NEWSIES reviews

[egghumor]

Posted: 9/27/11 at 9:17am

Mixed from
The New York Post

[egghumor]

Posted: 9/27/11 at 9:18am

Favorable from

The New York Daily News Updated On: 9/27/11 at 09:18 AM

[tazber]

Posted: 9/27/11 at 11:23am

EW is (almost) a rave:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20364394_20531864,00.html

And here is the other thread which includes some other reviews:
Link

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 9/27/11 at 11:34am

I wouldn't call the Daily News a rave. It's positive, but he says they still have a lot of work to do before Broadway. He says the secondary characters are sketchy and two-dimensional and he says the score lacks a signature catchy Menken tune (which I don't agree with - how many times have you heard "Seize the Day" or "Santa Fe" at auditions or chorus recitals, or found yourself humming them?).

[egghumor]

Posted: 9/27/11 at 12:35pm

Ok, Yero, you make a persuasive argument. I modified rave to favorable.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 9/27/11 at 5:03pm

I'd say the Daily News review is very favorable. Even with his quibbles, he gave it 4 stars out of 5.

Here's another review, this one from BackStage, and it's written by someone who wasn't a fan of the movie, but 'smells a hit.'
BackStage review of 'Newsies'

[April Saul]

Posted: 9/27/11 at 11:36pm

Hey, the NY Times loved it...congrats to all!

David Rooney: Even for the cynics among us, "Newsies" has a stirring, old-school sincerity that's hard to resist. In its call to arms, its refusal to back down to big business, its fight for basic human dignity and its skepticism toward politics, the show also has themes that resonate in our new depression. It's not Clifford Odets, but an adorable pro-union, up-with-the-downtrodden musical seems worth singing about.

http://theater.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/theater/reviews/newsies-the-musical-review.html

Posted: 9/28/11 at 2:39am

"As Fierstein notes in an essay in the show's program, one of the film's chief claims to fame was 'the captivatingly inept singing of an adorably teenaged Christian Bale.' "

I guess I'm in the minority, but I always found Bale's singing in the movie kinda charming...

[Starcarolina]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 3:51am

I thought Christian Bale sang very well...in character, straight forward, no frills, natural and believable. In the context of the film, the tone and mood of his portrayal, in addition to his vocal characterization, were,IMO, perfect. The current stage production from what I have seen does not seem quite as dark...the singing voices and the choreography just seem brighter and lighter. And Mr. Jordon has the X-Factor...

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 6:02am

It just proves what I said in another thread ... this is what people expect today. I find it depressing and frustrating.

I'll take Bale's "captivatingly inept" singing (according to Harvey Fierstein) over Jeremy Jordan's whiny, over-sung, power-belting (at least in the clips) any day of the week. I may not have seen Harvey's stage show, but I have seen the movie, and his criticism of Bale is way off the mark. In fact, I would call that critical assessment "captivatingly inept," except for the "captivating" part. There were a lot of things wrong with the movie, but Bale's in-character singing isn't one of them. Harvey (Mr. In-Character Singing himself) should know better. Several of the critics, including the NY Times, jumped on the same bashing band wagon (probably since Bale is so well-known now, and they want to make sure readers have some identifiable reference). They should know better, too.

I also love how critics are quick to call the film's choreography anachronistic, which it is ... but fail to point out that SO IS THE MUSIC. It's not exactly turn-of-the-last-century ditties we're listening to. What a moronic comment without the context. And while I'm not a huge fan of the film's choreography (which crosses into music video too often), I like it a lot better than the brainless "dance class" acrobatics, that have ZERO to do with character or story or the music, shown in these stage show videos. A few Janet Jackson-esque steps actually seem closer in tune with the score (although not by much) than this generic ballet barre bonanza for "street kids." And at least some of the film's choreography seems character-driven.

I guess the bottom line (based on an overall consensus of the reviews) is something I can't and won't argue with ... this stage adaptation is a "crowd pleaser." Good for the crowds. They're getting exactly what they want ... and deserve.

Updated On: 9/28/11 at 06:02 AM

[Trish2]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 6:56am

I'm with you again best12bars.

The Backstage review calls Gattelli out on the non-driven character choreography:

"Christopher Gattelli's ambitious choreography, executed thrillingly by these talented youngsters, could be a bit more character-specific, but it mostly succeeds, shot through with adolescent testosterone and boyish enthusiasm, particularly his strike dance."

While the dweeb from Talkin Broadway review has an entirely different take and ridiculously ranks Gattelli with the likes of Fosse, DeMille, Bennett, etc:


"Choreographer Christopher Gattelli here solidifies his movement into the first rank of choreographers for the American musical theatre. His robust and exciting choreography is not only extremely gymnastic, as was the film choreography of Kenny Ortega and Peggy Holmes, but, unlike the film choreography, it contains large amounts of classical ballet movement. There are three formal dance numbers, additional numerous bursts of dance mostly during scene transitions, and a too short, potent dance divertissement between the last scene and the curtain calls. This is show-stopping stuff."

