public who are, at the moment, heading to see headliners and large-scale successful productions for the holidays, not new musicals coming off of a rough round of reviews.

I am by no means making any arguments in B&C's favor- I highly doubt I'll be returning to see it before it bites the dust. I'm also not making any arguments for those who are rallying in its defense because it "deserves" better reviews and support- loyalty does not make up for generic marketing tactics, an ill-timed run and an overall lackluster score.

Is it wrong that I enjoyed DRACULA more than this show?

Oh thank god somebody else feels this way. I haven't dared voice this opinion because saying "I liked DRACULA more than BONNIE & CLYDE" could imply that I actually liked DRACULA, which I emphatically did not...but I had a better time with DRACULA because the talent was better and the book would veer into ridiculous camp with every other line or so (and was helped along by the remedial accents sported by the cast), and therefore made the schmaltzy Wildhorn score and the hammy lyrics part of this cohesive fabric of unintentional train wreck theatre that was "entertaining," in the most ironic sense of that word. BONNIE & CLYDE is way too earnest and try-hard, which isn't always a bad thing in a musical, but is a death sentence for a musical that is as much of a thudding bore as BONNIE & CLYDE turned out to be.

"No show "deserves" to close within a month of it's opening."

I guess you are too young to remember the days when shows that got bad (yet better) reviews than B&C posted their closing notice on opening night. Open the show Monday and clear out your dressing room on Tuesday.

Hey, I adored The Scottsboro Boys, yet I would never say it "deserved better." It was a wonderful show that was clearly not going to appeal to enough people to make a success on Broadway.

From the viewpoint there are indeed a considerable number of poeple who love this show, it is a shame tickets are not selling nearer full price to allow the show to continue operating.

Then you got the point. Not every musical HAS to be on Broadway, even if all these producers think they have a fair shot.

---

There is no claim being made (here) this show must be on Broadway - and the apparent whining you suggest doesn't exist either.

Perhaps you could spend time doing something more constructive - and move on yourselves.

But this passive kvetching about a show "deserving" anything is just pointless.

My point was that it's rarely called "kvetching", "whining" or even complained about when the show in question happens to be Caroline or Change, Grey Gardens, Drowsy Chaperone or Scottsboro Boys. I don't disagree with the opinion that audiences ultimately determine the financial success of a show, but let's not pretend we see this same speech regarding dispirited fans of every flop. It's actually MORE common to hear that ______ does NOT deserve to be on Broadway. And yet that notion is rarely challenged.

---

Updated On: 12/12/11 at 04:40 PM