How was Tale Today?- Page 6

[Testing1232]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 3:54pm

<< In fact, I think this thread fascinating. >>

Totally agree !!! The fact that Jill has taken the time to post is a gift, as far as I am concerned.

[JillS]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 4:04pm

Thanks Scott,

Though Barcelona's comment is exactly why I suggested PM ing me about the details from now on. I have no interest in criticizing Ben Brantley, nor do I think I did. I think I pointed to comments in his review that had nothing to do with the actual show he was reviewing but "other information" he came into the theater with and through which he must have been, at least in part, filtering his review.

And Barcelona, we're not trying to accomplish anything - just having a conversation. You are apparently not alone in not connecting to the "grandiose" english material - that appears to be the opinion of many of the critics who admitted as much in their reviews. But that is not actually the opinion of the majority of theatergoers who continue to connect with and long for shows like "Phantom" and "Les Miz" and, yes, "Tale". When critics profess their opinion to be the opinion of the entire audience around them - when they claim that there is nothing moving or affecting about a piece, that it is "stolid", while ignoring the people crying and sniffling around them, then they are being dishonest (or maybe just oblivious) and doing a disservice.

As to how it might play in London - Charles Dickens granddaughter was here to see the show our closing weekend and she was wondering the very same thing. She thought the show was great and then came back twice more - to see the final two performances. She was so appalled and angered by the reviews and the fact that we were closing that she wrote a letter to the NYTimes. (let's see if they print it She told me that, as a direct descendant and patron of the Dickens Museum, she sees just about every adaptation of his work and she admitted to coming in expecting the show to stink! (she said most of the adaptations she sees ARE drek and she'd already read some of our reviews so she was expecting the worst!) Having her here added a nice little punctuation (i prefer to think of it as an ellipsis) to the very bittersweet journey of this show.

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 4:08pm

did you get my PM?

[barcelona20]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 4:49pm

Jill,

I have to take exception to your statement about critics, "When critics profess their opinion to be the opinion of the entire audience around them". A critic's job is not to look at everyone around them and take down their reactions to judge a show. That goes against the fundamental law of being a critic. You are supposed to express how YOU feel about a piece. That's exactly why critics get paid, for their opinion, not the masses. When I read critics reviews, there are some I know that I will disagree with every time, simply because they have different tastes. I do often think that critics sometimes forget to put things in a frame of reference when reviewing something, and that is something I wish they would improve upon. I.e. You can't review Legally Blonde the same way as South Pacific. Furthermore, there is often a disconnect between critical success and box office success. Just look at the many "successful" scary films Hollywood continues to produce and receives a 0 rating from the critics.

[winston89]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 6:36pm

barcelona20, you have to realize something here. Many is the time that we as theatre goers go in with thoughts about a given show before we see it and sometimes those thoughts cloud our enjoyment of the show and sometimes we go out of the theatre with our thoughts of the show being quite different then when we walked in. I am sure critics do this all the time because they have inside information and they know more about the show before it opens then the typical jo theatre goer. But the thing is is that they shouldn't let that taint their view of the show but they do. I think that what Jill is saying is that Brantley had some negative feelings about Tale from the get go and just used that as a basis for writing his review without taking into account anything he was seeing on that stage.

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 6:57pm

But why? Why do critics sometimes trash undeserving shows. Haven't you noticed that sometimes there seems to be a code of behavior and if a show arrives in New York and hasn't jumped through the appropriate hoops...

Shows that come in with huge word-of-mouth have to live up to their expectation. Smaller shows - sleepers - can sometimes sneak in under the radar and gather reviews that attract an audience. There seems to be a pretentious code.

Updated On: 11/17/08 at 06:57 PM

[winston89]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 8:00pm

The only trend I know is that most shows tend to get overall similar reviews. For example if a show is a rave from the critics standpoint that is because a majority of the critics said so and the opposite if the show is a flop as far as the critics say. I don't think that shows that come in with a huge word of mouth it has to worry about the critics. I would use wicked as an example but I can't because I don't know A what the word of mouth was like when it tried out in San Fransisco and B what the word of mouth was like there.

A recent show that I can think of is Shrek. From what I understand it had some word of mouth in Seattle because it was Shrek onstage and people were curious about how it would be done. I think that a similar thing will happen in New York and that the producers don't need to worry about what the critics will say. Look at Little Mermaid as another example. It is selling because it is Little Mermaid despite getting bad reviews. I think that that the same would happen for Shrek. But keep in mind that this is my personal opinion and I am not speaking based on fact or anything like that.

