Munk's LENNON review- Page 2

[overthemoon419]

re: Munk's LENNON review#25

Posted: 9/12/05 at 3:15pm

thank you, ghostlight. it's nice to know some people on this site can not only blather on with personal opinions but also understand those of others.

munk, if you'd care to actually READ my previous post, i noted that the show paints Yoko in a good light because in John's mind, she was painted in a good light. way to be literate.

i love Lennon not despite its flaws, but because of them. no show is perfect. every show, every thing, has flaws. you can't please all the people all the time. however, you can be respectful to them by getting your facts straight before you attempt to insult them. i'm disappointed in you, munk, and i now know that your opinions should always be taken with a grain of salt--if you can be that off the mark with a simple two paragraph comment that you can read at your convenience, who knows how a two-hour performance will be interpreted by you

"It's not for sissies, contrary to popular belief." - Tommy Tune, on musical theatre.

My avatar: Yummy, no?

[Carl Magnum]

re: Munk's LENNON review#26

Posted: 9/12/05 at 3:30pm

Hey Ghostlight and Moon, why don't you lay off Munk.


Beautiful review Munk hun, I'm glad I didn't waste my money on this show. I'm sure I can find much better ways to spend it to celebrate the true memory of John Lennon and not on this half baked concept musical.

I got rid of my teeth at a young age because... I'm straight. Teeth are for gay people. That's why fairies come and get them

[ghostlight2]

re: Munk's LENNON review#27

Posted: 9/12/05 at 3:36pm

No, I don't think I will, thanks, Magnum. Not when he's condescending to someone for no good reason.

You may enjoy his catty brand of posting, but I don't and I'll call him on it when he's got it coming.

Interesting that you think only his opinion matters - no dissenters allowed, eh?

[munkustrap178]

re: Munk's LENNON review#28

Posted: 9/12/05 at 4:28pm

ghostlight/overthemoon:

"the show doesn't insult Yoko Ono Lennon as much as many sadistic theatregoers would like because John loved Yoko"

That is what overthemoon said. Now, one could assume that moon felt the need to write that because I said something meriting that response in my post. So, aside from any reading comprehension that you may think I need to perfect, perhaps your friend moon should look into formulating proper sentences, and writing in an effective manner that clearly gets their point across - not some vague, random response that could be interpreted several ways.

I didn't bash anyone else's opinion of this show, at all. I only disagreed with moon when I (apparantly, mistakently) said that I never said the show made Yoko seem evil.

Moon:

Your lovely "every show has flaws" rant really warmed my heart. Jesus loves you, too. However, as a student of theatre and as someone who will accept nothing but the best, it is my right as a theatregoer - paying or not - to voice my opinions on this show. Now, I know that if I had liked the show, you'd be singing an entirely different tune on this matter.

And getting my facts straight? Kindly, point out where I declared somethign to be fact that is, indeed, false. Because when you point it out to me, I will gladly correct it and apologize...I have a feeling I won't hear from you, because all my facts, as you say, are straight.

You're disappointed in me? Why, because I don't like mediocre theatre that is almost a mockery of this man's life? Or just because you thought my taste in theatre was worse?

Now you know my opinions should always be taken with a grain of salt? Oh, no! What will I do now that people aren't taking my opinions seriously! I don't write these reviews to try to stop people from seeing a show, or to do anything - I do it because I enjoy it, and I like a healthy discussion of a show. All opinions should be taken with a grain of salt - all an opinion is is ONE person's take on the show. Why my take should infuriate you so much is beyond me.

"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy." -Charlie Manson

[munkustrap178]

re: Munk's LENNON review#29

Posted: 9/12/05 at 8:37pm

That's what I thought.

"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy." -Charlie Manson

[ghostlight2]

re: Munk's LENNON review#30

Posted: 9/12/05 at 9:50pm

Y'know, I was just going to let this thread die a peaceful death, but since you're so anti-peace with your juvenile "Yeah, that's what I thought", I'll sink to your level.

