MISS SAIGON Reviews- Page 2

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 3/23/17 at 11:33pm

I haven't enjoyed reading a Brantley review that much in some time. Bravo. 

[10086sunset]

Posted: 3/23/17 at 11:41pm

QueenAlice said: "One thing Brantley nails extremely well is his description of Jonathan Pryce in the original production. It's very hard to paint a true portrait for those who didn't see it of what made Pryce so brilliant in the role and how his performance made the entire piece into a more sanguine commentary on American capitalism than it ever was with any of his successors in the part. Brantley describes that  beautifully."

Alice, completely agree with you. Brantley nailed this.

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 12:02am

Dancingthrulife2 said: "Call_me_jorge said: "Is Brantley or Green reviewing this one?

 

"

Probably both? Green won't start his job at Times until May. Until then, he's still a NY Magazine critic."

 

He is with Vulture.

 

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 12:09am

uncageg said: "Dancingthrulife2 said: "Call_me_jorge said: "Is Brantley or Green reviewing this one?

 

"

Probably both? Green won't start his job at Times until May. Until then, he's still a NY Magazine critic."

 

He is with Vulture.

 

 

"

Vulture is an entertainment publication from NY Mag. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 12:17am

I mean, what did we expect? It's a revival done on the cheap made to tour. 

[ggersten]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 12:18am

I don't think Brantley is even mixed.  That's a negative review.  He reads like he doesn't think much of the show itself - suggesting its a sleep-inducing, teeny bopper love story with some interesting performances that don't come close to the magic of Jonathan Pryce.  , 

[A Director]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 1:37am

Tim Zeeman's  The Daily Beast review clearly details the problems with Miss Saigon even with Asian actors in the cast.

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 2:26am

A Director said: "Tim Zeeman's  The Daily Beast review clearly details the problems with Miss Saigon even with Asian actors in the cast.

 

"

I happen to disagree. Here are a few weak arguments I found a few minutes into the review:

1) "Just how can you make the sexual, romantic, emotional and financial exploitation and abuse of a vulnerable Vietnamese woman into a barnstorming theatrical night out?"

Why does anyone turn anything into a show? Or does he assume the only thing theater should do is to entertain?

2) "As Pun Bandhu, an actor active with Asian American Performers Action Coalition, told The New York Times: the Asian characters in Miss Saigon “are victims of a war, but they are also characterized as opportunists, villainous, and, at the center of the story, Kim is written to be very weak.”"

Seriously? Kim is anything but weak.

3) "Her(Kim's) story doesn’t have an arc. " ... "Any kind of empowerment is never a possibility for her"

I can't believe I'm reading this. Is the Kim who will "do my dance...make them drink" and who "when it hurts...won't be me" the same person as the Kim who sings "they think they'll decide your life. No it will be me?" How is her sacrifice, then, not a kind of empowerment? 

4) The one moment where she takes action against a villain gets a resounding cheer

I don't remember any cheer when I saw the show, either in Japan or the States. If he really paid attention to the show, I can't imagine how he couldn't see Thuy is also a victim of the war. 

5) "The Engineer, whom we first meet as running a bar in Saigon pimping out Vietnamese women for G.I.s, yanks Kim by the hair, spits verbal abuse at her, threatens her and menaces her. It was impossible for this reporter to laugh along with the Engineer’s cunning—expressed as side-eye to the audience—or his exasperation with Kim’s purity because he was an abusive exploiter."

"But the character of the Engineer is of a rat, and his unatoned-for, unaddressed violence and exploitation of women, gives his rattishness an unbreakable outer layer. It felt right to me not to be charmed by him in the moments the production wants us to be"

How do you expect him to be? Think about this. It is POSSIBLE for him, who had to sell his mother to foreigners at a very young age, turn out to be polite, respectful, loving, caring, and kind in a world torn apart by colonialism and wars? You don't have to laugh with the audience, but applying your 21th century liberal bubble moral judgement on a person of another and space is not any better than the accusations themselves.

6) "Ellen is worried Chris will leave her for Kim, but no: the nice white Americans will instead take Tam away from Kim for a new life in America, and that will be fine—because Kim is totally disposable. And what brown baby wouldn’t want “a better life” in the USA? There is no substantive debate, or heart-wringing, about doing this. Kim gives up her own life to accept it too."

