"I'm sorry if this is naive ,but with so many different opinions both from the board and newspaper critics-who do the critics write for?"
Good critics try and describe their experience of seeing a show, based on their personal experience and hopefully some theater knowledge, academic or otherwise, that they have accrued to put the work in perspective.
Objectivity plays no part here (unlike reporters, who are supposed to write about new stories without bringing their opinions and feelings into the mix as much as possible).
Critics should steer into the why of the reaction they have to a piece, since that is the way we can use that as a barometer to make our own decisions. I used to read Roger Ebert religiously, and whether he liked a movie or not, I knew whether I would like a movie, too, whether his review was positive or negative, after years of knowing his taste, my own, and how those two intersected. He could write a completely negative review and I would know I'd adore that same movie.
If a critic hates jukebox musicals, and just trashes every one without ever mentioning that bias, they would be an awful critic.
If you think the critics are the first person to raise any of the issues that appeared in tonight's reviews, you didn't read the DC thread, the DC reviews, the preview thread, etc.
Also, many people who saw the DC and Broadway runs (both BWW members as well as DC-based critics) all seem to think the show has been clarified and improved in the process.
Nothing raised in any of these reviews is going to shock and blindside the creative team.
That said, if people don't find that the central premise of the show resonates for them, well, that was never going to change.
Updated On: 3/31/14 at 12:40 AM