LENNON Reviews — Page 6

the reviews ARE kind of confusing and misleading if you're not too familiar with the structure already, so don't feel stupid at all.

The show has a concert-like FEEL to it, but it's NOT a concert. It very much has a story line (no matter what people may believe) that tells John's story through his music, personal quotes, art and images from his life. 9 actors portray different characters, all occasionally taking on John's person and words, though there's central actors who play him most of the time (with Will Chase leading the entire pack.) In my opinion, it's done rather well, and while the creative directors of the show DO pick-and-choose what they show you, you get quite a bit of history on John Lennon the Man and a variety of his post-Beatles music.

---

To Overthemoon419: You are right. I stand corrected. It was Jim Farber, the music critic in the Daily News, who mixed up Julia Murney with Julie Danao-Salkin in his review of 'Lennon.'

Should reviewers be perfect? They try to be - at least all the ones I know, whether it's Howard, Jim or Michael - and they feel bad and hate it when they get things wrong. They do CARE. And I'm reviewed for various publications, so I know the feeling. No journalist KNOWINGLY puts something into print that they know is wrong. Why would anyone knowingly undercut his own credibility? The N.Y. Times runs corrections every day. Very few of us are always perfect, and critics and reporters are only human.

As long as human beings are hired to be critics, there will always be an element of human error. That would be like expecting actors never to forget or flub a line.

When I used to be a critic, I had (and still have) great sympathy for performers and playwrights. And having been a playwright myself, I also know what it's like waiting for reviews. I've been on both sides. Nobody likes making mistakes.