NEWSIES reviews- Page 2

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 6:30pm

Here's what I find 'depressing and frustrating.' People who are willing to dismiss a show wholesale, based only on seeing a video clip or TV commercial. And some don't even see that.

Whatever one thinks of critics, at least they see the ENTIRE production before they judge, so they have more context and credibility. ... It's silly to think one could read a few pages of, say, 'War and Peace' or 'Hamlet,' and write it off.

Anachronistic? Yup, real-life newsies in 1899 didn't sing pop-rock and do turns and spins in the street. Any more than French revolutionaries sang Euro-pop in 'Les Miz,' or cowboys danced ballet by Agnes de Mille in 'Oklahoma!' Gee, I guess no one in real life bursts into song, accompanied by an orchestra, either.

How can one say 'Newsies' can does little more than 'connect the dots' when one hasn't even seen it? If there's anything the critics seem to agree on, it's that Harvey Fierstein's book improves on the screenplay by deepening the characters, adding more humor, creating a stronger love interest, etc.

'Crowd pleaser. Good for the crowds. They're getting exactly what they want ... and deserve.' Is it possible to be more condescending? Since when was making theatergoers happy a crime? You'd prefer they were miserable? And if you think it's so easy to write a 'crowd pleaser,' try it. Tons of shows fail.

So it goes in the age of the Internet. Most everyone's a critic, and if you don't see the show, it's easier to stay home and be convinced you're right, rather than having an open mind and experiencing the work itself and challenging one's beliefs.

[The Pud]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 8:29pm

What "Newsies" does have going for it is the discovery of a bright new star in Jeremy Jordan. He's got a velvety singing voice and conveys a scrappy vulnerability that's perfect for Jack. If the show isn't quite ready for Broadway, he sure is  and will be. He stars next month in "Bonnie and Clyde."


Daily News likes Jeremy Jordan

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 8:42pm

For what it's worth, I did see NEWSIES and I think Besty is spot-on with everything he said, especially since most of his comments are general comments and observations on theater and theater audiences.

Nearly all of the critics slammed the movie in their reviews (to appear unbiased, maybe?) but most of their criticisms are the very things that I love and find so charming about the movie: the scrappy dancing, the less-than-perfect singing voices. I don't watch the movie to see some slick, glossy dance moves performed by perfect dancers with perfect voices. Aside from completely destroying the characters and the story (in my opinion), the creators of the musical sucked out whatever charm the movie has.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 8:46pm

Here's what I find 'depressing and frustrating.' People who are willing to dismiss a show wholesale, based only on seeing a video clip or TV commercial. And some don't even see that.

Whatever one thinks of critics, at least they see the ENTIRE production before they judge, so they have more context and credibility. ... It's silly to think one could read a few pages of, say, 'War and Peace' or 'Hamlet,' and write it off.

Anachronistic? Yup, real-life newsies in 1899 didn't sing pop-rock and do turns and spins in the street. Any more than French revolutionaries sang Euro-pop in 'Les Miz,' or cowboys danced ballet by Agnes de Mille in 'Oklahoma!' Gee, I guess no one in real life bursts into song, accompanied by an orchestra, either.

How can one say 'Newsies' can does little more than 'connect the dots' when one hasn't even seen it? If there's anything the critics seem to agree on, it's that Harvey Fierstein's book improves on the screenplay by deepening the characters, adding more humor, creating a stronger love interest, etc.

'Crowd pleaser. Good for the crowds. They're getting exactly what they want ... and deserve.' Is it possible to be more condescending? Since when was making theatergoers happy a crime? You'd prefer they were miserable? And if you think it's so easy to write a 'crowd pleaser,' try it. Tons of shows fail.

So it goes in the age of the Internet. Most everyone's a critic, and if you don't see the show, it's easier to stay home and be convinced you're right, rather than having an open mind and experiencing the work itself and challenging one's beliefs.

Wayman, we've had our disagreements in the past, but I think you're 100% right here.

[massofmen]

Posted: 9/29/11 at 3:16pm

this is why the show better be darn ready to open the rehearsals for the public on video and for critics.

I say if you want the press so badly that you will do a reh video you better be ready for the backlash. i don't remember book of mormon doing a reh video and they seem to be selling pretty well

The producers are doing it to sell tickets. And if it doesn't sell tix because people don't like it who's fault is that? the people who don't like it or the people trying to sell it. Make a better video..or don't make one at all

and I think if i saw a reh video of the original Les Mis with the barricade and them singing "do you hear the people sing" or a reh video of the phantom in a boat singing "phantom of the opera" or a psuedo helicopter in "miss saigon" i would have run to buy a tix. So don't judge the people judging, judge the crappy reh video.

Posted: 9/29/11 at 4:05pm

So what Broadway shows WEREN'T trying to be crowd-pleasing? Has there ever been a show designed to lose money?

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/29/11 at 6:02pm

You're missing the point about "crowd-pleasing," Joe.

"Barbie On Ice" is designed to be crowd-pleasing. So is "A Little Night Music." That's the lowest common denominator. Perhaps the only common denominator.

One aspires to be more than that. The other does not.

And you're absolutely right. All shows want to be crowd-pleasing. Which is why using that as "critical praise" means next-to-nothing. It means a show has succeeded at the lowest common denominator.

Updated On: 9/29/11 at 06:02 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/29/11 at 7:08pm

I don't think of "crowd-pleasing" as critical praise, but as an objective observation. Usually, any acknowledgment of audience reaction is only used to confirm the critic's own opinion. I find it really refreshing when a critic can actually admit he didn't like the show, but the audience seemed to love it.