Margo on A Color Purple — Page 2

And SEND IN THE CLOWNS was written in 45 minutes. At least, that's the legend.

---

I hate to say this, but do you think maybe we, as the audience, are setting the bars too high?

You might consider a certain musical a perfect piece of theatre, but in reality, it isn't. There will never be a perfect piece of theatre.

An original piece of theatre starts with a vision. A writer has a vision. I composer has a vision. A designer has a vision. An actor has a vision. The audience has a vision. Theatre is collaboration. The writers, designers, director, etc. can share their visions and make them one.

The most difficult collaboration: the creative team --> the audience. The creative team is not sharing with you their specific vision and reasoning for something you see. You might not understand exactly what they were going for.

Some enjoy certain productions and some do not. Nothing wrong with that. I don't understand why people get so nasty when opinions or "visions" clash.

Please don't tear me apart...this is the most thoughtful post I have written here on BWW, lol.

---

I belong to three different services and have yet to see it appear. And, like Margo, I went to the box office two weeks ago w/a TheaterMania printout to get two tickets and ended up in the fifth row of the mezzanine...There weren't two tickets in the orchestra to be had (we were willing to split them up even, but they had nothing).

Is it even a remote possibility that there has been some cast cohesion and tightening from the first preview to the performance Margo saw?

From my point of view, I did not see any of Margo's review directed to any individual(s) --- as I read it, Margo predicted this to be a piece that resonates with the public -- hence a hit. There have been plenty of "hits" that many of us did not like or have any interest in seeing...

Don;t know about the house issuing tickets through employees -- I thought was usually reserved for dress rehearsals and all...I've not seen the show on any papering service I belong to...

---

Munk --

Not sure why you're under the impression that what I've written above is a rave review or something. I spend about a half dozen paragraphs -- about half of the review -- detailing the numerous faults, mistakes and shortcomings of the show. Are you bothered that I could still find it an enjoyable experience for the aspects of the show that I thought worked? The music was tuneful, the dancing first rate, the design gorgeous and the singing from the cast was at times astounding, giving me goosebumps -- should I have denied that I did just because several other aspects of the show weren't as thrilling or well put together? I found myself laughing frequently throughout, even at certain jokes that were admittedly cheap, vaudeveille-esque and not very clever -- should I pretend I didn't?

I very often go to late previews which are attended by critics as well and nothing bothers me more than looking over and seeing a critic laughing his head off throughout a show and then panning that show in print the next day. Perhaps, he felt it isn't good for the reputation to admit liking certain shows that he does, but it's patently dishonest and false to lie like that and given the size of some readerships it can potentially do harm to shows which obviously deserve better.

To me, 99% of shows are neither black nor white, but filled with greys, neither all good or all bad and I try to reflect that in my reviews. I have a few hundred words of criticism in that post above to go along with a few hundred words of praise and what I have written I think is fair to the show at this point in its life. I saw a THIRD preview, after all, of a show that has been in development for a couple of years -- it's just getting on its feet and making adjustments to playing in front of a live audience rather than being in workshop (most of this cast did not perform in the Atlanta production).

Perhaps, I have tempered some of my criticisms due to this and avoided blanket negative statements BECAUSE I know changes are being made as we speak. I've also learned that members of creative teams of shows do read my reviews (I have received MANY PMs thanking me for my feedback -- negative and positive), so I do try to be as detailed and constructive with my opinions as possible especially when I comment on an early preview. Simply slamming some aspect of a show is of no use to anyone -- any fool can do that -- I try to suggest how a given moment or aspect can be improved.

You mention the stakes aren't high enough. There's truth in that, but that's a book issue -- there's an imbalance in emphasis in the early establishing scenes and Norman and Griffin have work to do in increasing the tension -- but, for a third preview they at least had the outline of the scenes right. Give them time.

I, as you did, also found Mister's casting out of Nettie muddled and not nearly as effective as it should be (one of many things I listed in need of fixing in my review). This is not very difficult to fix -- it's a staging issue. Griffin has misblocked the scene. It's too far upstage and too many other things are going on at the same time pulling focus from where it needs to be and the musical underscoring is merely distracting when it should be heightening the emotion. With a Hal Prince or a Jack O'Brien in charge, the scene could be fixed in an hour or two in a single rehearsal -- we'll see if Gary Griffin can pull it off.

