LYSISTRATA JONES Reviews — Page 4

I agree with Jordan. Not offensive, just a horrible show. So cliche and stupid. Talented cast but the subject matter and dialogue was painfully bad. Its on my list of worst shows with Spiderman-b/f the revamp and The Pirate Queen.

Unless, of course, they enjoy it.

---

(Possible spoilers.)

I am hesitant to see the show because as a woman, I am resistant to a musical (or anything, really) where the main conceit is that the only real power women wield over men is the ability to withhold sex.

Well, here's the thing. As some other posters have written, Lysistrata is basically unhappy with complacency in her own life and in what she sees all around her. Everyone's seemingly content to get accepted into their safety school, to be in dull relationships, and to run around the basketball court without ever winning a game. While the sex strike is what sets things in motion, if you see the show, you'll notice that, in the end, that gambit itself has rather little import. When the boys finally do win a game, and when certain characters find new partners, it's not because anyone was withholding sex from them.

I don't want to portray this show as something deep and meaningful, but it does have a point to make, and is lots of fun, so I'm a fan. And I know I'm a guy, but I honestly don't think it's offensive to women (any more than it is to men!).

Incidentally, someone at ATC really did say something offensive, suggesting that Ben Brantley only likes the show because he's basically a teenage girl. I probably shouldn't repeat moronic statements, but I think it's funny how it juxtaposes with the suggestion that Winer didn't like it because she's a woman.

If thoughtful people are getting something out of it, then it's not junk. It's surely not nearly as good as some other shows in that respect, but probably better than others. Anyhow, what's the use in condemning something as "junk" when there are clearly people to whom it is not junk? It's not like I'm saying Lysistrata Jones is an obvious masterpiece that others are too stupid to appreciate - that would be ridiculous, since plenty of smart people are clearly not being won over by it. But that wouldn't be any more ridiculous than dismissing it as "junk," as if that's an objective fact.

It's absolutely not junk. As a woman who is pretty fed up with the way women are portrayed in most media, I was not offended at all. Just the opposite. Lysistrada held the power and it wasn't just over sex. She wanted people to care and reach for the stars. In the end, she won the basketball game not the guys. Hardly a putdown on women. And along the way, she motivated the characters to actively join the world by leaving their stereotypic boxes. Bravo for Lyssie Jones. Hope people give the show a chance, it's a feel good experience.

All the major reviews are up and scored on Curtain Critic now: http://www.curtaincritic.com/Shows/LYSISTRATA_JONES_REVIEWS-84.html

Overall 68
Cast 78
Music 68
Book 65
Tech 68

I wonder if people get this offended towards the portrayal of leading women in stuff like Oklahoma, Carousel, South Pacific, or Follies. Now, I haven't seen Lysistrata Jones, so I have no opinion on it, but reading through the various reviews and opinions of others, I got the general feeling this show was meant to be satirical silly fluff. But the analyses from those offended seem to indicate that it SHOULD be treated as if it were written to be dramatic and insightful. The reactions are so bizarre. Even if they close as flops, Bonnie & Clyde and Lysistrata Jones have created some of the most interesting discussions and reactions in musical theatre in a very long time.

Not to mention that the idea of women using sex as manipulation or placing such vital importance on athletes and sport as "outdated" seems more idealistic than realistic. I don't advocate stereotypes, but just tune in to some reality TV and you can easily see where the creators came up with the idea.

---

I was looking forward to a fresh and energetic satire of an age old classic updated to refect contemporary views about war and sexual politics (and perhaps to illustrate how little has changed).

What I got was a third rate production age old jokes updated to reflect how low the bar has been set for contemporary cliches to be considered worth Broadway prices.

And no, I wasn't expecting The Road (that's still my favorite thread on this show, btw). Just a good time and maybe a laugh or two. But to be honest, I did laugh more while reading The Road.
So, maybe my expectations were too low after all.

---

I mostly lurk here too, but I have to chime in.

I understand that taste is taste. But I can't really relate when I see people call a production "horrible" or report leaving at intermission. Maybe I simply haven't seen enough shows, or avoid ones I think I won't like. But I've seen around 60 musicals, and there is literally ONE that I would put into that category (name available upon request!).

Doesn't almost every score leave you with *one* memorable song? Or a few laughs? Or one standout performance or bit of choreography that makes it worthwhile? If you're an actor or a director or a set designer, isn't it interesting to think about the choices that were made vs. the ones you would have made? If the show is a hit, and you hate it, isn't that interesting to ponder, rather than something to make you angry? If you end up in the audience of a train wreck that closes after a single performance, isn't that kind of awesome?

My philosophy is that a bad night at the theater is pretty much better than most other nights.

My philosophy is that a bad night at the theater is pretty much better than most other nights.

My philosophy is, if you're miserable and not enjoying yourself, then leave and do something you enjoy. I've sat through a lot of stuff over a long period of time and that includes terrible shows or productions where I stuck it out through the whole show. As a result, I know when I am miserable to the point where I simply do not want to waste any more of my time forcing myself to watch something I truly don't like. I can leave at intermission having gleaned enough from the production thus far to weigh the value of my time, energy and sanity against the production that is contributing to my unhappiness. If I were a critic and being paid to watch, I'd stay. If I have friends in the show, I'll stay and support them. If I paid for a ticket, I'll leave when I want (which in the case of a couple of excruciating shows could be 15-20 minutes after it starts).

In the case of Priscilla, I was actually coming down with some sort of flu or something during the first act, but honestly, had it captured my attention, I would have stayed. But I was actually really REALLY bored. And I've never felt the desire to go back and see the rest.

If you're an actor or a director or a set designer, isn't it interesting to think about the choices that were made vs. the ones you would have made?

I don't have to force myself to stay to the end of a show I don't like to think about that. Usually, I leave because I already know what I hate about it. I'm just not a masochist. Well, not when it comes to theatre.

---

I like the restaurant comparison when it comes to theater - Would you continue to eat a meal that you thought was disgusting simply because the chef put in time an energy to make it for you? No.

I don't think there's anything wrong with leaving at intermission (unless you've been comped, in which case it's inexcusable), but I never have. I always take away something from a performance. It might be one person's performance or an odd special effect, whatever.

Theater can transport me, but I've never had it make me miserable. I don't understand how it could.

"I like the restaurant comparison when it comes to theater - Would you continue to eat a meal that you thought was disgusting simply because the chef put in time an energy to make it for you? No."

I've never understood this comparison, and I keep seeing it. If your food is disgusting, it's disgusting. It has no chance of getting better. Many times I've been bored by a first act, only to be surprised by the second.

There is a reason why BRK'LYN had no intermission!

---