In your opinion, do broadway-bound (well, they *hope* to be BB) shows receive honest criticism from those who attend previews?

[SouthernHope1]

Posted: 6/6/22 at 1:29pm

Here’s why I’m asking....over the weekend, I attended opening night of a pedigreed show playing outside of NYC that’s hoping to make its way to Broadway and it feels like everybody (on social media) came up with ecstatic reviews of the show (though there was one savvy NYC actor who simply wrote “fun city, fun musical, great weekend! Glad I could be there” on his IG page which really skirted closely to the Seinfeld episode, “Now that’s a baby!” when asked to comment on a so-so newborn.)

But the show isn’t great (good but not great)....and I’m not even a person who knows about theatre and I know that....the lead is not right...she has a great voice & seems like a very nice person but an entire show cannot be built around her.  Plus the play is all over the place.  I’m somewhat asking because I ventured into the Funny Girl chat here and it sounds like everybody knew that the lead wasn’t right for that show & the story wasn’t where it needed to be but how did the producers miss that?  Is it that nobody wants to hurt their feelings? (given that many people who attend these previews have some sort of connection to the cast). 
 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/6/22 at 3:50pm

1. Just because YOU didn't feel the same, doesn't mean your opinions are more right than those you are questioning.  (And, of course, you are entitled to your opinion.)

2. YES, if they are actually connected to people in the cast, then publicly they are likely being NICE - not because it is Broadway bound.

3. Also: reviews (formal) are often better than what they might be in NY, as professional reviewers often are either less qualified than the major publications and/or are looking at potential.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 6/6/22 at 4:10pm

Trying to piece together what show you’re referring to. Anyone else figure it out?

[JSquared2]

Posted: 6/6/22 at 4:21pm

You're asking an unanswerable question. As others have said -- there is no "right answer" when it comes to judging a work of art.  Also, there are a thousand different reasons why someone might post something on social media --- they may work for the show, their friend might work on the show, or they might have auditioned and not gotten a callback!
 

 

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 6/6/22 at 4:46pm

Call_me_jorge said: "Trying to piece together what show you’re referring to. Anyone else figure it out?"

I'm assuming it's Trading Places.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 6/6/22 at 4:49pm

I can't speak for anyone else, but speaking from my days before moving to NY: I definitely felt a bit of hometown pride when we got a pre-Broadway tryout. I often felt like I was in their "corner" - like I had a slightly biased sense of rooting for the show to make it, even if I didn't think it was all that great. But I was usually pretty honest about when I didn't think a Pre-Broadway show REALLY wasn't good. But I definitely felt like I was more constructive, more hopeful for its potential, more forgiving of their faults even when I recognized them. 

That said, if there did happen to be a show I genuinely really liked, I probably wouldn't have appreciated someone making the assumption that I only liked it because of my bias. Nor do I appreciate that with any discussion of art. I'm happy to confess to my own biases, and possibly even guess at others' biases, but I don't believe in using those to undercut or invalidate their opinions. 

OP, I don't mean that as an accusation toward you - sounds like you were asking in good faith for opinions and observations of trends. I'm just speaking broadly about how I feel about this topic. 

[rjnyyz]

Posted: 6/6/22 at 10:27pm

I very recently saw Trading Places in Atlanta, and they sent a post-show questionaire that specifically asks for feedback on the show that would go directly to the producers.  IIRC there were some specific questions, but there was definitely a blank space to provide any comments or suggestions you wanted to write.

I was impressed that they did this. Hopefully they will garner some useful feedback from a variety of audience members.

 

[darquegk]

Posted: 6/6/22 at 10:34pm

Remember that Beetlejuice got mostly criticism for its lyrics, tone and confrontationally vulgar sensibility in Washington DC, but it made a number of changes to be more polished and family friendly on Broadway. So they took the note of “who is this for anyway” and pivoted to be a naughty PG-13 family show instead of a hard-R raunch fest. (Since the reopening, some of the original dirty jokes have made their way back in.)

[blaxx]

Posted: 6/7/22 at 12:43am

The reality is that Broadway standards are much higher and it is a much more competitive environment than in regional communities.

Pre Broadway runs are not like they used to be. Nowadays, they may be used to try the production out in front of an audience, but local reviews can no longer predict a Broadway run's success, especially the positive ones. You would need a reviewer who is very much in tune with the NYC theater scene, which may not be necessarily welcomed by the local community.

 

[binau]

Posted: 6/7/22 at 5:33am

To give an example, Dr Zhivago received some very good write-ups in the Sydney Morning Herald during its 'pre-Broadway tryout' that might be encouraging for a Broadway run - but I knew the show was dead on arrival and I think the Broadway run and reviews confirmed that. As Blaxx said, the standards in NYC are much higher than other locations (all locations in my opinions) and there is none of this community spirit for wanting shows to do well just because.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 6/7/22 at 12:37pm

darquegk said: "Remember that Beetlejuice got mostly criticism for its lyrics, tone and confrontationally vulgar sensibility in Washington DC, but it made a number of changes to be more polished and family friendly on Broadway. So they took the note of “who is this for anyway” and pivoted to be a naughty PG-13 family show instead of a hard-R raunch fest. (Since the reopening, some of the original dirty jokes have made their way back in.)"

That season was really striking to me. In previews, Tootsie was incredible and showed amazing, even obvious structural potential, while Beetlejuice was such a tonal mess that it was hard to imagine it being scraped together into something with legs. Then, in a perfect tortoise and the hare situation, Tootsie showed up on Broadway with very few changes, and was massively underwhelming, while Beetlejuice (while I'm not a huge fan) somehow cohered into a decent show and is incredibly popular.

[SouthernHope1]

Posted: 6/7/22 at 1:07pm

OP here, these are really good insights by you all & I appreciate it. 

(on the specific show I saw, the reviews have started to come in since i wrote this and they're harsher than I expected....but I am hopeful that changes can be made, in this specific case, and the play will move on). 

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 6/7/22 at 11:59pm

I have attended Broadway previews where the director is busy quizzing patrons during intermissions and after the show to get feedback. I've given some critical feedback and they seemed to appreciate it. This was a famous director too.

[bear88]

Posted: 6/8/22 at 2:42am

There are exceptions but here’s my take (based only on the San Francisco Bay Area):

- Professional reviewers are pretty thoughtful and often seem a little tougher, with more specific criticisms along with praise, on a Broadway-bound show than a purely regional one. That doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with the review but it doesn’t seem like punches are being pulled.

- People connected with the show or the performers are going to praise it in public for obvious reasons. They may genuinely like it but certainly want to be supportive. 

- Nonprofessional reviewers on message boards like this one are almost always the toughest of all, sometimes brutally so but often in ways that highlight problems that creatives shouldn’t ignore.