The majority of the show's problems can be fixed in the next week or two if the director and book writer are on point (and if they aren't they should bring in someone). But, regardless, what's already there is very entertaining -- the talent alone is worth the price of the ticket.

Munk, you just wrote a rave review for MAMMA MIA for chrissakes. You may disagree, but what's on stage at the Broadway, flaws and all, is a hundred times better than that mess at the Winter Garden (wanna talk book issues?), yet you enjoyed it. Why? TALENT. Great talent can make up for a LOT of shortcomings and take a show very far. Audiences can ignore flaws in the writing and staging left and right if the folks on stage are capable of fully engaging them. And for some audiences, that's all they want (there's a reason SMOKEY JOE'S CAFE ran for 5 years and MAMMA MIA will be around for another decade).

Anyway, my impressions above constitute what I would characterize as a Mixed or maybe a Mixed-to-Positive review of the third preview of a show I found quite entertaining, but has the potential of being far more than just that. Let's hope Griffin and company can make the necessary improvements and turn it into the musical that the material deserves.

---

Updated On: 11/7/05 at 04:37 PM

Margo: I'm not under the impression that you wrote a rave review at all. I was just surprised by some things you said...that's all.

For you to bring up my kind comments on MAMMA MIA! is pretty irrelevant. I didn't give the show a rave review - I think the show is a sad excuse for theatre - and I've stated that over and over. My "rave" review was merely for how well the show held up - not IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM for the material itself.

CLEARLY, PURPLE is better than MAMMA MIA - I never said it wasn't. It was just a hugely disappointing experience.

So you're trying to say that because I think MAMMA MIA has help up well over the 4 years that my opinion on THE COLOR PURPLE really isn't valid? That's sort of what was implied.

---

Munk--

Wow. You and I are having trouble communicating. Do you have some deep persecution complex or something that I don't know about? Again, why are you finding a personal attack when none was presented? The example of MAMMA MIA was simply pointing out a very successful (financially, at least) show that has major book issues which have been overcome by an extraordinarily talent cast. Right now, that's where COLOR PURPLE is (though of course, its book, flaws and all is leaps and bounds better than MAMMA MIA's).

It goes to the heart of why I think it'll be a big hit. The audience knows the story so well that it can fill in the gaps and problems in the book and simply sit back and enjoy the talent on stage. That's enough for a LOT of people. The show doesn't have to be a masterpiece to be successful. Even they don't fix all the problems, the name recognition of the title, the talent, the word of mouth and Oprah will give the show a healthy run.

---

Updated On: 11/7/05 at 04:54 PM

Margo: I understand what you're saying now...but you have to admit that what I thought you meant and what you actually MEANT were both conclusions easily drawn from your statement.

I find myself easier on shows like MAMMA MIA than things like THE COLOR PURPLE. When I go see MAMMA MIA, I expect the book to be terrible. When I walk into THE COLOR PURPLE - a literally and cinematic masterpiece - I expect only the best. Generally, audiences are more forgiving than I am. Not to say that I'm right - but still.

---

I think the problem is Margo is, in fact, human and can't find enjoyment and entertainment in shows with flaws (ie: IML).

He isn't a robot that calculates the percentage of flaws in a show and then decides whether or not to like the show.

Maybe this is why Margo's reviews are so respected...He knows what it takes to make a show (from the audience side), but also knows how to be entertained.

But can't personally speak for him, so ignore this anyway.

Now, back to TCP - will there be (or are there) student rush tickets? I have to say, I love the demo CD. I'd have to say, based on just that CD, the music is nice - nothing spectacular.

But it is a demo.

BSO, you're like Margo's pet muppet.



I like some songs from the show - maybe even most of them, in face. It's one of those shows I need to see again (in a few weeks) to REALLY form a final opinion.

---

The seats are in the first two rows of the orchestra. There seems to be some miscommunication about when the seats go on sale: some have said 2 hours before curtain, some have said when the box office opens.

$26.25

Oh, and you DON'T want to see In My Life again...

Oh, GOD.

---