[JillS]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 9:24pm

I never said it was a critic's job to look around them and try to interpret what other people are thinking or feeling. I said they ought not to present their own opinion as a statement of fact to the exclusion of the possibility that anyone else is having a different reaction.

i haven't read the critic's handbook lately but when in doubt I like to take a page from Alexander Pope's Essay On Criticism

'Tis hard to say, if greater Want of Skill
Appear in Writing or in Judging ill,
But, of the two, less dang'rous is th' Offence,
To tire our Patience, than mis-lead our Sense:
Some few in that, but Numbers err in this,
Ten Censure wrong for one who Writes amiss;
A Fool might once himself alone expose,
Now One in Verse makes many more in Prose.
'Tis with our Judgments as our Watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own.
In Poets as true Genius is but rare,
True Taste as seldom is the Critick's Share;


This part's good too

A perfect Judge will read each Work of Wit
With the same Spirit that its Author writ,
Survey the Whole, nor seek slight Faults to find,
Where Nature moves, and Rapture warms the Mind;

Whoever thinks a faultless Piece to see,
Thinks what ne'er was, nor is, nor e'er shall be.
In ev'ry Work regard the Writer's End,
Since none can compass more than they Intend;
And if the Means be just, the Conduct true,
Applause, in spite of trivial Faults, is due.
As Men of Breeding, sometimes Men of Wit,
T' avoid great Errors, must the less commit,
Neglect the Rules each Verbal Critick lays,
For not to know some Trifles, is a Praise.
Most Criticks, fond of some subservient Art,
Still make the Whole depend upon a Part,
They talk of Principles, but Notions prize,
And All to one lov'd Folly Sacrifice.

[JillS]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 9:24pm

I never said it was a critic's job to look around them and try to interpret what other people are thinking or feeling. I said they ought not to present their own opinion as a statement of fact to the exclusion of the possibility that anyone else is having a different reaction.

i haven't read the critic's handbook lately but when in doubt I like to take a page from Alexander Pope's Essay On Criticism

'Tis hard to say, if greater Want of Skill
Appear in Writing or in Judging ill,
But, of the two, less dang'rous is th' Offence,
To tire our Patience, than mis-lead our Sense:
Some few in that, but Numbers err in this,
Ten Censure wrong for one who Writes amiss;
A Fool might once himself alone expose,
Now One in Verse makes many more in Prose.
'Tis with our Judgments as our Watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own.
In Poets as true Genius is but rare,
True Taste as seldom is the Critick's Share;


This part's good too

A perfect Judge will read each Work of Wit
With the same Spirit that its Author writ,
Survey the Whole, nor seek slight Faults to find,
Where Nature moves, and Rapture warms the Mind;

Whoever thinks a faultless Piece to see,
Thinks what ne'er was, nor is, nor e'er shall be.
In ev'ry Work regard the Writer's End,
Since none can compass more than they Intend;
And if the Means be just, the Conduct true,
Applause, in spite of trivial Faults, is due.
As Men of Breeding, sometimes Men of Wit,
T' avoid great Errors, must the less commit,
Neglect the Rules each Verbal Critick lays,
For not to know some Trifles, is a Praise.
Most Criticks, fond of some subservient Art,
Still make the Whole depend upon a Part,
They talk of Principles, but Notions prize,
And All to one lov'd Folly Sacrifice.

[JillS]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 9:41pm

Oops! Sorry for repeating myself

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 11:41pm

Sent another PM. Please confirm that you've received it. (This time, I've saved a copy elsewhere.)

[JillS]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 1:44am

got it. just responded.

[Dre2387]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 2:09am

glad to see I'm not the only one at 2am reading this thread. :)

[dramamama611]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 6:06am

EVERYONE sees things with their own personal "baggage". Our mood, our knowledge (or lack of it) etc. A wonderful show should transcend that....and draw us in. A poor show can do that as well.

I have definitely had shows that changed my preconcieved notions...both positve and negative.

And it is most certainly the reviewer job to state HIS OR HER opinion....not to judge what others might be feeling. Is he really suppose to add: but everyone else seemed to like it? A review is opinion...the writer's opinion.

