#1
Posted: 4/9/14 at 10:41am
Okay, so in my e-mail from Atlantic Theater, they have some pretty glowing quotes from Threepenny Opera reviews...and I'm thinking, hey, I read that Isherwood review, I don't remember him saying that. So I checked, and found this:
From the Atlantic e-mail:
"A chic-looking musical that moves efficiently and with a stylish gait. Ms. Clarke does a fine job of composing decadent yet decorous stage pictures. Mr. Park is vibrant. Ms. Osnes performs with glorious musicality."
From the actual Times review:
"Unfortunately, this chic-looking but pallid staging of Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill's scabrous musical drama is also pretty toothless. Directed and choreographed by Martha Clarke, the production moves efficiently and with a stylish gait through the underworld of London thieves, beggars and whores scheming to get ahead in a cutthroat world. At just over two hours, with intermission, it's certainly the thriftiest "Threepenny Opera" I've yet seen. But while Ms. Clarke does a fine job of composing decadent yet decorous stage pictures, she doesn't seem able to elicit performances with the requisite salty tang from her talented cast.
From the Atlantic e-mail, quoting Teachout in the WSJ:
"I've never heard a production better sung or played!"
From actual WSJ review:
"While I've never heard a "Threepenny" production that was better sung or played, the rough edges of Weill's score have been blunted in the process."
I'm an English major and a journalist. While I get that they have to find the good, even in bad reviews, you couldn't get away with mangling quotes like that--changing punctuation, not using a series of periods to show that you're compressing somthing, and so forth--in any term paper or newspaper story. How is that allowed in advertising? Beyond misleading, which I know is permissible, it seems dishonest and unethical.
Not to pick specifically on the Atlantic, but is this acceptable practice with people hawking theater these days?
From the Atlantic e-mail:
"A chic-looking musical that moves efficiently and with a stylish gait. Ms. Clarke does a fine job of composing decadent yet decorous stage pictures. Mr. Park is vibrant. Ms. Osnes performs with glorious musicality."
From the actual Times review:
"Unfortunately, this chic-looking but pallid staging of Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill's scabrous musical drama is also pretty toothless. Directed and choreographed by Martha Clarke, the production moves efficiently and with a stylish gait through the underworld of London thieves, beggars and whores scheming to get ahead in a cutthroat world. At just over two hours, with intermission, it's certainly the thriftiest "Threepenny Opera" I've yet seen. But while Ms. Clarke does a fine job of composing decadent yet decorous stage pictures, she doesn't seem able to elicit performances with the requisite salty tang from her talented cast.
From the Atlantic e-mail, quoting Teachout in the WSJ:
"I've never heard a production better sung or played!"
From actual WSJ review:
"While I've never heard a "Threepenny" production that was better sung or played, the rough edges of Weill's score have been blunted in the process."
I'm an English major and a journalist. While I get that they have to find the good, even in bad reviews, you couldn't get away with mangling quotes like that--changing punctuation, not using a series of periods to show that you're compressing somthing, and so forth--in any term paper or newspaper story. How is that allowed in advertising? Beyond misleading, which I know is permissible, it seems dishonest and unethical.
Not to pick specifically on the Atlantic, but is this acceptable practice with people hawking theater these days?