You say that "one" could assume that Moon felt the need to write "the show doesn't insult yoko ono lennon as much as many sadistic theatregoers would like because John loved Yoko" because you said something meriting that response in your post. Well, "one" could assume that if "one" assumes everything is about you, but otherwise, WTF? Why assume? Moon's post was in no way directed at you.

Further, you say "...aside from any reading comprehension that you may think I need to perfect, perhaps your friend Moon should look to formulating proper sentences, and writing in an effective manner that clearly gets their point across - not in some vague random response that could be interpreted in several ways." Just how many ways can you interpret that quote, munk? Seemed pretty clear to me. Also, another mistake. Moon is not my friend or even a passing acquaintence. Another example of your tendencey to condescend?

Actually, aside from an unfortunate avoidance of the shift key, Moon writes quite clearly and understandably, quite unlike your
"Did Yoko Ono - I'm sorry - I slipped again - St Yoko Ono Lennon only agreed to this show so people so adamantly against her - or confused by her - could finally accept her and realize that she's a good, saintly person? Does he honestly believe that he's more important than her husband?"

Now there's a morass of words. Who's "he"? Really nice use of dashes (five of them in one sentence!), too, by the way. Not the way most writers would do it, but hey, you got to be you, right? At least Moon knows how to break words up into readable sentences and paragraphs. And I'll bet that you didn't really slip, munk. You were just taking a cheap shot at St. Yoko (who btw, no one is calling a saint but you).

Now, let us get to straightening out your "facts".

"Sadly, the only emotions this show evokes from its audience are those of bafflement and regret." Munk, this is known as a personal opinion, and you can look no further than this board than to find audience members who enjoyed the show very much and had other emotions.

"...complete with a white build it yourself mini-piano from IKEA and a replication of the set from Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Really? They got it from IKEA? How on earth did you find that out? I didn't even know they sold those. The millionaire set, too, huh? Had chairs in the middle and the audience all the way around? Was Meredith Viera there, too?

"[Chuck Cooper's] renditions of a few of the songs were literally breathtaking." You might want to look up "literally". Or do you no longer have any breath and are dead now?

"Unfortunately, Lennon's musical has come and gone, and this is it." Yeah, once a subject has been covered, no one can ever, ever approach it again. There's some kind of law regarding that, right? Beatlemania was just an anomoly, and it wasn't just about John Lennon, so that doesn't really count.

"I'm fairly certain that if John Lennon were alive today, he would be appalled at what is currently being presented at the Broadhurst." Yeah, because he was always so well-known for his many, many disagreements with Yoko's opinions and ways of doing things.


Updated On: 9/12/05 at 09:50 PM

[BSoBW2]

re: Munk's LENNON review#31

Posted: 9/12/05 at 9:53pm

In a personal review you state things AS fact.

I don't see Brantley saying, "This show was dribble...but that's ONLY my opinion."

[ghostlight2]

re: Munk's LENNON review#32

Posted: 9/12/05 at 10:45pm

Brantley is a professional reviewer, and Munk is not. His statement that the audience only felt bafflement or regret is speaking for the entire audience, and is quite simply incorrect. Even Big Ben wouldn't have said such a thing.

[luvtheEmcee]

re: Munk's LENNON review#33

Posted: 9/13/05 at 12:39am

That's why Brantley writes for the Times and none of us do. And I daresay that shouldn't give us any less right to discuss our opinions, within reason in a way in which we see fit.

I know Munk's bitchy, (I love you!) but honestly. It's his opinion. And really, the pro reviews can be WAY harsher - it's hardly an excuse to say that he can't say such just because he isn't Ben Brantley. Is this that "you have to say IN MY OPINION" before every statement argument again? Because that got old a really, really long time ago. Reviews are subjective. There is no correct or incorrect. Get yourself untwisted and relax.

A work of art is an invitation to love.

[ghostlight2]

re: Munk's LENNON review#34

Posted: 9/13/05 at 1:31am

Munk said "Kindly, point out where I declared somethign [sic] to be fact that is indeed false....I have a feeling that I won't hear from you, because all my facts, as you say, are straight."