Jill -- This is not meant as any sort of attack on your or your show....as I've said before, I didn't have the chance to see it. I'm sure it must be a heartbreaking experience to endure. As a director that puts their work on the line for judgement; I know how frustrating it is when your work is NOT seen in the realm of your vision. When I get criticism it's so easy to say THEY didn't get it. But then I have to truly look at my productiton, and figure out why. Ultimately its my responsibility to make sure my vision is clear to ALL of the audience.

As far as out of town buzz making or breaking a show: didn't Cry Baby come with a great deal of hype? And ALL the reviewers do NOT always agree, they run the gamit (NO idea how to spell that!) Additionally, with the downfall of the newspaper (and Americans lack of interest in reading ANYTHING) it is increasingly MORE difficult to blame the press.

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 10:44am

Perhaps it's not just the press... Mounting a Broadway show is a complex process. A community is formed and a relationship between that collective and the larger community has to also be forged. There are producers and their administrative and marketing teams and designers and stagehands and performers and then there's the theater community at large with it's critics and demi-critics (us) to name just a few. To varying degrees we're all involved.

The failure of, A Tale of Two Cities, was largely blamed on the material, but I wonder if along the way the process - the collaboration - somehow shaped that material in ways that weren't initially intended.

I for one want to listen to, A Tale of Two Cities, again. I truly hope that a definitive version of the score is recorded and released for all of us to enjoy.

[winston89]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 11:16am

I don't think that the critics have as much power as they used to because there are other ways in today's world to get information on a given show. I also think that people are often forming their opinions rather then listening to someone else. I think that word of mouth in today's theatre world is more powerful then the critics are. Remember there was a time on Broadway where something like a bad write up from the times could close a show. This is not the case anymore.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 2:45pm

"Remember there was a time on Broadway where something like a bad write up from the times could close a show. This is not the case anymore."

Glory Days.
High Fidelity.
The Pirate Queen.
The Times They Are A-Changin'.
Coram Boy.
Hot Feet.
The Blonde in the Thunderbird.
Lennon.
In My Life.
The Woman in White.
Ring of Fire.
Lestat.
Festen.
The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial.

[JillS]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 3:47pm

Yankee Fan. I'm with you on this one.

Winston, I have to respectfully disagree. If a lot of other factors are with you (good economy, good advance, good time of season, lots of money to advertise) word of mouth may (possibly) save a show that gets slammed. But word of mouth takes months and months to build if you're a show starting from scratch as we were - and the reviews are now eblasted around the world in a matter of seconds. One might say the NYTimes is half way around the world while word of mouth is still putting its shoes on. (except these days it's actually been around the world 80 times and then some)

Also, if certain media outlets like the Times or any of the other major "print" papers weren't still the go-to source for anyone interested and the "accepted" arbiter of taste in the mind of the public, we would have been seen as having mixed to good reviews across the board. The majority of bloggers, professional and non, and radio were positive - the print bastions were negative. No one I encountered at the theater said "hey I read the rave on Huffington Post or in Connecticut Post or NYC.com or I heard the rave on the radio." They all said they read the review in the Times (followed by "what the heck show did they see?" Actually, the language was usually a lot more colorful and all the more amusing because it was usually a very sweet looking older lady from New Jersey or Long Island who had suddenly found the more profane part of her vocabulary.) The fact is that a show's primary audience in the first weeks and months is always going to be the tri state area and those folk look to the Times for a review. My naivete about that subject got a jolt on the Monday night press preview before our Thursday opening. I knew that members of the press had been coming since the previous Saturday and would be coming up to and through the opening. But on Monday night the cast and creative team (sans me) were all having a cow because they knew the Times was there that night. "tonight's the most important night of your life; after tonight you can relax" i was told. i was like - "wha?" ironically, we had an amazing show that night, with only press and our regular preview audience- and no appreciable papering that I was aware of - and everybody felt so great about the show afterwards. That's why when the reviews came out everybody was in shock. It just didn't seem possible that those reviews had come out of that performance in that theater. Go figure!

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 5:04pm

I too agree. The New York Times has always had far more power than they should. Given this knowledge, and the constant outcries against the Times' power over the New York theater scene, I wonder why the League of Producers haven't demanded the Times send 3 or 4 critics to major openings and print more than one, or at least a lead review with the other critic's overall grade(s). Sort of what's done for film: From the Balcony, or the online, Rotten Tomatoes.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 5:18pm

Scott Briefer, that last statement is utterly ridiculous. Do you even know what Rotten Tomatoes is??

