New York Times Reviews Wicked again- Page 2

[popular_elphie]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 4:35pm

"The former "Golden Girls" star Rue McClanahan, dressed in flamboyant kimonolike costumes, is doing maaahvelous things with vowel sounds as Madam Morrible, the flamboyant headmistress of the witches' school. She steals scenes with a flip of a hand."

I do not agree.

And ljay889, I highly disagree with you on that point about the teenagers being too focused on Shoshana and Megan to be open to Rue. I am a huge fan of Megan's, but I was very open to Rue, and I hated her performance. She was a drunken Madame Morrible. In my opinion, Carole Shelley is the only person who really gives a sense of evil and not a few too many beers.

[PJ]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 4:37pm

Well I'm very familiar with Rue. I've seen every episode of The Golden Girls countless times. But I still did not enjoy her in the show. She was passable, but nothing to rave about. I actually missed Carole's line delivery. Rue just played Morrible as a drunk, which was very distracting after a while.

And I loved Megan's Glinda. I really liked Shoshana, but since Idina's gone, I felt that Glinda once again is the star of the show--the way Chenoweth was before the Tony's.

[Glindafan]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 4:50pm

The NY Times has reviewed Wicked TWICE and they disliked it BOTH times. Wicked's permanent sellouts tell me far more about the show than a reviewer who at best merely confirms the obvious and at worst - trashes a show whose entertainment value hasn't diminished one iota in nearly two years.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 5:15pm

As much as I have come to enjoy WICKED, particularly its score, the truth is it's simply not a great musical.

preach it!

[Pinguin]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 5:43pm

Shows are just bound to go stale after awhile -and when the most positive thing the nytimes could say in their original review was that Kristen Chenoweth stole the show, I doubt with her gone the review is suddenly going to be positive.

And Glindafan, neither the ticket sales nor reviews really mean anything to if you will or will not like a show. But a review can certainly give you an idea of what the show is like, what it's plot is, what the show revolves around, its themes, which can certainly give you an idea of it's in the vein of things you tend like. I don't trust ticket sales.

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 6:14pm

Cats was the longest running show on broadway. Ticket sales tell me nothing.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 6:47pm

I think Megan deserved a better review. Joe [Mantello] even said she was a great and perfect Galinda, probably the best he has worked with. This is coming from a strong source.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 7:22pm

I never read reviews until AFTER I see the play, musical, film, etc. I have a dear friend who for 20 years was a major NY-metro dance critic and I learned something from accompanying her to dozens of performances, reading her reviews and having long discussions with her:

Critics are no different from you or me...they just have a column.

Her reviews were all her opinion, which could be tempered by the mood she was in that night, the number of cabernets she downed before the performance, whether a friend or foe was part of the company she was reviewing, and so forth.

Sometimes she would write a negative review simply BECAUSE the audience loved it!!!

So, like what you like and ignore the press. That's what I say. I prefer reading what people on this site have to say because I get a WIDE RANGE of opinions from REAL people (well, most of you are real, right?)

Oh, and one more thing about critics...sorry to say this, but it's true: they become bored and jaded by having to see every piece of whatever it is they review. They no longer "enjoy" the medium they critique because they view it with a pen and paper in hand thinking about how they will characterize each statement...they even miss things because they're writing! Even those who sit through the whole performance without taking a single note simply can't experience a show the way we "ordinary" audience members do. It's their JOBS. That puts a huge crimp in anyone's evening, you know?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 7:30pm

Okay, I really like Wicked. I have this weird fasicatnion with it. I'm a guy, so i'm not into all the "girly-ness" of it. But for some reason the score captivates me, like RENTS did when i first heard it. (Not comparing the two - just to get that straight) Anyways, I have yet to see the show live, but hopefully will in Chicago. I'm currently reading the book to further my interest. I was just wondering what's so wrong with this show? I agree that Fieyro might not be fully developed, but he's not the main character in the show, so I wouldn't expect him to have a lot of development. So, just out of curiousity, what's so wrong with the show? And please, don't tell me "it sucks" or crap like that. Giving me something I can actually use. Thanks.

