Everyone Loves It But You...Why?

Has there ever been a show that you just couldn't stand -- but it seems that everyone else in the Western Hemisphere absolutely loves it? I'm not talking about the easy targets like the R&H ouevre, usually scorned because of treacle-y sentimentality, or the Weissler offerings, with casts populated by stars of TV years gone by. I'm talking about bona-fide hits, regarded by the general populace AND the intelligentsia as masterworks...but personally, they leave you cold as a mackerel.

I'll start.

One word: EVITA. I never liked it, I didn't like the score, I didn't like the staging, I found it dreadfully boring. And still find it mind-numbing to this day. Ew. Perhaps my indifference is because I don't like the title character, I don't know. I just found it incredibly over-rated and would rather stay at home cleaning the wax build-up off of my linoleum than ever sit through another production of it.

That wasn't too harsh, was it? Just my insignificant opinion.

Updated On: 11/20/03 at 10:10 AM

A CHORUS LINE, a collection of songs I'd never consider a score, let alone even being a quality collection of songs, two and a half hours of whiny dancers and singers whining endlessly about their crappy little whiny lives. I've rarely had as unenjoyable an experience at the theater as I did seeing A CHORUS LINE.

But lots of people sure do love it.

(Great topic, rlbgbc!)

ELAINE STRITCH AT LIBERTY. Everyone was wetting their panties over the overweening magnificence of this. I thought it was just OK. Was bored with the show-biz and 'and THEN I dated' anecdotes of the first act (and yes, I was pissed she dissed GOLDILOCKS so abruptly). Act II was a big improvement. Anyone discussing talking about their drinking problem could have been maudlin self-indulgence, but Stritch adressed it with a wry, clear-eyed honesty that lacked any shred of self-pity. Now, THAT was gripping.

I'm with Al on Ragtime.

---

Auggie -- BINGO! I forgot about LA CAGE. In short, I found it patronizing and lame. And not very entertaining, to boot. Hated it, hated it, hated it. I did find the Cagelles campy, though.

Hairspray- one of the most trite, unoriginal pieces of trash I have ever seen. The fact that one of the least talented actresses known to man (with a voice that could make a person want to go deaf) was in it didn't help.

Mamma Mia- don't even get me started.

Updated On: 11/20/03 at 10:36 AM

Mamma Mia and Hairspray...both would be great shows for soeone seeking entertainment with no real value or weight. I just couldn't stand them.

Thoroughly Modern Millie is my culprit! Sitting there listening to an uninteresting and mediocre score annoyed me to no end. I couldn't understand what the big deal was. Love song, after love song, unexciting performances...it just was a dismal evening of theater for me. Harriet Harris was out, so I didn't get to enjoy her performance. Sutton Foster sang well, but she had nothing good to sing. I have never had a more mediocre evening of theater...sadly.

the book for La Cage Aux Folles was awful. i am forever amazed at how folks involved with a show lose perspective of what works and what doesn't.

---

i know i'll get attacked, but for me it's LA MANCHA. Now, i should actually withold judgement until i have seen a major revival, as i didn't see the original, and missed Stokes Mitchell. i know i shouldn't judge on the movie or regional productions alone.

That being said, i have always found the piece pretentious overall and the score repetitive. There are undeniably thrilling moments in the score: "I Don Quixote" and Sancho's counterpoint, the Barber's episode, "Always Thinking of You" trio, and of course "Dream." The choral anthemic "Dream" finale is stirring as well. But i have never cared for Aldonza's music, and in general the recitatives are so much the same the evening just drags. Probably inventive staging might solve that, however.

---

Not to mention all the flaws in 'Sunday's' book in Act 1.

Dot is portrayed as co-dependent and the writing of her borders on misogyny. The supporting characters are given nothing but the two-dimensions they have in the painting (giggly girls, a stiff soldier, an agnry boatman.) Did they do anything original with the characters? Did they find a way to link the characters to George or his painting? His placement of them, treatment of them and interaction with them is completely arbitrary, just as most of Act 1 ends up being.

Rent.
And I've exlained why I don't like this show on other threads, so I really don't feel like explaining again. :)

---

Popa,

I would argue that the petty lives of these folks arbitrarily arranged by an outside observer who could care less about their stories into one glorious, moving piece of art is exactly what the first act is about.

I personally found it ravishing. Others do not. And I completely understand why. It just hit a chord.

ALL RIGHT...my top picks for the loved shows that drove me nuts:

MEDEA w/ Fiona Shaw. A muddled piece that tried to bring a modern sensibility (heard both Shaw and Deborah Warner say that Jason and Medea were like the Tony and Carmela Soprano) that didn't jibe with the classic text. Every single supporting performer was dreadful and Shaw's performance, though filled with a lot of fun stuff, never amounted to much. The Chekovian ending destroyed the purpose of the piece.

And...to a much lesser degree...oh God...here it comes...don't hate me:

Sweeney Todd.

I KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S WRONG WITH ME!!! I LOOOOVED performing in it, but if I never see another production, I won't cry.

---