How was Tale Today?- Page 7

[JillS]

Posted: 11/19/08 at 2:06am

Actually Yankee, the idea of dueling theater critics isn't really that ridiculous. They do it in Chicago and some other places and of course the Siskel and Ebert model has proved enormously popular for film. But the Times would never voluntarily dissipate their power or do anything to diminish the public perception that they are the paper of record on any topic - so they won't be doing two reviews of anything anytime soon. Though in 1935 they sent 3 different critics to review "Porgy and Bess" - two music critics and the drama critic. And that - I think is the thing that bothers me the most about the power one critic has at the Times - he's reviewing straight drama and musicals and there is nothing in his writing that indicates any actual understanding of anything musical. Tonight's "Road Show" review was among his oddest in that he never mentioned the music. Except to gently suggest that Mr. Sondheim's songs were derivative of earlier Sondheim songs - I don't believe he said anything specific about the music! So yeah - Scott's idea is not so crazy. Considering only 5 to 10 musicals open in a year, would it be too much to ask that the Times send a music critic to cover a musical as well?

Finally, about Caryn James - she isn't exactly some amateur the Times brought in to report on Broadway in a pinch. She's been around forever - longer than Brantley and Isherwood combined I would think. She's been a film and TV critic for the times and an editor of the book review.

[winston89]

Posted: 11/19/08 at 2:48am

Jill, I do agree that the Times should send over a music critic to review an musical. I mean considering that the main aspect of a musical is the music let someone review it who knows about that very well. I find that when I am reading a review about a musical (not from the times I am talking in general) they don't talk about the score as much as they should. This is where I think a music critic would come in handy.

[maddiem]

Posted: 11/19/08 at 7:17am

Winston.. some shows can over come bad or mix reviews if their pockets are deep enough..

[JillS]

Posted: 11/19/08 at 11:43am

Little Mermaid and Wicked can't really be used as examples of "well they overcame bad reviews" because they were both pre-sold shows that had huge appeal in spite of the reviews and they were both doing very well (i believe 90+% attendance area even in previews which basically indicates they will be critic proof and they both had tons of money to advertise and did it very effectively. And on top of that the New York Times wrote a love letter to Chenoweth or Menzel or both (can't remember) .

[winston89]

Posted: 11/19/08 at 11:53am

JillS, for the Wicked review, The Times pretty much wrote a love letter to Chenoweth stating that she was the only redeeming factor of the show. But, I wouldn't call it critic proof from the get go. It spent a lot of times in previews playing to a no where near filled Gershwin and being on TKTS almost every night of the show. It wasn't until word of mouth kicked in and got the ball rolling.

Your right that The Little Mermaid wasn't the best example because Disney is critic proof.

[JillS]

Posted: 11/19/08 at 12:52pm

unless the grosses you can find right on this website are completely wrong it's not the case that Wicked played to empty houses during previews. Maybe you went to a couple of ill attended previews? but the weekly house capacity percentages are very high and they are not supposed to figure any papering into that Also a nowhere near filled Gershwin can still be an incredibly strong and healthy sized audience - the place is huge!

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 11/19/08 at 2:30pm

"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"
...althoguht "that" statement might be somewhat true, I strongly believe in thtat a critic should take MANY things into consideration when reviewing any material. For one, I think it IS their job to note in their reviews what would be enjoyable for varied audiences, and though they might not like something, note that this or that particular part of the audience will. After all, the critics job is to recommend...but not just their own likes.

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 11/20/08 at 9:23pm

Sorry, Scott (was late...) =I

"Are you really insinutating that I need to purchase the cd for every single show so that I can LEARN to appreciate it?"
No, Dramamama...I think JillS already responded very eloquently to that one.
What I meant, was, that since most people are not as "savvy" as you seem to be about music and theater, most audiences will experience that "visceral" effect (of the show as a whole). With Tale, the audiences LOVED this show (both in Sarasota and on Broadway). Your taste and apparent expertise did not seem to match the "popular" response, and that's OK. Not everyone has the same likes. Did you like the show as a whole? If so, as Jill said (and what I was saying, too), then perhaps you should give the music a second "listen". With the exposure on Tale's webb site of the music, and other places, I don't think you need to buy the CD to do this.

[philly03]

Posted: 11/20/08 at 11:18pm

"Little Mermaid and Wicked can't really be used as examples of "well they overcame bad reviews" because they were both pre-sold shows that had huge appeal in spite of the reviews and they were both doing very well "

I'm in agreement with Jill on this one. People always use these as examples, and they're bad ones. First off, THE LITTLE MERMAID was bound to attract an audience: It's basically proclaimed as Disney's most loved film (not by me, but I'm going to assume general public) and the curiousity of Underwater sets/etc. Wicked found an audience almost overnight to my knowledge and people ignored the reviews.

One show that certainly overcame bad reviews was Jekyll & HYDE: The Musical which no one ever seems to want to mention. The show had awful BROADWAY reviews, and some of the quotations used early in the run were from the highly acclaimed, and much different, pre-Broadway National tour. Despite flopping, it did play for four years, attracted actors/actresses to the show with ease, and was a crowd pleaser. If 'Tale' hadn't opened at the exact month/time were in right now, and I'm not even talking going back 10 years ago, even 6 months ago (as the plans were originally scheduled I believe?) I feel like it had a big potential to pull a Jekyll & HYDE. I'm not saying it would recoup, but certainly be able to play for some time.

[Testing1232]

Posted: 11/20/08 at 11:31pm

<< And on top of that the New York Times wrote a love letter to Chenoweth or Menzel or both (can't remember) . >>

Jill, you are correct...

The love letter was for Chenoweth, although he liked Menzel as well.

<< JillS, for the Wicked review, The Times pretty much wrote a love letter to Chenoweth stating that she was the only redeeming factor of the show.>>

Winston,

That really isnt true--- yes, he loved Cheno, but he (Brantley) liked Menzel as well. I dont believe (and I could be wrong) that he ever said that KC was the only redeeming feature in the show.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 11/21/08 at 12:13am

"Wicked found an audience almost overnight to my knowledge"

I'm not so sure about this statement. Pre-Wicked: the Musical Gregory Maguire had a pretty decent following. I was in my last semester of college when I learned that Wicked was coming to Broadway but already knew of Maquire. His name would often come up in my creative writing and literature classes whenever the discussion turned to favorite books and authors. And in March of 2002 ABC aired a made-for-television adaptation of his "Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister". While he was no King or Patterson Gregory Maguire was fairly well known - especially among the demographic that the musical was aiming for.