[Derek]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 7:33pm

its sad that someone said shoshana will be the least remembered. she gave the best performance ive ever seen on stage. and ive seen many many shows

[zoran912]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 7:41pm

Love Shoshana's voice. Haven't seen her in the role, so I can't say anything about her acting, but I love her voice.

I don't know nearly a thing about Megan, aside from this board loving her.

As for why there is so much Wicked backlash (especially on this board), it is due to the rabid fans who erroneously believe that Wicked is the best show to ever be written. These fans often know nothing of the musicals that came about before RENT. I love Rent and Wicked both, but I also love Sondheim, and Rodgers & Hammerstein, as well as many other composers that wrote long before Wicked was even conceived.

I believe that to be the reason for all of the backlash.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 7:47pm

Yeah, but you have to understand the time period. Broadway tends to follow mainstream tastes. Of course kids today are goign to love RENT and Wicked (myself included) because it resembles the kind of music we enjoy. I personally don't really like some of the older musicals. They just don't stick with me the way contemporary musical theater does. I just don't think Oklahoma as the rawness or the depth that RENT has. I'm not sure if you were referring to my post Zoran, but my question was "What is wrong with Wicked." I mean the actual show. Like point out to me plot holes or things wrong w/ the actual show. Not the performances. If i were to read the script and hear the score, what exactly would be wrong with it? I don't seem to find any major plot holes as some ppl have posted. So please, fill me in.

[JoMarch]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 7:53pm

"I'm laughing at the fact that all the teenies would be like OMG MEGAN AND SHOSANA R THA BEST, THEY RULE, N THAT RUE LADY SUX. That's obviously not the truth."

No, it's still just one person's opinion. When did The NY Times become the final, authoritative fact on who is good and who isn't? Their reviewer had his opinion on Shoshona (sp?) and Megan and the Wicked fans have their opinion too. Neither opinion is more accurate than the other. One thing I couldn't stand as a teenager is when a grownup felt their opinion on something trivial was worth more than mine because they were older. And this is coming from someone who loved Rue on Mama's Family and Golden Girls and couldn't pick Shoshana, Megan, Jennifer (or whoever is playing the green or pink girl) out of a lineup.

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 8:00pm

Do a search, Rentboy, you'll find MANY answers to your question.

[JoMarch]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 8:04pm

"As for why there is so much Wicked backlash (especially on this board), it is due to the rabid fans who erroneously believe that Wicked is the best show to ever be written."

I agree with you. The problem lies more in people not being content to let others have their opinion without sticking their nose in it and trying to convince them that they're wrong. I mean, really, so what if these kids do think Wicked is the best show they have ever seen? It's not in my top fifteen list of musicals but if someone else thinks it's the best show in the world then good for them. Let them! who are they hurting? It's their tastes, not ours. When I was a teenager (showing my age here), I thought Duran Duran was the be all and end all of music. My parents never got angry with me for believing that, nor did they try to make me feel stupid for my tastes by bashing Duran Duran or telling me how wrong I was to like them. Instead they slowly exposed me to different types of music until I began to see that there were other groups out there worth listening to and that maybe I shouldn't be placing Duran Duran on a pedestal. 15 years later, I don't even own a Duran Duran CD LOL, but I do look back on the group fondly when I hear the music on the radio. I can tell you though, if someone had tried to berate me for my dislikes back when I was a teenager, it would have made me even more stubborn or closed-minded to other types of music. Who wants to be mocked for their tastes? It's a very personal subject. I guess that's why I get so annoyed when people on this board get mocked for liking Wicked. It says more about the ridiculer than the person being ridiculed.
Updated On: 7/15/05 at 08:04 PM

[eslgr8]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 8:32pm

I agree totally about Rue. She makes the part marvelously her own. I agree about David, though the review failed mention David's woefully inadequate voice for Broadway. I agree about Shoshanna. He found just the right word for her, "generic." It was a good performance, but Idina made her unique, and won the hearts of the audience. HOWEVER, Megan Hilty is SENSATIONAL as G(a)linda. She gets laughs that haven't been gotten before, her timing is impeccable, her voice rich and evocative, as just as Rue M. does, she makes the role fresh and new.

