** PROMISES, PROMISES OFFICIAL REVIEW THREAD **- Page 7

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 5:41pm

Stagegrade's final tally on PROMISES is...
2 Raves
9 Favorable
1 Mixed leaning favorable
3 Mixed - on the fence
1 Mixed leaning negative
3 Unfavorable
1 Pan

60% favorable

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 5:41pm

And the night I was at the theater, those songs caused the audience to explode....

BOOM!!!

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 5:41pm

DOUBLE POST. Updated On: 4/26/10 at 05:41 PM

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 5:42pm

I really disagree with some of you who have been attacking "Promises, Promises." Critical reviews or not, it's hands down the most deserving of the Tony for Best Revival. Hands down.

You meant thumbs down, love.

[D2]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 5:48pm

"I for one, will be going back to see that show again and again"

8 times a week til maybe Labor Day?

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 5:48pm

Let's see, Rob Ashford has worked his magic on two perennial 1960's classics so far:
BYE BYE BIRDIE and PROMISES, PROMISES.

He's now in the process of on weaving the same kind of magic for the upcoming revival of that other perennial 1960s classic: HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING.

Personally I would love to see what he would do with another show about big business that although did not score big on the Rialto the first time out may have a chance with a little of Ashford's tweaking: HOW NOW DOW JONES.
Updated On: 4/26/10 at 05:48 PM

[SquareTimes]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 5:53pm

If any of you actually want to have an adult conversation about the show, let me know. I'm open to having a real dialogue, but snarky comments don't interest me.

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 6:09pm

Oh relax, a little good natured ribbing never hurt anyone.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 6:09pm

SquareTimes, you just joined the Board today to give us your over the top gushing review. Do you have money invested in this show?

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 6:12pm

"snarky comments don't interest me."

Then why the hell did you sign up for BWW?

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 6:21pm

SquareTimes,

Snarky comments aside if you take the time to read through the thread you will find many board members have posted very interesting, intelligent observations on this production. You'll be enlightened.

I personally LOVE this show. Just not this production of it.

But if you take the time you'll easily find my reasons for this.
Updated On: 4/26/10 at 06:21 PM

[Piper3500]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 6:31pm

frontrowcentre:

serious question as this is your field. say a show gets 19 raves, 2 favourable, and 1 mixed and 1 Pan...does the reviewer who pans it have credibility? or is it just an opinion? i have seen a few where there is only ONE pan and it makes me wonder why there would only be one. that is what makes me think it is "their" opinion.

is it possible, reviewers, as well versed as they are, base things on opinion a little or do they review on a scale and average their review out on every point from production, coreography, set, acting, etc...

[raker]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 6:52pm

It seems wrong that the three leads are all the same age, with two of them too old. Kubelik ought to be young and naive, Sheldrake much older and cynical, and Baxter somewhere in the middle. That's a problem, suspension of disbelief-wise.

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 6:55pm

I have to agree with Brantley that they made La Cheno up to look like Angie Dickinson (ex-Mrs. Bacharach) circa 1962. The resemblance in some production stills is uncanny.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 7:14pm

Excellent questions.

I believe the reviewer who writes the pan has as much credibility as the others. The real proof is in the pudding . mainly how the writer backs up his argument. For this reason I enjoy reading Matthew Murray's reviews even if I seldom agree with him. (Several people I know who know him tell me he is a bit unstable and given to strange violent outbursts when shows don't go "his" way.)

Any reviewer who takes time to put their thoughts on paper and spell out why they likjed or did not like a particular show has credibility. So do posters on Broadwayworld. (Someone who posts comments like SHOW TITLE sucks! can be ignored with impunity.)

Seeing one pan in a garden of positive notices does often make you wonder if the reviewer saw a bad performance. Sometimes - even though they try not to - reviewers may go in with preconceived notions of what the show should be like. Revivals in particular are tricky especially if the writer dearly loved the original production.

I think most reviewers average everything together so one weak element - a bad performance, poor staging - would not totally override an otherwise favorable notice. For myself I use score sheets of my own design that evaluate every element: Book, Score, Concept, Performances, Direction, Design elements etc. The maximum score for be 100 point though obviously no show ever gets 100. I don't know what Ben Brantley does, but his reviews tend to be essays detailing the strengths and weaknesses. My reviews are limited to 500 word and I prefer to focus on two areas: What was done well and what could be improved.