Rotten Tomatoes is an amalgamation of a variety of critics (I don't even think the Times is included).

You don't see Tony Scott reviewing the same movie as Manohla Dargis.

I can't imagine anyone other than Brantley or Isherwood reviewing a high profile show. Don't you remember the hatchet-job that that woman (whose name escapes me...any help?) wrote during last year's strike where she criticized all the shows that were still playing?

I've never read such a non-nonsensical post in my entire life.

ETA: This is the article I refer to, by Caryn James:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/theater/20jame.html?scp=5&sq=mary+poppins+strike&st=nyt

You really would want to hurt a show even more by adding a voice like this to the mix? She's not a theater critic, but still!
Updated On: 11/18/08 at 05:18 PM

[maddiem]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 5:21pm

They did not see the same show we saw Jill.. We saw a beautiful moving musical that made me laugh and made me cry and I could have seen it over and over again.. This is an industry that does not like outsiders and Jill and the producers are just that.. and the NY Times was so arrogant he even critiqued Charles Dickens..Pretty soon Broadway will be a theme park because they can't stop Disney or Dreamworks..

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 5:34pm

Yankeefan007,

I do know what Rotten Tomatoes is. And, I don't understand why the Times couldn't maintain 2 or 3 top string critics that review the major openings. Sort of like Siskell and Ebert's, At the Movies, was. I realize that these film critics were from different papers, but they came together to provide a new way to comment on contemporary film. AND, their collaboration was very successful.

I am not suggesting unqualified voices be given space where inappropriate. I'm only suggesting several viewpoints from one source where the reader / potential audience member can get a more rounded perspective.

Updated On: 11/18/08 at 05:34 PM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 8:27pm

Jill,

I want to join the chorus who thank you for posting on this thread.

When I've discussed the premature closing of Tale, I always ask one question, and I think I am going to take the opportunity to ask you that.

I would like to preface it by saying that I saw Tale twice, and loved it. I thought you did a wonderful job of condensing the story, and thought the book for the musical was very good, and was disappointed that the critics didn't give you more credit for that. (For the record, I was also disappointed that you didn't get more credit for putting humor into the book)

So on that note, I've been asking everyone:

Why, in a show that you know is gonna be compared to Les Miz, would you make the song that ends act one called "Until Tomorrow?"

I'm sure the answer lies in putting artistic needs before commercial needs, yet still, I was actually at the same performance as Brantley, and I certainly didn't hear any specifics from him or anyone, but it was one of those things I could just tell at intermission, that everyone was thinking it's just like Les Miz after the act one closer -- regardless of any other aspects of the show that differed. I feel like those who were disposed to think it a second-rate Les Miz felt completely validated in that thought because of that one song alone.

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 9:05pm

I'm curious to see if this thread makes it to 7 pages!!!! On my computer, we're already at 6.

Now this is important!

[winston89]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 11:14pm

Yes, the times is and will always be the go to source for the local theatre going crowd ( tri sate area). But, I don't think that the critics are always as powerful as they used to be. There have been shows that the Times has bashed that have gone on to or are having successful runs. The Times hated Wicked and The Little Mermaid. Wicked is the biggest mega musical Broadway has seen since the days of the London imports of the 80's and The Little Mermaid is selling pretty well. There are more places then there were back in the day to find other people's opinion and more and more people in today's world of the internet use word of mouth to buy a ticket to a show. Even the New York Times has a reader's review section where people can voice their opinions on a show that The Times reviewed. I do think that people do go to The Times right away because for many years it has been considered and I feel it is the best New York area paper.

Yankeefan, in all the shows that you listed I feel that there were problems with the material of all those shows that were part of the reason why they closed and they got negative reviews across the board.

I feel that the power of The Times has diminished over the years due to there being more ways for people to get opinions and views on a show. I will admit that it is the strongest of reviews and the one that everyone goes to first. But, I feel that now that people are able to and do get information on other shows that The Times isn't as powerful as it once was.

If it was then Wicked wouldn't be playing on Broadway or shows like The Little Mermaid or any of the other shows that didn't get anything short of a rave from The Times.