How was Tale Today? — Page 6

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.

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.

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

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.

Oops! Sorry for repeating myself

got it. just responded.

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.

---

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.

---

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, 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

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

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!