Linda Winer's DRACULA review- Page 2

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 3:19pm

Don Black is not the best lyric writer out there. I really wish Frank had collaborated with Nan on Dracula, I love her lyrics, but Don had Christopher Hampton to help him out a little with this and I think they've given us some nice things to chew on. Anything is better than "...like a stream that hits a boulder half way through the wood".

In this case I really like "The Heart is Slow to Learn" where Mina tells us that "The heart is slow to learn. It never learns from its mistakes, that's why it always breaks, and overpowers you."

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 3:35pm

i have not seen the show yet but i refuse to believe it's this bad.

funny that's the same way i feel about bush's next four years. does it sound as dumb when i say it?

[midtowngym]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 3:39pm

I liked the show, quite a lot. Linda Winer should lighten up her Pulitzer Judging butt. In a show like this, the lyrics really don't matter (and yes, that's unfortunate.) It ain't Gypsy, but it's mindless/harmless fun.

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 3:39pm

papalovesmambo, i was kidding(i.e. lol) keep the ego boost though.

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 3:45pm

midtown...

I have no problem w/ shows that are mindless, harmless fun...but 'fun' is the last word I'd use to describe this show.

More like 'numbing'.

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 3:47pm

cats - come on, admit it - you're really Frank Wildhorn, aren't you, Possum? you can tell us - go on....otherwise your posts make no sense whatsoever...

Posted: 8/19/04 at 3:54pm

"honestly... neither. don't waste money on that kind of crap. they're not real musicals." - CATSNYrevival, regarding the choice between two shows currently running on Broadway.

Mr. CATS - I'm not sure how this relates to your request for wanting the positives pointed out in a review. Updated On: 8/19/04 at 03:54 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 5:08pm

In my defense, I was referring to MAMMA FRIKIN' MIA and MOVIN' OUT, both of which have recycled scores not initially written for the stage. They are not musicals. They are revuesicals and should be treated as such. I spit on them. *spits*

And, yes. sure. I'm really Frank Wildhorn. Does that make you feel better??? No one can help but have animosity towards reviews that bash a show you hold close to your heart. Don't act like I'm the first person to ever feel passionate about a particular show.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 5:12pm

Preach it CATS. Take us to church

Updated On: 8/19/04 at 05:12 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 5:20pm

Actually, CATS, MAMA MIA most certianly is a musical. No...it does not contain songs written expressly for it. But it's still a book musical that uses songs to express character or forward the plot. Perhaps it's not very good (I don't know...I had fun). But it is, by definition a musical.

I agree that MOVIN' OUT is not a musical...but it's not a...what was it you called it? Oh yes, a 'revuesical', either. A ballet? Yes. A dance play. Maybe. But certainly not a 'revuesical'. Why? Because it does actually tell a story.

Revues do not. They simply take a catalog of songs and present them without a through line a la AIN'T MISBEHAVIN' or SMOKEY JOE'S CAFE.

Argue the merits of those shows. But to lump them into a category where they clearly don't belong makes me think you don't know what you're talking about.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 5:58pm

Robbie, to me, Mamma Mia is a play (and not a very good one, at that...) that integrates the songs of abba into the "plot" to which most of the time has no meaning or involvement in the narrative. For that reason I do not concider it to be a legitamite addition to the musical theatre. It's simply a "theatrical event" taking place on the Broadway stage. Same with Movin' Out. It is not a musical. While it does tell a story it is more of an event. A "thing" taking place on stage that I also do not consider to be a worthy addition to the musical theatre.

[TheGirlinTheFrock]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 6:05pm

It saddnes me that its getting poor reviews. I really want to enjoy the show. I'll be going soon, so I won't try to come to any conclusions until i see it. Hopefully it will be better than others have reported.

