KING KONG Reviews — Page 7

Lot666 said: "LesliMargherita chimes in on Twitter"

She responds on Twitter regarding criticism of her on this board:

https://twitter.com/queenlesli/status/1060937126181789696?s=21

Well, I will say I’ve seen Margherita in Matilda and Brightman in The School of Rock and found nothing mid-level about their great performances. They were also both lovely at stage door. She says she was calling out two bloggers and Brightman seems to be taking issue with the way the review was written.

Personally, I found nothing objectionable about the NYT review. I haven’t seen the show but it sounds like they gave it the review(s) it deserved. Is it Pulitzer-worthy criticism? Of course not. But I suspect the review is more fun the show itself.

I also agree that actors must have rhino tough skin. (It’s just one of the reasons I had to accept that I’m better supporting the arts from my seat in the audience) But I do respect actors who will stand up to critics on the behalf of others when they believe said critics are being unnecessarily nasty. If we can criticize critics, why can’t they? I don’t believe that’s the case here though. I do think Brightman’s motives could be questioned as his current show has links to this one.

I have a slight chance of working in NYC for a week early next year. Sadly, I’ll probably miss some plays that are on my radar (The Lifespan of a Fact, The Waverly Gallery, American Son), but if I make it in time I hope to see Torch Song, The Ferryman, Network, Fiddler on the Roof, and maybe To Kill a Mockingbird (I just recently added it to my list, but I’m undecided). That would leave one for two possible spots: revisiting The Band’s Visit and/or Dear Evan Hansen, seeing The Cher Show, or seeing King Kong just for the puppet. I’m hoping the 2019-2020 musical season brings with it some great new musicals. In the meantime, the scarcity of new musicals that appeal to me has led me to turn to more plays which I’ve come to rediscover my love for.

Updated On: 11/10/18 at 05:56 PM

Sondheimite said: "And this is the last thing I'll say right now.
Story Time:

I saw my first Broadway show about three hours after being rejected by Julliard.
It was Billy Elliot with the OBC before the show won the Tonys.
Jan 2009.

After the show, about five people were at the stage door and I was one of them.
I chatted with the cast as they came out, in my 18 year old wonder, and it was a perfect first Broadway experience.

Then, Greg Jabara came out. Greg asked me how I liked the show and I said something to likes of, "I'm so happy this was the first show I saw on Broadway." He asked me what brought me to NYC and I told him I was auditioning for Julliard but I didn't get in.

Greg, a Juilliard graduate, put his hands on my shoulders and looked me square in the eye.
He said, "you've got to have rhino skin if you're going to do this."

And that moment has stuck with me for ten years now.

You've GOT TO have rhino skin.

I find it... like... tacky that members of the community (and I'm not talking about this message board, I'm talking about actors) are attacking critics for not liking a show.
YOU'VE. GOT. TO. HAVE. RHINO. SKIN.
If you cannot embark on an artistic project without accepting that you might get critically lampooned, this is not the field for you.
If you cannot stand to see any piece of theatre reviewed badly, this is not the field for you."

LOVE this story!

Squeens14 said: "One of my friends saw it and said it was great, so I'm not really sure"

Well, keep hanging around with them for a little while longer, see if they say anything else a bit crazy. But I wouldn't end a friendship over one comment... people can have differences, or dark times, just be there for them, etc.

HogansHero said: "@Kringas I agree the writing is not good, which I attribute to 2 things (these 2 are not funny and I think that rather than an actual edited transcription of a conversation the whole thing was either done by email or sitting around a table making it feel inorganic). But I don't think it is smug either.

I find Green pretty funny. But it felt like they had each written a review (or at least had some zingers ready to go) and then tried to awkwardly fit them into a fake conversation. Their styles clashed and in no way did it feel like an organic discussion of the show.

That said, I don't think censoring is required. There's a difference between "mean" and offensive. There was nothing racist, homophobic, etc. that would require an apology. Sexist and misogynistic we can table for another time since there have been reviews I've been uncomfortable with but that's not something we particularly care about as a society.

well... I don't find Green funny, but as with every other funny thing on earth, ymmv. I completely agree the whole thing felt fake and certainly not organic. My sense (and I have nothing to support this) is that they did not want to do this. Beyond that, I think you'd agree critics are allowed to be "mean." And while the line between acceptably offensive and not is one that (sadly) still has to be discussed, I don't think there is anything here that gets close to that line.

In looking back at these 7 pages, I think what we have are (a) folks who don't like Brantley, Green, and/or the NYT, (b) folks who think the only way you can nurture is by being nice, and (c) some putative stars who have said some very silly things (proving once again that no one's talent translates into a reason to pay any attention to what they have to say, and yes I know we have an entire industry built on just the opposite).

Miles2Go2 said: "Lot666 said: "LesliMargherita chimes in on Twitter"

She responds on Twitterregardingcriticism of heron this board:

https://twitter.com/queenlesli/status/1060937126181789696?s=21

"

Proving once again how fragile their egos are.

Here's a more measured review:

http://www.newnownext.com/king-kong-broadway/11/2018/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/19/shades-of-darkness-in-king-kong-and-american-so



A fair assessment I would think.

I think it's perfectly fair to reflect on this conversational format of a review, but saying it crossed some kind of line by being a pan is ridiculous.

I happen to think the format contributed to a more catty tone, since each likely felt a need to respond quip for quip. And there wasn't the need one person has while writing a review of arranging a series of disparate responses to all the elements into a deeper and/or overarching analysis. So, it did sound like one of the pithy chats you sometimes stumble into when a friend has seen a show and it's a race to the bottom of cattiness. And NYTimes should have a higher standard.

But also, the show is bad. And bad shows get pans.

(I happen to love Peter Mark's WaPo review for this. The headline says it all: "Poor King Kong. First, taken prisoner. Now trapped in a bad musical."