Brantley's Review of "Little Women" — Page 2

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#26

re: Brantley's Review of 'Little Women'

Posted: 1/24/05 at 4:12pm

I always enjoyed Rich -- a great, vivid prose style and terrific analytical skills. I agreed with him 90% of the time and when I didn't, he would explain his opinions so clearly that I knew where he was coming from, even when I disagreed with his overall conclusion.

Rath, check out some of the other reviews -- I think the New York Sun gave McGovern a whole paragraph (and there's a nice photo of her and Sutton). Look at the links on BroadwayStars.com

But, generally, I think it's wrong for the reviews not to in some way acknowledge how much of a crowd-pleaser McGovern clearly is. You can feel lukewarm about the show, but still give credit where credit's due.

"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie [http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/] "The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney

#27

re: Brantley's Review of 'Little Women'

Posted: 1/24/05 at 4:21pm

Margo - that lovely pic in the Sun is Foster and Carroll. Thanks for getting me all excited for NOTHING.

Have I ever shown you my Shattered Dreams box? It's in my Disappointment Closet. - Marge Simpson

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 04:21 PM

#28

re: Brantley's Review of 'Little Women'

Posted: 1/24/05 at 4:25pm

is it a little unfair to review play and musical together? What do you think about the idea for putting the critics on play and musical seperately.

#29

re: Brantley's Review of 'Little Women'

Posted: 1/24/05 at 4:45pm

LOL. Sorry Rath -- I've read way too many reviews of this damn showand it's all begining to blur together.

Not sure what the point of having seperate critics would be. It's all the same artform. Personally I have no peference for one or the other -- musicals or plays, classics or contemporary, off-Broadway or On -- good theatre is good there and bad theatre is bad theatre, whatever form it takes.

There's also the practical matter that theatre coverage in the industry is being cut back, not expanding. We're lucky to have even ONE critic reviewing theatre on a regular basis at all of the area news outlets. The Times has a few theatre reviewers -- Brantley, Isherwood, Zinoman, Gates -- but its overall theatre coverage has been cut back in the last few years (they got rid of the Friday theatre column and there used to be Sunday reviewer -- Walter Kerr at first, then Canby -- who would review the major productions to open in a given week, giving readers second opinion of each show from the Times..... no more). There just isn't enough interest in theatre to justify the expense of TWO critics at most news outlets.

And AGAIN for the 5th time, there just aren't nearly as many musicals as plays opening in a given year. A "play critic" would wind up having to review three or four times as many shows as a "musical critic." But the idea has no merit anyway. Theatre critics -- to the extent they are qualified for the job to begin with -- know how to evaluate both plays and musicals. For chrissakes, they're not that different, just different sub genres of the same artform.

"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie [http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/] "The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 04:45 PM

#30

re: Brantley's Review of 'Little Women'

Posted: 1/24/05 at 4:54pm

just wondering, the NY TIMES review mentions McGovern singing some kind of memorial to Beth. When i saw it in previews, the song after Beth's death was for Jo. McGovern had two big songs, one in each act, but i didn't think the second one was about Beth (though i could be remembering it incorrectly).

Otherwise, i did think the review was a little subjective. Of course the adaptation is "sketchy" as the novel has many subplots, and the musical also told us the story of Alcott herself, intermixed with Jo's character. But i thought it was fairly successful. There were choices i didn't agree with in preview (like doubling the Aunt and the Landlady, the only character to do so), but generally the "take" on the show was both respectful of the source and still accessible to a new generation and a new medium. i'd have to agree about the lyrics, however---the melodies were far more interesting than the ideas they expressed.

Will: They don't give out awards for helping people be gay... unless you count the Tonys. "I guarantee that we'll have tough times. I guarantee that at some point one or both of us will want to get out. But I also guarantee that if I don't ask you to be mine, I'll regret it for the rest of my life..."

#31

re: Brantley's Review of 'Little Women'

Posted: 1/24/05 at 4:56pm

This discussion is really interesting.

I have been interested in theatre critics for some time. For me, theatre critics are far more important and powerful than movie critics. As a common audience, I definitely will consider critics' opinion before spending my money. However, how to weight the opinion is an interesting question. I know there is no absolute right opinion,no matter from critics or theatregoer. However, I always weight critics, especially NYtimes'the most. Thus I like to hear more about the credibility of critics.

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $58

Tickets From $106

Tickets From $71