"The theme of American responsibility to the Vietnamese, to the refugees who will do anything to reach America for a better life remains central to the show, and remains admirably unresolved and uncomfortable."

I doubt anyone won't be disturbed by this, but isn't this the point of the show? Everyone is a victim of the war, and how can you expect anyone involved to turn out perfectly fine? Also, doesn't the American Dream number show him how distorted and illusional the "Dream" is already? The statue of liberty with mouth wide open engulfing lives, the money tornado swirling away Engineer's dream, the awkward fornication with a car... Does he even understand what sarcasm is?

Updated On: 3/24/17 at 02:26 AM

[A Director]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 3:56am

Dancing,  It is obvious you love Miss Saigon, so it is pointless to try to change your mind.  On the other hand, if you see Kim as a strong character, why does she kill herself at the end?  Does this organically grow out of the plot or does this happen because this is how Madama Butterfly ends and the Miss Saigon authors are merely following the opera's plot?

To me, this is the key line in The Daily Beast review. "Setting aside the original casting controversy, ''Miss Saigon'' has always seemed to me to be a cringe-worthy soap opera of racist stereotypes. I know the show provides lots of jobs for talented Asian-American actors, but I wish they had more opportunities to showcase their stellar skills elsewhere."  Do you have any thoughts about this?

[Chowd95]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 4:06am

What is your definition of "done on the cheap"?  The lack of automation?  

They have a huge ensemble, a full orchestra and a set that fills the giant stage of the Broadway theater.  

[mc1227]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 6:16am

A Director said: "Dancing,  It is obvious you love Miss Saigon, so it is pointless to try to change your mind.  On the other hand, if you see Kim as a strong character, why does she kill herself at the end?  Does this organically grow out of the plot or does this happen because this is how Madama Butterfly ends and the Miss Saigon authors are merely following the opera's plot?

To me, this is the key line in The Daily Beast review. "Setting aside the original casting controversy, ''Miss Saigon'' has always seemed to me to be a cringe-worthy soap opera of racist stereotypes. I know the show provides lots of jobs for talented Asian-American actors, but I wish they had more opportunities to showcase their stellar skills elsewhere."  Do you have any thoughts about this?

 

"

Please use spoiler alerts!!!  Thanks for letting me know the ending before I see it in 2 weeks.  

[Babe_Williams]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 6:42am

Dancing, I enjoy Miss Saigon too, but it does nothing for anyone to deny the problematic aspects of the show. I think even the biggest fan would admit that it does prey upon many one sided characters. I believe we had a lengthy discussion about it in the preview thread. 

[South Florida]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 7:36am

Like ggersten mentioned, how are you guys reading that as a positive review?

 

[Luscious]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 8:00am

I don't give a rat's ass what the critics have to say. Saw it two nights ago and it was a glorious night of theater! LOVED, LOVED, LOVED it! And bought tickets the next day to see it again. Obviously, if you're not a fan of the material, you're not going to enjoy it. But I've seen too many shows over my many years of theater going that critics have raved about and that I found insufferable, and vice versa, to care much about what they have to say. Too many agendas. Which can also be said about more than a few people who post on this board.

[Lot666]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 8:02am

BroadwayConcierge said: "Brantley is in: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/theater/miss-saigon-on-broadway-review.html"

"'Miss Saigon,' first staged in New York in 1991, is destined to be known forever as 'the musical with the helicopter,' rather as 'The Phantom of the Opera' is 'the musical with the falling chandelier.'”

I loathe critics like Brantley, who themselves originate and affix such labels, and then make statements like this with a feigned sigh.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 8:09am

Dancingthrulife2, well said. Those quotes from the Tim Teeman interview are too ridiculous for words. I think so ridiculous that one shouldn't even bother trying to explain to him what the show is about. Still, I am glad you did and completely destroyed his review and points. For the people who might not instantly realize how alienated that review is.

I agree that he must have had something against the show beforehand. The bias is dripping off of it. This man is lost and completely oblivious to what is in front of him.

If someone misses certain character arcs, lyrics, reasoning of characters, rationales, and is unable to place these characters and their actions in the time and place frame, doesn't understand anything about war and it's consequences, backgrounds and history, that's fine but then please stay away from shows and definitely don't write reviews. It reads like a review from a 12 year old stomping child. This person must experience a level of alienation in real life too. It's impossible that this level of disconnect from reality has no other influence on his life.

