LENNON Reviews — Page 3

Good question, Auggie. My dislike of the jukebox subgenre comes mainly from the fact the shows are lazily constructed corporate enterprises that cynical wealthy producers think they can pass off to the audience as being real shows. Anybody with a big enough checkbook can create a jukebox musical. You call up the agent of some big star from a couple of decades ago and offer them a couple of million for their catalogue, you hire a book writer to write a lame plot badly tying together the songs, hire a director and then put a casting call in Variety. Done.

ANYBODY could have created GOOD VIBRATIONS. There was ZERO art or talent or professionalism involved. It was simply an unabashed attempt to cash in on the Beach Boys catalogue. They didn't care one whit about creating a really good show from the material. Those producers deserved to lose the millions they did.

So far in the jukebox subgenre, MAMMIA MIA is is huge financially successful, international hit, MOVIN OUT is profitable, and the rest have lost money. My hope is that with a few more flops, this genre with disappear forever. If you want to take a catalogue and make an entertaining revue out of it, knock yourself out -- I got no problem. But, taking songs that were NEVER intended to move forward plot or define character or work in any dramatic context is a throwback to the Tin Pan Alley days of 80 years ago where shows were nonsensical song collections with hackneyed, throwaway books, that I thought SHOWBOAT and OKLAHOMA banished forever. It's regressive to the entire artform and needs to be stopped. Thankfully, the audience is voting with their wallets and, with only a couple of exceptions, are rejecting what is an inferior product. The Broadway Musical deserves MUCH better than these kinds of shows and more effort and investment must be put into new shows with original scores that are specifically tailored to the books they're paired with.

---

Updated On: 8/15/05 at 11:18 PM

Where can I find Brantley's review? It's not on nytimes.com yet...

Mike3 --

The link for Brantley is on page 2 of this thread

---

USA TODAY gives it Two Stars:

"Compared with the other lavishly produced karaoke contests luring middle-aged rock fans to Broadway, Lennon (* * out of four) would seem to have a higher purpose. This musical tribute to John Lennon, which opened Sunday at the Broadhurst Theatre, aims to celebrate the personal and creative integrity of an artist whose brilliance and sheer goodness were never fully appreciated by those who misunderstood her.

That's right, "her." Oh, sorry — you didn't think I was referring to old John, did you? I meant his widow, Yoko Ono, whose permission was required to stage this production, and whose loving but self-serving fingerprints are all over it.

It would be ridiculous, of course, to try to tell John Lennon's story without including key roles both on stage and behind it for the woman he considered his soul mate. And I don't doubt that Ono, who licensed the producers and librettist/director Don Scardino rights to her late husband's songs, wanted to honor its subject, who wouldn't have wanted his legacy to be dominated by his role in that seminal supergroup The Beatles.

But suggesting that the Fab Four was some inconsequential pop act that provided Lennon a stepping stone to his true calling is as unfair to him as it is to the other Beatles. They come off here — in that chunk of the first act that they're acknowledged at all — as a buffoonish boy band. Paul McCartney, whose melodic genius was as integral to The Beatles' rise, and thus Lennon's, as any other factor, gets even shorter shrift in Lennon than he has from snobbish rock critics.

Ono, in contrast, is revealed as a visionary worthy of her partner"
_____________________________________________________________

There are, thankfully, a number of playful flourishes in Lennon— including a joking reference to Ono's, um, controversial singing voice — along with genuinely moving moments. But when you imagine all the people whom Lennon's songs and spirit touched, you can't help but wish him better.



http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/reviews/2005-08-14-lennon_x.htm

---

Updated On: 8/15/05 at 12:28 AM

You're absolutely right. Some of my all-time favorite shows got mixed reviews when they debuted (Caroline, Dreamgirls, Follies), but it's not like in the old days when there were $5 or $10 balcony seats (believe it or not, they still existed less that 20 years ago). To see any show today, if you're not a student (and I'm not) requires a major financial commitment. Even paying half price at TKTS for a show with bad reviews is too much for many people. If producers really think that audiences will LOVE a show more than the critics did, then the day after the bad reviews come out they should put their money where their mouth is, cut prices across the board in half for a month or so (top price $50 -- with all of the papering, most of these shows have an average ticket price around $50 anyway) and wait for the word of mouth to build.

But they don't. Why? Because they know that the critics are right for the most part, that they have a bad show, and even if they gave away the tickets at half price, most people wouldn't go out and tell their friends to sit through this mess that's on stage. If they really believed the critics were wrong, they would go out of their way to get audiences in there, but it doesn't happen.

Passing off mediocre product at premium prices has been going on forever and I can't say I'm upset when a lousy show is completely rejected by the paying theatregoing audience out there.

---

MILLIE only paid back 80% of its investment, so officially it was a flop on Broadway.