[Kalimba]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 7:23pm

"If any of you actually want to have an adult conversation about the show, let me know. I'm open to having a real dialogue, but snarky comments don't interest me."

Oh honey, if that's what you're looking for, why don't you head on over to ATC where you can have that adult conversation of yours with an air of superiority and condescension thrown in for good measure.

[Liz7]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 8:01pm

Ah something that makes sense:
"Theater
The case for Kristin Chenoweth
| More Print
4:07 PM, April 26, 2010 ? Elisabeth Vincentelli

As the reviews for "Promises, Promises" show, Kristin Chenoweth is in a weird position right now: She's one of the most praised musical-theater stars we have, and one of the most underrated. Basically, Chenoweth is stuck between a rock and a hard place: She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

She's famous for bringing a brittle, divaliciousness blondeness to her roles, along with razor-sharp comic timing -- and of course that glass-shattering soprano. Yet after over a decade playing that, some critics are wondering if maybe she's become predictable. But when she steers away from that path (as she does in "Promises, Promises"), suddenly everybody's moaning that Cheno isn't playing to her strengths. As I said: unfair.

On the contrary, I think she's doing something brave in this show: First, she took a role that's decidedly not showy, then she decided to stay true to it and gives an understated performance as a sweet, insecure, depressive woman embroiled in a no-hope affair with a married man. She's creating a character, and isn't that what actors are supposed to do? In addition, her rendition of her songs is just about perfect, and she locates the ache in Bacharach's melodies with laser-guided accurancy. (So, um, yeah, never mind that Polish Fran Kubelik occasionally sports an Ozarks twang.)

In addition, Chenoweth is a brilliant team player, something she never gets credit for. Of course she's a show-off, she needs to be, But she's also great at making others look good. Every time I've seen her on stage -- and that goes back to "Billion Dollar Baby," a Musical in Mufti at the York in 1998 -- she's made her partners shine. She's at her best when she has a worthy foil, simultaneously feeding from them and bouncing energy back to them. (The exact opposite would be Cate Blanchett, the poster girl for selfish stage acting.)

As an aside, it's quite refreshing to see a romcom (which "Promises, Promises" essentially is) in which the nice guy gets the girl. In the movies these days, it's being a man-child (Michael Cera) or a jerk (Gerald Butler) that pays off. Regular men are deemed too square, too boring to be boyfriend/husband material, no matter how well-meaning they are."


http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/theater/the_case_for_kristin_chenoweth_DTlMc8UKK1BSw8UurEkcDK

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 8:13pm

Chenoweth is giving it her best shot and no one is going to argue about her talent. I can only speak for myself that I'm not knocking her for trying to stretch her acting wings and try something new, that's not the problem. The problem is that she was just woefully miscast in this particular part and even Brantley agrees with this.

Maybe somewhere down the road in the near future she will find the vehicle that will give her the opportunity to stretch herself dramatically. Unfortunately this wasn't it.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 8:19pm

I think Goldwyn is the right age for Sheldrake. That's just thrown out of whack by the fact that Chenoweth could be Fran's mother.

[tazber]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 8:19pm

Kalmba, you always crack me up.

[Piper3500]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 8:20pm

thank you for your answer frontrowcentre2.

[Kalimba]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 8:24pm

@Tazber - :)

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 8:33pm

I don't think Chenoweth is being chastised for not playing to her strengths, at least in the reviews I read...like Marquise said, even Brantley who absolutely loves her said she's just miscast. It's quite clear that she's working hard and she sings beautifully as always, but this is just not her part. I thought she was great on The West Wing a couple years back and that was definitely not a "showy" part. She's incredibly talented but she's just so wrong for this role.

That said, I loved Sean Hayes and even though he's also too old, he definitely gave off a youthful energy and was charming and believable. I'm happy to see him getting the good notices he deserves.

[Elphaba3]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 8:55pm

I think it's great that she's playing against type and doing a surprisingly good job IMO. She's clearly not a great fit for Fran, but she's giving it her all and I applaud her for that.

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/26/10 at 8:55pm

Actually I think realistically the only part in PROMISES, PROMISES that I think is a perfect fit for what we all have known Chenoweth for and plays to her strengths is "Marge MacDougall".