There will always be elements of feminism, sexism, aggression in a story because sometimes stories are about real life. Shows are about context. Also, if a person calls this show racist because of certain story lines, no offense but that person needs to be talking to someone very soon instead of writing stuff online.

Updated On: 3/24/17 at 08:09 AM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 8:13am

Lot666 said: "BroadwayConcierge said: "Brantley is in: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/theater/miss-saigon-on-broadway-review.html"

"'Miss Saigon,' first staged in New York in 1991, is destined to be known forever as 'the musical with the helicopter,' rather as 'The Phantom of the Opera' is 'the musical with the falling chandelier.'”

I loathe critics like Brantley, who themselves originate and affix such labels, and then make statements like this with a feigned sigh.

 

"

I completely agree. I actually feel sorry for people who say this show is about a helicopter. Because they are just oblivious and confused. It's those people that originate such labels.

Updated On: 3/24/17 at 08:13 AM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 8:18am

A Director said: "
To me, this is the key line in The Daily Beast review. "Setting aside the original casting controversy, ''Miss Saigon'' has always seemed to me to be a cringe-worthy soap opera of racist stereotypes. I know the show provides lots of jobs for talented Asian-American actors, but I wish they had more opportunities to showcase their stellar skills elsewhere."  Do you have any thoughts about this?"

So what makes you cringe? Reality? Does "The sound of music" makes you cringe because Rolf showcases Nazi behaviour and you would rather like to see him in different films too? What's the point?

Sounds more like personal issues, ostrich behaviour, head in the sand if you ask me.

The history of mankind is full of good and bad people, confusion and cringe worthy moments. It's up to us to face it, being moved by it, or to stick our heads in the sand. Art represents life.

It really is like saying: I don't like Snow White because the queen is not nice to her and not all the girls are maids. What the heck?



 

 

Updated On: 3/24/17 at 08:18 AM

[mailhandler777]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 9:30am

I don't read reviews and if I would I woudn't give 2 craps about them. I see a show because I'm interested in the show itself or someone that's in it. 

Updated On: 3/24/17 at 09:30 AM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 10:09am

LOVE this one.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/03/theater-review-why-are-we-in-miss-saigon.html

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 10:20am

GreasedLightning said: "uncageg said: "Dancingthrulife2 said: "Call_me_jorge said: "Is Brantley or Green reviewing this one?

 

"

Probably both? Green won't start his job at Times until May. Until then, he's still a NY Magazine critic."

 

He is with Vulture.

 

 

"

Vulture is an entertainment publication from NY Mag. 

 

Learn something new every day! I did not know that.

 

[Lot666]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 10:31am

Dave28282 said: "...I actually feel sorry for people who say this show is about a helicopter. Because they are just oblivious and confused. It's those people that originate such labels."

In part, yes, but the public usually gets it from a self-important critic who declared the show to be lowbrow because it incorporates a theatrical visual effect. Who decided that theatrical effects make for less compelling or effective theatre?

Updated On: 3/24/17 at 10:31 AM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 10:51am

If you read this thread you would think it opened to across the board pans, the show actually got a lot of positive reviews last night. 

[newintown]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 11:09am

I find it interesting, after seeing both, that the audience at the mindless idiotic poperetta Miss Saigon cheers the interpolated line "Make America great again!," while at War Paint, which at least tries to be smarter, the audience cheers the line "You have to stand up to a bully."

[helvizz]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 11:25am

Dave28282 said: "Lot666 said: "BroadwayConcierge said: "Brantley is in: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/theater/miss-saigon-on-broadway-review.html"

"'Miss Saigon,' first staged in New York in 1991, is destined to be known forever as 'the musical with the helicopter,' rather as 'The Phantom of the Opera' is 'the musical with the falling chandelier.'”

I loathe critics like Brantley, who themselves originate and affix such labels, and then make statements like this with a feigned sigh.

 

"

I completely agree. I actually feel sorry for people who say this show is about a helicopter. Because they are just oblivious and confused. It's those people that originate such labels.

 

"

I know what Brantley means. I only knew one thing about the show before seeing it/listening to it: i knew it had a helicopter. It's so unique and grand that it amazes the audience and people remember that years after watching the show. So it's only natural that they comment about the chopper when talking about the show with their friends (specially tourists). Thats how I heard of the show.