Well, at least he had the wherewithall to say that he noticed those WERE Classical Ballet steps that those downtrodden newsboys were performing. What he didn't understand was that the movements were taken right from a dance class and thrust upon the stage having nothing to do with the style of the period.

Let's face it, in today's world most people, reviewers alike, have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to deconstructing dance. It's either ambitious, exciting, athletic, or serviceable. It only takes one nights viewing of So You Think You Can Dance to discover how even the so-called professionals have nothing intelligent to say. Guest judges Rob Marshall and Lady Gaga gave the most frank and realistic critiques that show has ever known.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 7:11am

Wow, Trish2. That Talkin' Broadway review speaks volumes.

I'm glad the Backstage review called it out, but I do see a general trend, not just in audiences but in the critics. They're not as discerning or detailed anymore.

It's almost the equivalent of a modern action-movie mentality. If it "blows up" a lot, then it's a really good film. With a musical, if someone sings a high F and holds it for a week, and turns a quadruple pirouette, that means it's a good musical.


EDIT: I would like to add that I don't care whether the choreography is based in classical ballet or modern or hip-hop ... that's just the basic "dance language" being used. But it NEEDS to be character-driven and (hopefully) story-driven as well. It's not the ballet I'm objecting to, it's the genericness of the steps in the context of a theatrical show.

Updated On: 9/28/11 at 07:11 AM

[CateBroadway]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 10:13am

Okay who here votes that best12bars and Trish2 are no longer allowed to write about this until they've actually SEEN THE SHOW?!?

Each of you have written a THESIS on how awful this production is without seeing more than a couple minute clips online.
The critics have spoken and these are probably as good of reviews as any Disney show has ever gotten (yes, including Lion King). And most of them noted that they had low expectations and were overwhelmingly surprised with how much they enjoyed it.

Instead of writing another 10 diatribes why don't you hop on a train like the rest of us. Although I would personally feel bad for the cast as I'm sure they'd be able to feel all of that negative energy permeating from the audience.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 10:33am

I know exactly what you can do with all your "negative energy" talk and your voting idea.

[Trish2]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 10:57am

"Like the two-act legit version of "Aladdin" that bowed in Seattle over the summer, this Disney Theatrical Prods.-backed stage adaptation is targeted to regional, stock and amateur stagings rather than a large-scale Broadway berth."

"It's hard not to like an upbeat story about triumphant ragamuffins, so regional prospects are favorable and schools will find the show a relief from reviving "Annie" and "Oliver!" While "Newsies" may be too earnest for Broadway circulation, it's a vigorous David-and-Goliath tale rendered with old-school skill."

Newsies: The Musical

[egghumor]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 11:03am

Wow, Cate. Welcome to cyberspace where opinions are shared openly and freely. How many people call President Obama all sorts of names without knowing hardly anything about him, or pass judgement on court cases without any basic understanding of the charges, circumstances, etc.? This is a universe with little or no rules.

Best12bars always offers thoughtful and often insightful and astute comments regarding shows, films, performances, writing. His posts are a perfect example of why I visit BWW on a daily basis. I can't imagine what this site would be like without him.
His are NOT diatribes.

I also recommend that you pay attention to posts by PalJoey, Reginald, and a few other regulars around here you might learn something.

I didn't have to see more than 15-20 minutes of the current HOW TO SUCCEED to know that I don't care for Rob Ashford's approach to the material.

A few people on rare occasions try to silence me here as well because I haven't "seen the show" blah blah blah. Those of us who have seen literally hundreds of Broadway, OB, and regional productions (not to mentional professional/academic training) can recognize concept, directoral, and other types of flaws in shows without havng to sit for two-plus hours to confirm our views. Would I like to see NEWSIES? Sure, but will I (due to distance and other restraints)? Not likely. I'm happy to read these threads, read the reviews, watch the video clips and interviews and judge for myself.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 11:29am

OK, I saw it, and although entertaining enough, everything about this show feels recycled. It really is sort of an Annie meets Oliver kind of thing. It's almost like watching a collage or Frankenstein monster made up of bits and pieces of every inspirational kid narrative ever written.

They put the monster together well, but it all feels synthetic when the house lights come up.
Updated On: 9/28/11 at 11:29 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 12:13pm

So they settled for crowd-pleasing, and they got it, too. Good for them. It will probably do well in regional markets, and if it transfers it may run for a while on its "crowd-pleasing" legs, although I do wonder about name recognition. It may be "more fun" than Tarzan or Little Mermaid, but those names are known to audiences. Newsies isn't as well-known, and if people do know it, it's as a film flop. I wonder if it will draw people in if it turns up on a "summer youth theatre" schedule. Although, their shows can sell out with nothing but parents, friends, and relatives, so it gives them something new to see, at least. And if schools want to tie it into an American history lesson and make it must-see theatre, another round of points in their favor.

I get the "business" side of show business, and this show was "Frankensteined" together (to use your analogy, newintown) to make money.