Then after 4 hours of no response, he comes back like a petty little child and says "That's what I thought".

And now you castigate me for picking up that gauntlet? Love the way your little cadre sticks together. He asked for his flaws to be pointed out, and I have. Why are you objecting to that?

I have never been involved in any discussion saying people should have to say "IN MY OPINION", nor did I say he has no right to voice his opinion because he's not Brantley.

I really don't see how you think it's right for any "reviewer" to say he speaks for an entire audience. That quite plainly is wrong. I don't see how you can argue that point.

In any case, my biggest problem with him is the way he treats other posters. He's not just bitchy, he's unpleasant and often downright nasty and insulting, especially to the younger and newer posters. There's no need for that.

I'm plenty relaxed, though, thanks for the concern. And not remotely twisted. Just because I voice an opinion differing from his does not make me tense and angry. It simply makes me a person voicing a differing opinion from his. What's wrong with that?

[nomdeplume]

CURLY-HAIRED MEN IN LENNON?#35

Posted: 9/13/05 at 1:38am

Did we tally the curly-haired men in LENNON yet?

I think really that is an important part of any review since it IS a Broadway show.

I think Will Chase may have gone to extremes to get rid of some curl to try to play that straight-haired Beatle.

Does Will Chase have curly hair?

[showbiz]

Lennon#36

Posted: 9/13/05 at 10:40am

Ok, I really love Lennon so I'll just focus on one of the positive parts of Munk's review:

"I'm also glad, because this show introduced me to Marcy Harriell - someone I was previously unaware of. While a generally fine performer all around, her "Woman is the n* of the World" was undoubtedly the highlight of the evening - this girl brought tears to my eyes and had chills running up and down my spine...she was the only person in the show to completely move me."

Marcy Harriell's performance is worth going to see Lennon, that one song is that good. But...I think the entire show is worthy of seeing, the whole cast is tremdously talented and the music incredibly performed. Lennon is so relevant to the times we live in.

[luvtheEmcee]

Lennon#37

Posted: 9/13/05 at 10:52am

If you voice a differing opinion, then it's not exactly right to tell someone that they can't have theirs. That's not difficult to understand. Pose yours, but don't call someone else's totally invalid, or act like you think it is. You're being awfully petty in trying to make some point - but really, what's it matter to you the flaws in what he writes? I'm boggled by how much time you've spend trying to prove something I can't seem to figure. What's the use? I don't think he was "speaking for" the audience, but making an observation - which I think plenty of reviewers do. Audience reaction can be a useful guage, sometimes.

nondeplume, sorry to disappoint, but no I don't think he does! And he fares perfectly well without it!

Does anybody know if Julia Murney is sick, or what?

A work of art is an invitation to love.

Updated On: 9/13/05 at 10:52 AM

[BSoBW2]

Lennon#38

Posted: 9/13/05 at 10:55am

ghostlight - he didn't come back because he is having Internet trouble.

[ghostlight2]

Lennon#39

Posted: 9/13/05 at 1:49pm

Thanks, BSoBW2, and I do mean that seriously, but it's just as well. I don't if he responds (though I'll be suprised if he doesn't have to have the last word. I won't be responding to any of his posts on this thread. I won't even be reading them. I find Munk mean and petty, condescending and rude to fellow posters. I find him offensive. The man is a vicious negative circle. Ho writes provacatively them professes a coy suprise and puzzlement at the reponse he provokes.

I have every much a right to decry his posts are he has to post them.

[munkustrap178]

Lennon#40

Posted: 9/13/05 at 5:30pm

Ghostlight, you are being absurd. If I had written a review for LENNON that was amazingly positive, you wouldn't make a single comment on my writing style or use of 5 dashes in a sentence. If I made an assumption about the audience's reaction that was conducive to yours, something tells that that you wouldn't be telling me not to do such a thing.

And you're right - do I know that that white piano is from Ikea? No. If you have to ask such a question, then clearly you don't understand the concept of sarcasm. Ikea doesn't even sell pianos.

"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy." -Charlie Manson