---

Movies are $10... theatre is $100. There is a difference from a show with bad reviews and a show that follows the pattern (we've all scene) of cancelling dates out of town, postponing opening, bringing in a new creative team... this is all a sign that the show doesn't work. AND how dare those producers expect us theatre people to fork out $100 to see if it is now working!!!

Boston Globe is Mixed-to-negative:

"The answer is: I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

The question is: What were they thinking?

As you may have heard by now, the Broadway musical 'Lennon" features nine different people of both genders and at least three races playing the greatest of all Beatles and the most fascinating of all fab four alumni. The idea, presumably, is that John Lennon argued that we are all one so, goo goo goo joob, we all have the spirit of John Lennon within us.

The result is only half as bad as it could have been. The musical -- conceived by theater, film, and television director Don Scardino -- played to such disastrous reviews in San Francisco that the Boston pre-Broadway run was canceled in order to retool the piece. It opened in New York last night following another week of postponements.
___________________________________________________________


Some five years later he was dead and Ono has been protecting his legacy and their love story ever since. Whether it's her oversight or Scardino's that's to blame in this musical, the show would have been better served without such protection. Ultimately, 'Lennon" seems less like his story than an extended remix of 'The Ballad of John and Yoko."



Boston Globe

---

hehehehe...Brantley never fails to disappoint :0)

Great reads! Thanks for all the links!

---

I'm pretty sure they'll have a cast recording (rumor has it that they record tomorrow?) -Yoko will make sure it's funded.

And I think it would do fairly well, even if the show completely flops, since the music itself is well liked, and it's done differently enough to be interesting (AKA they're not all John Lennon impressions)...it's not like Mamma Mia, where the songs still sound like ABBA so why bother buy the CD?

---

It's when shows like Lennon open that I really miss John Simon. I would have loved to see him hack this worthless show to bits.
What a pity too. While I admire some things about Yoko, her artistic ability has always been questionable. And quite frankly, she's using a Broadway musical to rewrite history.
By the end of this year this show will be nothing but a footnote on how not to do a musical.

Updated On: 8/15/05 at 09:07 AM

I've never understood the point of making a CD of a jukebox musical. Aren't the original iconic recordings of Lennon, The Beach Boys, Billy Joel, Elvis, ABBA et al, definitive? Why would anyone want a karaoke version no matter how well sung?

Anyway, more reviews:

NY POST -- TWO STARS

"AFTER all the rumors, postpone ments, alarms and excursions the bio-musical caused, "Lennon" opened last night at the Broadhurst Theatre with that special note of unsurprise.

It benefits from its nine-person cast, superb from top to bottom, and, let's face it, expectations so reduced as to be almost minimal.

It suffers from a concept and book by the show's director, Don Scardino, that is so shaky it can scarcely stagger from one side of the stage to the other.

You also constantly feel that the show is positioned between a rock and a hard Ono."

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/51243.htm



NY Daily News

"Jukebox musicals — shows based on the songs of a popular entertainer — always raise one big question: Should you plop down $100 for a theater ticket or just stay home and listen to your old records?

In the case of "Lennon," the answer is easy: Light one up and put on the stereo.

The musical, directed and conceived by Don Scardino, not only adds nothing to your appreciation or understanding of John Lennon. If anything, its listless presentation of the events of his life will diminish your sense of who he was.
_____________________________________________________________

Even the music seems clichéd, since some of the arrangements have more to do with the styles of our time than Lennon's, especially the "American Idol" caterwauling for the women.

Chuck Cooper, one of the nine Lennons, has power when he sings, which is all too seldom. But poor Terrence Mann, another of the nine, also has to impersonate several famous figures — Winston Churchill, David Frost and Queen Elizabeth. They all seemed amateurish.

Then, so does everything about the show. Apparently there was no budget for a choreographer, because the little dancing there is would embarrass the director of a high school musical.

The money didn't go for John Arnone's sets, which consist largely of projections. Nor could the costumes have been costly — though Jane Greenwood has captured the scruffiness of the time well. If the portrait of Lennon had any force, the chintzy way it is presented wouldn't matter. A bare stage would have been fine. At least it wouldn't cost much to tour. And I see no reason why it shouldn't hit the road immediately.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/337465p-288092c.html

---

Every time I tell people that I didn't and won't see Mamma Mia, I get pounced on!!! People try to convince me that I will really like it. It may be a good and fun show, but I am not going to plop down 50 to 100 bucks to watch a show filled with songs I already have at home on vinyl or cd. I seriously considered seeing Lennon hoping it would be a cut above the rest. But after hearing word of mouth and reading the reviews about this show, I think I will pass. I also hope this form of "theatre" goes away to make room for more original musicals. I have read that there have been talks odf shows featuring the songs of Stevie Wonder and Earth, Wind & Fire. Love them both....but enough is enough.

---