[bwayfan3]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 8:37pm

You know what all this reminds me of....harry potter. When harry potter got popular, people were hailing it as the greatest children's literature ever written. Now if it appeals to your tastes, that's fine. But it cannot be denied that it did open the door to reading and getting involved with books to a lot of kids (and maybe adults) who were reluctant to do so. In a similar way, Wicked got a lot of people excited about theatre and was a powerful first experience for many. There are a million better written children's books out there, like there are a lot of shows that are better than Wicked, but it's impact cannot be denied. Hopefully, Wicked fans translate this passion into a willingness to take a look at other shows, and for the most part, I believe that to be true. I think the ones who still persist that Wicked is the end all and be all of all time are a small *but very vocal* minority of theatre-lovers. Hopefully, the experience laid the groundwork for a love of theatre in general.
And by the way, for the record, (I am a fully-grown adult professional woman)I thought Wicked was one of the best shows I had seen in a few years.

[Hanna from Hamburg]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 10:06pm

Well, I just have to say (as a 40-something poster on this board) that we NEED to have teens pumped up with broadway. Live theatre could very well die if we don't have something (Rent, Brooklyn, Wicked, etc.) to invite a 'new' audience in.

Renthead -- I read the book before seeing Wicked and I wished I hadn't. The book is wonderful, but left me expecting things that didn't happen. If you aren't too far in, go to the show, then read the book.

I loved Wicked and Rent -- and Oklahoma, Gypsy, Music Man, A Little Night Music . . . . . .

Updated On: 7/15/05 at 10:06 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 11:25pm

RentBoy...the bottom line is it is a poorly written, sloppy show and production, and a potentially innovative, unique theatrical piece blown away and wasted only to be turned into something that was made to attract audiences rather than teach a lesson.

Don't get me wrong, I saw Wicked quite a few times, and enjoyed it, but there's no doubt it's a mess and it could've been much better. So, the problem is, when people start praising it as the most fantastic thing they've ever seen, they're letting their emotional connection to the story or characters get in the way of seeing what flaws the show has and how it could've been a more emotionally powerful, unique, and thought-provoking show.

The problem is the depth of the novel was completely lost when the show was turned into a musical. Glinda was made a far larger character than necessary, which lightened the overall tone of the piece and almost made it into a cartoon. The characterization on paper alone for all of these characters is extremely lacking, and with Elphaba...it makes a huge difference. That could easily lead me into why Menzel's portrayal of the role was so important, as it brought a depth to the character and a darkness and realism to the piece that is completely lost in the likes of Shoshana Bean, Eden Espinosa, etc. A portrayal like Menzel's, to me, saves the show from becoming what is almost cartoonic.

The score itself hardly does anything for advancing and connecting the plot as a score should, and even when it does, it lacks the complexity and depth that an ideal score for this story would have.

I know you said to point out more specific things, but honestly, there are far too many things to point out. To just give one example: The ending. Obviously the ending is what it is because that please the audience...and that's essentially what was done with this entire show. Instead of striving to make this a deep, meaningful work of theatre that could've examined issues of politics, religion, the human condition, relationships...it turned into a cop-out, and it could be a nice experience when you see it, but it is not great piece of writing that makes us think and seemlessly tells a story.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 11:36pm

Critics can arrange to review any perfmance they would like by requesting tickets through the press agent. Occasionall the press agent will turn dwn the request especially if a group of new replacements are going in. They will often ask the reviewer to wait until teh new cast is in place.

