Fun Home Reviews!!!! — Page 2

That woman is not an actual critic in my mind, so I don't take her seriously. Does anyone remember her synopsis...I'm sorry, REVIEW...of THE NANCE? She can't write well at all, and she certainly doesn't have much taste.

@RippedMan

agreed. good points.

Wow.... AndrewAndrew...that sounds terrible.

I really like this paragraph, the last in Brantley's review.

“Children begin by loving their parents,” Oscar Wilde wrote. “After a time they judge them. Rarely, if ever, do they forgive them.” Every phase of that epigram seems to be taking place simultaneously in “Fun Home.” But this show has room for forgiveness, too. It knows that in those endless enigmas we call family, judgments are never final, and love never fades altogether. Within such uncertainty, “Fun Home” finds a shining clarity that lights up the night.

And AndrewAndrew, that review is so amateurish, you should beg BWW to take it down!

Updated On: 10/23/13 at 02:23 PM

Hey, that's After Eight's favorite critic.

---

I liked it a lot and think it is absolutely worth seeing and important- but would agree I would personally give it 4/5.

---

I'm thrilled that the critics agreed that Fun Home is ground breaking, and terrific. I really hope it has a new life beyond the Public.

For the few of you who are poo-pooing the show, I'm guessing you didn't see it. If you actually saw it, you would be raving.

I don't know if I'm one of the alleged poo-poo'ers, but I assure you I did see it, liked it but genuinely think that it doesn't succeed nearly as well as it could and genuinely believe that among its many strength are some major problems. Obviously, others disagree with me.... that's show business.

"What problems?"


Dismal, doleful, and depressing. Ugly songs. No wonder the critics raved!


"Groundbreaking."

One needs to be careful here. Both as word and concept, this term has been so cavalierly -- and malignly -- misused, it has become something of a con.

Let's look at things squarely as they are, shall we? Just because something "breaks new ground" doesn't mean the results are necessarily good. One can break up the ground of a beautiful garden and turn into a toxic waste dump. Does that mean the world is any better off for that?

As far as our beloved theatre is concerned, the "groundbreakers" have done neither it nor us any favors. Some years back, a stinker entitled Finer Noble Gases "broke ground" by having an actor face the audience and urinate into a large drum. Was our theatrical heritage enhanced by that "groundbreaking" moment?

As far as the opus in question is concerned, there is absolutely nothing groundbreaking about it with respect to its subject, as gay women have already been the protagonists of past shows, including at least one musical, as reported on this board, and family dysfunction has long been a staple of our stages. Yes, it may very well be true that we have never previously experienced a child miauling her longing for a delivery woman in blue jeans. The problem is, our theatre was far better off without such a "groundbreaking" moment.

Sometimes it's better to leave the ground alone, edges unsharpened, and envelopes unpushed.

Ignore AfterEight, as he certainly does not speak for me and my problems with calling the show flawless.

Many of us addressed our issues with the show in our "review" posts about it. None of us are taking a crap on it. Some people just don't think it's a masterpiece. How is that "poo-pooing" it...? I still have no problem calling it a great, important musical. Relax.

What problems?

Some underwritten roles, especially mom; some great songs mixed it with some cutesy numbers that go over well with the audience but which I found trite, uneven in terms of genuine poignancy and forced dramatic tension, the opening number didn't work for me and pinpoints a big problem - the show approaches generalized family dysfunction as if it were shattering a glass ceiling that was pulverized decades ago.

I thought the coffin production number was awful, however crowd pleasing.

The show could go even further in exploring what is groundbreaking in it - the conflict between two generations of gay people, when it gets there - the keys song, especially, and a few of the book scenes, it's a home run, but it needs more of a throughline in contrasting the experiences between father and daughter.

The score runs the gamut between full out brilliant - the keys song, changing my major, the finale - and generic uberdrama and cutesy failure.

Yes, I know, many disagree with me and think the show is thoroughly on track. I didn't see it that way. Instead, I see a piece of serious musical theater composition that could be thoroughly satisfying with more work, could actually be extraordinary for its many highlights and for me doesn't reach that level because of these issues I have with it.

Updated On: 10/27/13 at 11:57 AM

Thanks, Finding Namo, I have not but very much want to read the novel. But being true to the novel is not the same as being successful as a show; obviously I may well be in the minority in feeling that this is strong stuff that still misses its mark; clearly the majority love it with few if any qualifications.

Updated On: 10/27/13 at 12:51 PM

I would agree with Namo that the mother's stage time is fairly similar to her appearances in the book (there's a reason Bechdel saw it fit to create a second installment focusing on her). "Days" basically encapsulates the woman's entire struggle in the book efficiently.

---