Didn't like the Chaperone — Page 2

I agree, but Tiny is telling people not to buy tickets, therefore, his opinion is being read as fact. If you want people to honor your opinion, then don't write things telling others to stay away just because you didn't like it. When I read your "stay away" comments, it quickly made me think of all the times you've told us to go see Brooklyn when people were saying "stay away". Just kind of makes no sense.

Updated On: 4/8/06 at 06:53 PM

I disagree: there are good and bad shows, and this goes way beyond on whether the audiences like them or dislike them.
The art evolves and artists have learned to develop what we have seen onstage through the ages.
This brings a responsibility of keeping theatre progressing, and taking risks while doing so, whether this works or not, that may the subjective part. But we cannot determine the quality of theatre based on likes or dislikes.... if that was the case imagine what the greatest artist of all times would be (scary!)

Sorry, had to comment on that, now back to The Drowsy Chaperone.

---

Updated On: 4/8/06 at 07:03 PM

i saw the show in la and really wanted to love it... but sadly i didn't. i did think the premise was brilliant!

but for me, bottom line... it just wasn't as funny as it thought it was or wanted to be.

i did love sutton though.

not sure what the show looks like in ny. but since it's a new work i do hope it turns out to be a hit!

"Bad" is indeed relative. Most people on this board would say "Cats" is a BAD show-- but it's one of the most popular in the world. Obviously, most people think it's "good."

Personally, if I could, I'd see every single show. There are VERY few shows that aren't worth a few hours consideration.

And we don't really have people's "credentials" in here either, as most of us are anonymous.
Tiny-Toon's experience could've been his first musical or one after many years of research and publishing theatre history and criticism.
So, take it as any other's opinion... I personally have a different criteria when judging a show's quality, based on what others write or talk about it.

---

What bothers me most Tiny is that you have gien (admittedly) no review. If you are going to trash a show, it is unnacceptable to not post a review.

---

At least they came to Broadway with a well crafted, talent-filled, solid product, unlike some of the misfires that are currently in search of either a coherent plot and music, intellegent direction and staging and/or engaging performances. They still seem to have the nerve to charge the same money as TDC that,personal tastes aside, is a complete show and is entertaining the masses, perhaps better than the other new offerings.

Hawker, there have been lots of shows that got fabulous reviews out of town and didn't in NYC. That's kind of beside the point - besides, CHAPERONE has changed since Los Angeles. It's arguably "not" the same show anymore.

And you think this board is the source for critical pans? Try reading Talkinbroadway.com. As I said earlier - the nasty reports on CHAPERON there make Tiny Toon seem like Mr. Rogers.

having this show as the subject of my icon, I am pretty much in favor of this show, but an opinion is an opinion, so I respect that, but just don't tell people to not buy tickets because you didn't like it
sorry if i appear snobbish or acting-like-im-so-coolish, just had to say that...

It still doesn't speak to how SO many peope (professionals who see 30 or 40 shows a year) could be so completely wrong.

Theater criticism is a complete mystery to me. John Simon loves "Jersy Boys" but skewers, let's say, a the McCintosh revival of "Carousel".

It's beginning to seem almost a random process where very little if any credibility is given to the public who, in the end, decide whether a show fades into obscurity or becomes a legend.

Amazon.com taught me something: Even a book like "To Kill A Mockingbird which in a poll by American librarians was considered far and away the second-most beloved book in America after the Bible, there are stillp people who think it is a self-indulgent, artistically flawed, bore. Hell, even studios had to be convinced to make the movie which, of course, resulted in the character of Atticus Finch being voted by the AFI as the most-beloved film hero in the history of American film.

So, the question becomes "Are thepeople who dislike the book just as accurate in their appraisal as those who have lauded it?"

If so, then there is no absolute aesthetic: beauty is relative, truth is relative, and goodness are all merely subjective. If that's the case we live in a cosmos that is in chaos.

Something doesn't add up about relativism.

Hawker what is so revolutionary about "there is no universally loved" piece of art? Art is by definition devisive.

And how is a show being a hit in Los Angeles but not in NYC any different than the hundreds of shows that have been hits in NYC but not London? Or vice versa?

Taste is not something that is universal. It often varies from town to town. Like I said, there have been several shows that were hits out of town that for whatever reason didn't appeal to NYC critics and audiences. It's not really about professionalism.

well, on a lighter note, i love your icon, tinytoon!

:)

sorry, needed to say that