Pardon me, ma'am, what's that awful stench?- Page 2

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 8:54pm

I thought morosco's quoting of the lyrics to make a point was clever and actually pretty funny IMO... but I don't see how it was "unfair."

I've been leaning toward the "negative" side of this production myself... but in all fairness can't agree or disagree, since I have not seen it yet. It would definitely be unfair of me judge it based on clips and other people's descriptions of what is on stage. But I do have a "pre-judgement" forming already based on my limited exposure to it.

If Brantley can use "Attend the Tale" to voice his opinion, why can't morosco also quote lyrics to voice a different one? Was Brantley equally wrong to quote lyrics?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 8:54pm

1. THE PILLOWMAN was not nominated for best score. It was merely announced that it would be eligible.

2. JUAN DARIEN: A CARNIVAL MASS was not only nominated for Best Score, but for Best Musical. Why? Because JEKYLL AND HYDE was not as good.

3. Did you see A CARNIVAL MASS? The toe tappers were rampant there.

and finally

4. I brought up the tony eligibility thing because I know how mad it made you when they announced that it would be eligble. I wasn't suggesting that the tonys are the end-all be all, as you put it, but I was merely mocking you. Sorry you didn't get it.

Updated On: 11/3/05 at 08:54 PM

[Isabella2]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 8:56pm

there's really no need for an arguement like this. So you didn't like the show; not everyone is meant to like it, but yes you should have stated why especially when you know there is a large group who does like it and have written many reviews. You didn't need to be cocky about it, knowing it would just stir up an arguement.

Besides saying the show was concocted of "piss and ink" doesn't make any sense. You could have said "bad actors and bad songs" or "horrible lyrics and music"

Not that i'd agree with that.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 8:57pm

I liked J/H & confess to being a Wildhorn fan which puts me back in Hooterville

I must now start watching the Donald

[morosco]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 8:58pm

"It's more than ok to have an opinion, to dislike something. However, I think its extremely unfair to the people who have worked so incredibly hard on this production to phrase one's dislike in the way the original poster phrased it."

In no way did I intend to be unfair to the people who have worked so incredibly hard on this production. My post takes issue with John Doyle's direction. I wish he had worked as incredibly hard on his production as his cast obviously has.

"Morosco, what specifically didn't you like?"

For starters I hate the elimination of the orchestra. Someone remarked that trying to experience the brilliance of Sondheim's masterpiece in this production is like trying to experience the brillance of a Seurat painting on a black and white television. I found the plot extremely difficult to follow. I found much of the stage blocking to be awkward and unfocused. I don't understand why this production cost me over $100 each time I saw it.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:00pm

I have no problem with how morosco put his opinion - I thought it was very funny, witty, and VERY well put - certainly put better than anything Brantley said in his review - despite intention.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:01pm

Wow... did you really not get that "piss and ink" is a direct reference from SWEENEY TODD itself? It's describing the "fraudulant" miricle elixir.

I haven't seen this particular production, but I know more about the show than that. Morosco is using quotes from the show itself this review.

Morosco---I give up. You've been fed to the irrational lions, and you're being eaten alive now!

Updated On: 11/3/05 at 09:01 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:01pm

To Morosco

While I agree with you re Sweeney & the concept of the revival, I have a question. if it was bad, why go back a 2 nd time ? I am curious

Updated On: 11/3/05 at 09:01 PM

[morosco]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:03pm

"...I have a question. if it was bad, why go back a 2 nd time ? I am curious..."

I always try to see a Sondheim show multiple times. Chances are good that I'll see it again. It took me 2 visits to grasp PASSION.

[Pasty]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:04pm

mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank mountebank

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:05pm

...

[SweetQintheLights]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:08pm

I think this thread sort of tells me you hated this show. Yet, you've gone twice.

"I don't understand why this production cost me over $100 each time I saw it."

You're complaning that you paid 100$ both times you saw it. Now you say that you are probably going to see it again. I'm a bit confused.

[morosco]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:10pm

Don't be confused. It's alarming that a musical with barely an orchestra costs the same as a musical with a full orchestra. Why should the two shows cost the same? Next time I purchase a ticket I'll probably do TKTS. (And thanks to the N.Y. State Lottery, it's not really an issue anyway.)

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:16pm

So with your logic, a straight play should cost half of what a musical costs, because there's no orchestra? Come on...

[morosco]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:17pm

"So with your logic, a straight play should cost half of what a musical costs, because there's no orchestra? Come on..."

Yep.

[SweetQintheLights]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:19pm

*Tries to hold in laughter...*






*Bursts out laughing*

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:19pm

Brilliant individual.

[morosco]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:24pm

"...pathetic...", "...Brilliant individual..."

Be nice. I haven't attacked you with name calling.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:26pm

No, but even you have to admit that your price argument is laughably stupid...

thank god for the ny lotto, right?

[Isabella2]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:27pm

Actually i DID understand that it was a direct reference from sweeney tood and that it was describing the ELIXER. But it doesn't quite make sense if you're describing the show as "piss and ink". He changed the "Pirelli's Elixer" to "Sweeney Todd" so he could have changed Piss and ink too in order for it to make sense.

[morosco]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:28pm

"...thank god for the ny lotto, right?'

It's a great feeling!!

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:28pm

So, you hated the show. You saw it twice. Not only that, you paid $100 both times, something I don't even do when I see one of my favorite shows. And you say you may go again. Even though you hated it.

I think the only thing I can ask is...What ARE you on?

Oh, wait. I know what else: Since you obviously have so much money to waste...can I borrow some?

[morosco]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:31pm

"Since you obviously have so much money to waste...can I borrow some?"

Believe me....you're not the first one to ask! :)

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:32pm

Well, DAMN. Let me know when you've reached me in the waiting line. I can use some extra cash.

[shortydudette]

Posted: 11/3/05 at 9:43pm

Morosco - I don't even know if I agree with you; I haven't seen the show yet, and I'm reserving judgement. But goodness, you seem to have a talent for inciting hostility!
And for spelling "pardon" with an "m" in your post title.

But honestly, everyone, lay off. And Isabella - "piss and ink" can be a metaphor, okay? He also said the show has a "stench," which, obviously, is not to be taken literally.

And the theory about not having an orchestra makes some sense. There are fewer people to pay. And plays often DO cost less than musicals.