NY Times Review of YANK

[A Director]

Posted: 2/24/10 at 11:46pm

Why did the Times send their third (fourth) string critic to review YANK? Is Ben back in London? Is Charles back in Chicago?

[bjh2114]

Posted: 2/24/10 at 11:48pm

Because the York is a teeny tiny not major off-Broadway theatre at all, and Brantley and Isherwood have had more major things to review in the past week or so.

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 2/25/10 at 12:12am

It's a conspiracy against the gays! Just like the casting of Kelsey Grammer in La Cage and the closing of Finian's Rainbow (obviously because Cheyenne is gay).

[RoslynReynolds]

Posted: 2/25/10 at 1:06am

They totally dissed "Yank."
Gave it a bad review AND
couldn't even be bothered
to send an important critic.

[DrewBill]

Posted: 2/25/10 at 12:17pm

I wouldn't characterize the NYTimes review as "bad" -- it was really more mixed. Mr. Genzlinger does say that the first act is "delightful," and he has other nice things to say about the show and cast.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 2/25/10 at 1:43pm

I agree, Drew. From the earlier post this morning, I thought the Times had really crucified it. Once I got to reading the review, however, it didn't seem quite as deadly as I had assumed. The Post also was sort of half and half on it. Granted, neither were what you'd call money reviews and I doubt the show will extend. I do think it's going to be a boost with Bobby's career -- if he can land a good role in some slam-dunk smash, he'd really be on his way. Speaking of Steggart -- has the Camelot performance ever been released anywhere? I forgot to tape it the night it was on -- wasn't all that crazy about it, but now that great things seem to be happening to Will Swenson and Bobby, I'd like to take another look at it. I remember that Bobby was over-the-top camp.

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 2/25/10 at 2:45pm

I assume this is the same critic that reviewed the show when it was at the Gallery Players in Brooklyn a few years ago. Perhaps that was considered enough of a showing not to send Isherwood or Brantley.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 2/25/10 at 3:02pm

This is what I was told: Isherwood did ask to review 'Yank!' but because of his schedule (I heard he has a London trip), he would've had to see the show before its offical press previews (which started Friday, Feb. 19). The show didn't feel comfortable putting in Isherwood so early, so the Times sent Genzlinger. They had only 3 days of previews (first day: Feb. 16). In fact, 'Yank!' had little time to make big changes: notably, revising the end of Act I, and doing a major revamp of the dream ballet (once a full-ensemble number, it was quickly turned into a pas de deux).

The Times review is mixed; the Post is a pan, but there were raves from the Associated Press and Variety. Plus, 'Yank!' also had gotten a great break on Tuesday when it made the front page of the Times (in a story about gay theater). It was selling well at the York before the reviews; time will tell what happens next.

Updated On: 2/25/10 at 03:02 PM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 2/25/10 at 3:39pm

The Times review made me want to see it when I didn't really know anything about the show...can't be that bad.