I just wish the creative team would have aimed a bit higher than "crowd-pleasing" when they had the opportunity. I'm not talking about "revolutionary" or "trailblazing," but why not try for more than connecting the dots while you're in the rehearsal hall?

Hey, they could have done a lot worse. Their dot-connecting could have pleased no one, in the end. It's a bit of a surprise to think they may spin their archival straw into gold with this play. Strictly from a business POV, that's quite an accomplishment.

Updated On: 9/28/11 at 12:13 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 1:50pm

I also love how critics are quick to call the film's choreography anachronistic, which it is ... but fail to point out that SO IS THE MUSIC.

Not to mention that anachronistic choreography and music have been inherent in musical theatre FOREVER. What does one expect to see and hear in The Boys From Syracuse?!?! A 1930s musical based on a Shakespeare play set in ancient Rome must have caused their heads to explode! Even Sondheim got it all wrong when he penned Forum. Thank God those critics weren't asked to review Spring Awakening.

Harvey (Mr. In-Character Singing himself) should know better.

Thank you. I like Harvey and saw him in Fiddler and La Cage and that comment of his made me wince more than his rendition of If I Were a Rich Man.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 2:44pm

I wonder why the TIMES sent their third(?) string critic?

And as I have stated before, when producers put a clip or clips online they are there to entice audience members to JUDGE if they like it or not. This board is here to discuss everything we see.

[egghumor]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 3:32pm

I assume Brantley or Isherwood are waiting for it to arrive in New York, hopefully in even stronger condition (and possibly without Jeremy Jordan -- although I bet he returns by the time it reaches Broadway).

[JMPlayer6]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 3:49pm

I saw this on Saturday (9/24/11). As soon as the show concluded, my first thought was that the show was a real crowd-pleaser. I see that phrase being bantered about a lot here and in some of the reviews, but that was exactly my thought. Not every show needs to be the cinema equivalent of "Citizen Kane". There's nothing wrong with a good crowd-pleaser, a show that is just entertaining unto itself. I saw the movie when it came out, and have only vague memories of it, frankly. Disney made a noble attempt to revise the live-action movie musical. It failed, but such is life. As for the stage play: was it perfect? No. But it was solid entertainment. I enjoyed it, and I am very glad that I made the effort to see it.

[Christoph]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 4:24pm

Very surprised by the good reviews this is getting. May have to make a trip to see it after all.

And I agree with you 100%, CateBroadway. I do not care how much "seniority" someone has on the board or how eloquent-sounding their dismissals appear, if you have not seen a show, then you should not be posting several e-mails critiquing it. It would be no different than if I wrote an in-depth review of Raging Bull dismissing it as pretentious dreck after only watching a Coming Attractions trailer for it.

Trust me, I know. I had a friend who used to offer her unsolicited in-depth critiques/recommendations of movies and shows, and then volatilely defend her recommendations when anyone came back dissatisfied. After a while when the truth became obvious, she grudgingly admitted that she did not even see the majority of what she dissed or recommended, claiming that if she saw the trailer and read the reviews, that made her qualified to offer her opinions and recommendations. I cannot tell you how many mediocrities I sat through based on her recommendations, so I venture well clear of anyone who starts off by admitting "I haven't seen the show, but let me tell you what I think..."

Also, at what point did the description "crowd-pleasing" become a derogatory grenade to lob by high-minded people at productions? Does anyone know of any Broadway producers/directors/writers who hope that their shows only appeal to a handful of purportedly discerning elites?

Updated On: 9/28/11 at 04:24 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 5:09pm

A few things, Mr. High-and-Mighty Christoph ...

1) At no point in any post did I try to pass off my criticisms as reviews of the show. Not ever. I was very straightforward with what I was commenting on. I mentioned the clips, and what I had and hadn't seen. My criticisms on this last page were largely about the comments critics have made about the film, which I HAVE seen.

2) You're not a policeman or a court of law. You have no right to censor comments. You can disagree with them all you want. Argue with them. Tell me I'm way off base. But you have no business telling people what they can and can't react to, especially since the clips in question were posted by the production company and PR people in order to illicit a reaction. And I have mine. You have yours, too.

3) Curious as to why it took you so damn long to disregard your friend's movie reviews. Didn't get it that her opinions weren't in line with yours after one or two movies? Yet you sat through countless "mediocrities" at her recommendation? That says more about you than it does about her critiques.

4) Piss off.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 5:27pm

Let's talk about "crowd-pleasing," which you seem to think is the ultimate compliment ...

It's vague praise at best, artistically, even if it's high praise financially. As far as the creative side, it can be a terrific singer or dancer. That's crowd-pleasing. It can also be a dog taking a crap on the stage. That's "crowd-pleasing," too. Poo always gets big laughs and sells tickets. "Crowd-pleasing" can be a Sondheim show or a bullfight. A Tea Party rally or a supermarket opening. It just means that people were in attendance, enjoying what they were seeing. That's all.