PARADISE SQUARE reviews — Page 2

Joaquina Kalukango secured her spot for a TONY nom for Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Musical

AMNY is negative:

Not exactly a ticket to ‘Paradise Square’

https://www.amny.com/entertainment/broadway-review-not-exactly-a-ticket-to-paradise-square/

Variety, again positive on Kalukango and the dancing, and nothing else:

‘Paradise Square’ Review: A Belabored History Lesson of a Broadway Musical

https://variety.com/2022/legit/reviews/paradise-square-review-broadway-musical-1235221236/

The Wrap sounds almost positive, but is actually pretty negative:

‘Paradise Square’ Broadway Review: Call Her Madam, or Return of the Happy Hookers

https://www.thewrap.com/paradise-square-broadway-review-garth-drabinsky-moises-kaufman/

Agreed!

Vulture:

The Several Original Sins of Paradise Square

https://www.vulture.com/2022/04/paradise-square-broadway-theater-review.html

"There is one good thing about the way Paradise Square has been developed into the ground: The ensemble members have had plenty of time to figure out their parts. Allen Moyer’s tall, skeletal tenement set gives the two-dozen-strong cast plenty of places to stand, so director Moisés Kaufman often puts them on various levels, staring down at the floor of the bar. If the repetitive elements pall — you will start out amazed by the dancers, then those returns will diminish — you could always cast your eyes up, into the shadows. I had several favorites among the supernumeraries, including a guy who brought his baby to watch the competition and a mandolin player who fell asleep. Appropriately for a show about a neighborhood, the chorus gives us a sense of lives and passions moving just out of the field of focus. Everything down in the spotlight had been goosed into underthought melodrama, but at the edges of the space, there were hints of the dark and funny and real. Those were the places the show — and history — kept choosing to forget. So, feeling a little desperate, that’s where I looked."

The Chicago Tribune review basically scolds the would be audience for not being sufficiently open to the show’s Teachable Moment. It’s an arrogant and preposterous thesis, demanding that we line up to plunk down top dollar for a work of art more notable for its ambition than its cobbled by committee execution. Again, NYC isn’t Butte, Montana. We grasp the nuances of our shameful history, we accept the legacy via horrors of 2022; we also know something about the craft of musical theater.

I have tickets for this Saturday, but maybe will just see Company again? Haha

i dont know if a Best musical Nom is likely with those reviews

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "RippedMan said: "Guess Best Actress is wide open still, huh?"

I've always viewed this award as Sharon D Clarke's to lose, and I don't think it matters that the show closed in January. At this point it's frankly looking like an EASY win for her. Beyond Sharon D Clarke you also have Sutton Foster, Jaoquina, Beanie, Katrina Lenk, Mare Winningham, Jeanna D, and Carmen Cusack. Unless the critics anoint Beanie and that revival, I think this is Sharon's win."

I agree with this. It’s a pretty clear path for Clark unless the industry suddenly gets behind a Beanie win (which given the word of mouth would be shocking). I honestly think number two at this point is Sutton Foster, but no one is clamoring to give her Tony #3 for this.

RippedMan said: "Guess Best Actress is wide open still, huh?"

It hasn't been wide open since October 27th, 2021, when Caroline, or Change officially opened. To date, Sharon D. Clarke is the only performer to receive raves in a show that received raves without any significant detractions. I have loved all of the performances discussed for lead actress that I've seen, but at least three are vocally miscast, a few have been widely agreed upon to be better than their shows, and a couple didn't even get such good reviews. Clarke is the only one who doesn't fit any of those categories and I just don't buy that her show closing in January is going to ruin it for her.

It's clear that a pull-quote fueled ad campaign can be mounted. But most -- though not all (the audience hectoring Chris Jones take will be much cited) -- of the praise for the show proper is in less widely seen publications. The show's reception by the NYC dailies/magazines has historically more determinative of a marker for measuring critical reception, and here, not stellar so far.

With this piece, the need for immediate buzz is paramount. Something has to make it unmissable. From scanning the reviews, obviously, it's the leading performance. If there's hope here, and there's always hope, it may hinge upon telling theatergoers that Kalukanga's work in this show is must-see. It's not an unprecedented phenomenon, a star making performance serving as the come-on. But in 2022 it will require money. Footage the star's performance -- much needed -- those on-the-street interviews with wowed audience members. We know the drill. And they need time to sink in, during a busy end of season.

Updated On: 4/4/22 at 08:21 AM

The recording is critical to ensuring a long subsidiary life. We can well imagine colleges doing this show across the nation, and the album will make the case. Good news for the piece beyond B'way.

MemorableUserName said: "Chicago Tribune is...fairly positive? [...]

"[...] And thus “Paradise Square” will survive on Broadway only if audiences are willing to see that these artists are doing their best not just to reckon with the past, but to make the point that the present is not so much better. “Paradise Square” is on board with changes that many on Broadway are hoping will happen with major big-budget musicals in the post-George Floyd era; as a pioneer, it plows a difficult but courageous road.""

"Pioneer"? "Courageous"? ...or just "formulaic"?

Without seeing the show, even *I* (basically, a midwestern pro-am actor/enthusiast) could see that a formula, replicating the one used for "Ragtime", might be involved.

If this show was truly meant to be "pioneering", or "courageous", wouldn't more care have been taken re: the book, the character development, or any of the other aspects that the *real* critics mention?

To my mind, and given Drabinsky's history, why shouldn't I feel that any connection to current history isn't merely (or even deliberately) "opportunistic"?