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 6:06pm

Cats,

While I appreciate your depth of thought on the issue, these are actually poor examples of what you're trying to say. You, yourself, can call MAMA MIA an 'event' rather than a musical, but that doesn't make it so. We agree that MOVIN' OUT is not a musical...though I bet someone here can make a case (something about score, plot and movement through space to tell a story blah blah blah). But in the end, both were FAAAAAAAAAAAR more entertaining and, indeed, better than DRACULA.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 6:08pm

I simply don't agree. I found DRACULA extremely entertaining.

[midtowngym]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 6:20pm

i agree Cats. But maybe it's because cats have fangs too?

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 6:20pm

people, it's natural to disagree with a reviewer, but taking it personally and attacking them for doing their job only reflects badly on you! critics are every bit as important to the entertainment industry as anyone else. no, their word isn't gospel and yes there are always some bad seeds who are overly lenient or critical. but they are there solely to provide an educated OPINION of the overall product and to explain the reasons behind their opinion.

a theatre critic doesn't become a critic to mock and insult another person's art or talent. believe it or not, these people are not "bitter failed actors" or "hypocritical could-have-beens out to ruin the industry that wouldn't have them". they are simply journalists who have chosen theatre as their specialty because it means something to them. they understand the power and beauty of a great show, and they have done their homework to at least justify THEIR OPINION of what makes good theatre.

we're all educated Broadway enthusiasts, we know what we like, so we can each make up our own criteria for what makes a show worth seeing. some of you see a review that disagrees with your opinion and you take it as an attack on your taste and judgment. reviews are not written to validate or dismiss the opinions of Broadway groupies. they are written to guide the other 99% of the public to a show worthy of their $100. they are written so the tourist who sees 1 show every 15 years doesn't wind up at a flop that will sour them to theatre altogether. my point is that most critics want exactly what we want: for the theatre industry to thrive creatively and financially. a good critic like Linda Winer serves the theatre community by helping to weed out the bad eggs.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 6:30pm

I'd also like to add that Winer is one of the better critics on the NY theatre beat. Her reviews are usually well-written and fair and she takes the time to explain her opinions which many of the others do not. She doesn't seem to have any particular biases or agendas that I've ever been able to detect and she's never mean-spirited or one to slam shows just for the sake of slamming them. Winer's been a critic for at least a couple of decades (she started out in Chicago which is a great theatre town) and is quite knowledgeable.

You may, of course, feel free to disagree with her opinion on any given show (as you would with any critic), but I tend to find her (along with Feingold, Lahr, Heilpern and one or two others) to be generally reliable.

Updated On: 8/19/04 at 06:30 PM

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 6:54pm

Check Broadwayworld and Broadway.com's reviews...they're about as negative.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:08pm

Margo- you mean John Heilpern in the Observer? I just discovered him recently, and I like his style. Better him than the odious John Simon, anyway.

Critics aren't bitter because they can't write musicals or perform themselves, CATS. They probably never even had that ambition, and I'm sure if you looked up their resumes you'd find that out. Actually, I think the critics want to hear lyrics and a book that they know they couldn't have written themselves. When you're not a theater professional and you think "I could come up with something better than that," you know something's wrong. Updated On: 8/19/04 at 10:08 PM

[Testing1232]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 11:15pm

Agree with Spider... the lyrics are horrid !!!!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 11:37pm

Several critics are or have been accomplished theatre professionals. Michael Feingold of the Voice is a well-regarded translator, adaptor and lyricist and has had several acclaimed productions on and off- Broadway (and received two Tony nominations for "Happy End" back in the 70's). John Lahr of the New Yorker (son of the legendary Bert Lahr) won a Tony and Drama Desk for writing the book for "Elaine Stritch At Liberty."

In the past, George Bernard Shaw was a legendary critic for decades before becoming a legendary playwright. Walter Kerr (yeah, the one the theatre's named after) was a director, playwright, lyricist and book writer in addition to being a Pulitzer-prize winning critic.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 1:34am

Thanks for the correction, Margo. But I still say that not all critics took on the job to tear apart what they couldn't do themselves. Updated On: 8/20/04 at 01:34 AM

[Dollypop]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 2:42am

How many versions will there be of this show before it finally closes?