Can a show opt out of reviews?

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 9:30pm

Independently from the "why would they..."

Could a Broadway production (or any for that matter) decide they do not want their show to be reviewed?

Does giving a public performance mean that anyone has the right to publish a review?

[ClumsyDude15]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 9:31pm

In the days of David Merrick, when he was doing 42nd Street, he would delay previews saying there was "a rat in theater" meaning a critic, he tried to ban them from coming before opening night. It cost him alot of money and angered many.

I remember hearing that on Broadway: The American Musical.

Updated On: 2/15/07 at 09:31 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 9:37pm

Years ago, some musicals were trying out @ Purchase I believe

The critics were not supposed to come & did. 3 shows came out of the 4 including Kiss Of The Spider Woman & My Favorite Year

[keen on kean]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 9:39pm

I guess the question is - why would they? Nothing pushes box office like raves - and if the show is SO bad that you don't want it reviewed, don't you already have bigger problems than critics?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 9:46pm

Many good shows have been panned by critics

Follies got mixed reviews if I recall

[C is for Company]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 9:47pm

Yep, Barnes trashed it. He also hated Company and look how that turned out

[D2]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 9:50pm

There were at least two shows in the '70s that never officially opened - BEATLEMANIA and SARAVA. Their previews went on so long that the critics just went and reviewed the shows anyway. SARAVA didn't last, BEATLEMANIA ran for over 900 performances.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 9:56pm

My question is mainly because I have a friend who got into a fight with a well known critic (from a publication read by many too).

Since then, he has done nothing but trash his shows. Unethical? Maybe, but it does have an impact on sales and overall reputation of the creatives.

I was just wondering if there is a legal way to avoid a review altogether. Can a producer ban reviwers from theatres? I suppose they could make their way in somehow if they wanted. But those Broadway examples are certainly interesting. I'm sure there are productions when bad reviews are not avoidable, and may benefit of not having one altogether.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 9:59pm

Out of town may be one thing, but Broadway productions can't bar critics from attending and reviewing their shows -- at least at some point after they've been running for a while. There was at least one major flop from the 80s (the name escapes me at the moment) that kept postponing opening night week after week, trying to fix itself. After previews had gone on for (I believe) nearly two months, Frank Rich and the other critics simply bought tickets to the show themselves (rather than waiting for a formal invitation with comp seats) and reviewed the show based on that. It was apparently a disaster and the reviews reflected that. Their justification was that if the show is open for business, taking out ads and charging full price to unsuspecting audiences, then there's nothing unfair about writing a review and in fact, it's a critics' obligation and duty to keep audiences informed.

Producers may be able to delay the opening and the critics' previews for a few extra weeks while they work out various changes and cuts (and reviewers will respect that for a while), but at a certain point -- especially in an era where shows have the nerve to charge $110-120 for previews, no matter how inferior or unfinished the show is -- the critics are going to show up.

Updated On: 2/15/07 at 09:59 PM

[C is for Company]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 9:59pm

Well then again, did Brantley's praise for Lestat ultimately help it's chances or preserve it's merit? I don't think so.

[D2]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 10:31pm

Margo, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the show you were referring to was LEGS DIAMOND. If I remember correctly, it played more previews than actual performances.

[WellIfYouInsist]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 10:37pm

^Maybe, but I remember a similar story about Aspects of Love. Aspects of Love, however, was in the first years of the 90's.

[D2]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 10:42pm

ASPECTS OF LOVE came into New York an established product, had a relatively short preview period and opened as scheduled in April, 1990. It got some pretty harsh reviews but managed to eke out an 11 month run.

BUT, a dreadful review of the London production a year earlier was printed before the show officially opened there. There was a big to do about that, ALW had a (justifiable) fit, the newspaper in question printed a retraction and a week or so later ran a rave review.

Updated On: 2/15/07 at 10:42 PM

[WellIfYouInsist]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 10:54pm

Leg's Diamond's first preview was Oct. 25, 1998.

[D2]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 10:57pm

1988

From IBDB:

Preview: Oct 25, 1988 Total Previews: 72
Opening: Dec 26, 1988
Closing: Feb 19, 1989 Total Performances: 64

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 10:59pm

I think it was either LEGS DIAMOND (which began previews Oct. 25, 1988, not '98 and had 72 previews and 64 performances) or NICK & NORA (which had 71 previews and 9 performances) that Rich and the other critics bought tix for, but I can't recall.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 11:00pm

ALW always seems to be having fits.

[D2]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 11:02pm

Yeah, he does. But in that one case I think it was a justifiable fit. The show was in previews in London, it was having terrible technical problems and to have bad word of mouth was one thing, but to have a major daily run a bad review before the show had even opened was a bit on the unfair side.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 11:03pm

I think you are thinking of NICK AND NORA, Margo.

[myManCape]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 11:08pm

I remember it was not to long ago, that a review was printed before the show opened. I believe it was a Fox news review of Lestat.
In reality if a critic wants to review a show, how can they be stopped? People on this bored review shows early, often the first preview. How is it any different with a professional critic? If they want to buy a ticket to the first preview and publish a review the next day, who can stop them? We live in a society where there is freedom of the press, they can print anything they want.
However if a critic did print a review early it would anger a lot of people, other papers and the production staff. The review would hold almost no weight and the critic and paper would lose a lot of respect from the theatre community, and you can bet they would not be invited to review any other shows for quite a while.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 11:09pm

myManCape:

It was PRYMATE.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 11:19pm

Well, as a matter of professional courtesy, major reviewers do wait until they are formally invited to attend a critics' preview and papers (and other sources) generally wait until the opening night curtain goes up to post reviews online (though occasionally there's a glitch and a review pops up a few hours early). If any publication were to make a habit of jumping the gun and reviewing shows prior to the press performances, it would be removed from the main press lists, its press credentials would be pulled, shows would pull advertising revenue from the paper and it wouldn't receive its pair of comp tickets for every show -- none of which would be worth it (it wouldn't exactly be a big scoop for any paper to run a theatre review a few days or even weeks early -- it's not as if it would sell any extra papers and plus it would look tacky and unprofessional to do so).

[myManCape]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 11:19pm

Foster, I dont know about the Prymate review. But this is what I was talking about. A Fox News Entertainment Review of Lestat out , a week and a half before opening night.

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?boardname=bway&thread=894178

Updated On: 2/15/07 at 11:19 PM

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 11:33pm

I don't think so...critics are going to come to shows sooner or later...you can't keep anyone from seeing a show. Plus, I don't see anything wrong with a theater review, whether it is a rave or not...

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 11:49pm

I think it was NICK AND NORA.

LEGS had its own problems, but a huge advanced sale, for its preview period at least. Although it underwent a lot of changes during that time.

Way to go Fierstein and Allen!