Nunn's Wind Blows

Here's a great review of the not-so-great Gone with the Wind

http://www.broadway2seattle.com/

Did we really expect anything better?

Oficial opening is the 22nd. The show is still in previews. TCM will air Gone With the Wind - The Making Of the Musical on the 20th.

I'll wait for a review after opening. This one doesn't sound too credible.

---

if i did not know any better. i would think YOU are the reviewer....

---

No, but Morgan is a dear friend. He's my NY and London critic. Never been to London and if I wrote a review, I'd take credit for it. If you search my site you'll see that Morgan and I have two different styles of writing.

Oh whatever Matt, but some sugar in your coffee and take a breath.

EVERY review is credible. The theater is for the audience, no matter who they are. Your response and your reactions are valid, no matter your background. Theater isn't for a select few.

The writer's biography SHOULD be brought up, in a review of the show. It explains why, common mistakes this beginning musical theater writer is making, are being let go. She doesn't have the proper experience and doesn't know the proper placement of songs. Maybe she doesn't know what should have been cut or what songs should have arrived earlier to spark the audience's interest sooner.

Instead of trying to fit everything into an epic, 3-hour saga, Margaret Martin should have given the public what they wanted; Rhett and Scarlett. She should have focused on THEIR relationship and used plot points that only furthered their relationship and characterizations. "Scarlett O'Hara Again" should be sung within the first 10 minutes of the show. Cut some of her marriages out. Introduce Rhett sooner. REALLY show a contrast between Melanie/Scarlett, so we understand later why Rhett turns to Melanie in his hour of need. Flesh out the maternal figures, Mammy and Mrs. O'Hara, represention to Scarlett and their absences in Scarlett's Life.

---

Updated On: 4/16/08 at 12:34 PM

I meant the writer of the musical. I.E. Margaret MARTIN (sorry). Not the writer of the review. I take Splenda. :)

I agree with his statements and review. Half of the audience did leave at intermission when I left. It was a lackluster show, with solemn energy the entire way through.

---

Updated On: 4/16/08 at 12:38 PM

The writer's biography SHOULD be brought up, in a review of the show.

I completely agree. But that wasn't the issue. And no, not every review is credible. There are loads of reviews which exist simply to snark and often don't mention the performances, the production values, the content, or in one case of a local paper in Houston, it failed to mention the show or performance entirely. It was simply a condemnation of the seats the reviewer was given.

I'm just saying if the reviewer is going to rain all over the author's bio for not mentioning a composition background, then they shouldn't have so conveniently omitted the section of the bio that actually does provide the author's musical background, which would be in the next paragraph. Granted, it's not much, but the review sort of took liberties in giving the reader an impression based on cherry-picked data. That part is more Riedel than review.

---

Sigh...I had hopes. I mean, I'll still give the CD a listen when it comes out...

I'd defended this musical from those who were ready to dismiss it out of hand before seeing it or hearing a note, saying that with the right composer and the right adaptation, it could work. Now I see that apparently (and maybe they'll save it, I don't know) they haven't had either.

For something of this scale, maybe they should have gone with a tried-and-true composer rather than an unknown. (What Ahrens and Flaherty could have done with it...) And it does seem that they're trying to be too broad with the adaptation, rather than just focusing on the human drama of the four leads.

Updated On: 4/16/08 at 01:29 PM