Many out-of-town critics cannot come to New York for every opening so we usually do a binge once or twice a year and catch the latest shows.

The press departments want publicity and even a bad review helps keep a show in people's minds. For long-running shows I do think the major dailies should do periodic updates evey 12-24 months. I mean what good is a review of the original productin of BEAUTRY AND THE BEAST since that staging has been replaced by the skimpier tour version on Broadway.

Posted: 7/16/05 at 12:33am

RentBoy...the bottom line is it is a poorly written, sloppy show and production." (snip)

"Don't get me wrong, I saw Wicked quite a few times"

Truly
Hilarious
Funniest
Post
Ever

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/16/05 at 12:47am

Um...I happened to enjoy it a few times, and I think Menzel was incredible, and her performance in it was absolutely the thing that kept me retrning, and when Jennifer Laura joined, I enjoyed her performance very much as well. It's not a well-written show, and I know that. Does that mean I couldn't have possibly enjoyed it? I mean, I liked it with good performers, but to pretend it was some piece of artistic genius is ridiculous. My point is that it's enjoyable, but it could be better...a guilty pleasure type thing, if you will.


By the way, I didn't PAY for all of those few times I saw it, and if I wanted to see Menzel's performance again...why not? There wasn't a cost.

Why exactly is that hilarious?

[TheColorOfFlame]

Posted: 7/16/05 at 1:15am

BroadwayGirl, very good post. I concur. And I, too, love to make fun of how bad Wicked is and lament its weakenesses even as I continue to see it and obsess over it. It's pure pleasure, like Sex & The City. It's like a piece of candy.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 7/16/05 at 6:44pm

I know this is stating the obvious, but a novel is not a musical. A film is not a play. A play is not a film, and so on.

I loved the novel "Wicked." It made me want to read fiction again, which is the best compliment I could give a novel. (I spent so many years reading and teaching fiction that I got burnt out on it and suddenly STOPPED reading it all together. "Wicked" got me excited about literature again.)

I didn't expect the BROADWAY MUSICAL to be faithful to the book. They're different media entirely. Yet I think "Wicked" is a great show. It's big, it's pretty to look at, it's moving, it's funny, and despite what other people think, the score is wonderful. Stephen Schwartz has been maligned for years and years because people are jealous of him. He's had hits on Broadway since he was in his early twenties and he's kind of an outsider.

That's why I think David Yazbek continues to be overlooked and underrated. He's not a "Broadway Baby." He's an outsider, and people in the very elite world of theatre HATE that. Both Yazbek and Schwartz are very talented men who basically do their own thing. The fact that what they do pleases vast audiences pisses people off and gives them the opportunity to say that "the masses" are morons.

The critics hated "The Sound of Music" when it was originally produced on Broadway but AUDIENCES loved it. Same for "Cabaret." Like it or not, "Wicked" is going to be around for a long time because it appeals to REAL people, perhaps not to jaded "I need to be astonished" theatre snobs or people who simply don't like it and need to let their biting opinions be known.

I've seen "Wicked" with friends who have Ph.D.s and others who barely got out of high school. Everyone loved it. The show appeals to a broad audience. It's got three solidly sold-out productions throughout the US. I'm telling you, people are jealous!

I'm still stunned that the NY Times hailed Spamalot the "Best New Musical of the Season" and the Tony was given to it too. I hated that show. But so what?

[gymman]

Posted: 7/16/05 at 6:53pm

Because something is popular does not mean it is good, artistically. We enjoy all sorts of stuff that is not especially artistic--popmusic, TV, most movies. "Wicked" may be enjoyable on this level, but it sure ain't art. That's all this is coming down to.

"The Sound of Music" beat "Gypsy" for the Tony, so many critics and theater folk liked it. And "Cabaret" did not get bad reviews from most critics.