RAGTIME Critic Performance

[lynnetoomey]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 12:46pm

I re-visited Ragtime last evening, and from the plethora of notepads surrounding me, it was clearly the big night for critics. This is my third viewing of the show, and it just gets better and better. I have been shocked many times by the unpredictable critics, but I cannot imagine this production getting anything but a pile of RAVES. I am assuming Ben Brantley took this assignment? Anyone know? If that's the case, the last musical he reviewed was the horrific "Birdie". Bodes well for this stunning show.

[ljay889]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 12:51pm

I don't see why Brantley wouldn't review it. Though I am sure the producers would rather have Isherwood, as Brantley famously hated the original production.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 1:03pm

I did a search but I couldn't find if the Times reviewed the show in DC, they usually send the same reviewer back.

Don't "assume" anything.

[jewelchk]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 1:07pm

Brantley was there last night.

[BroadwayAbridged]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 2:31pm

Beat me to it--yes, he was there.

He didn't like how overblown the original was. I think there's a good chance he'll like this one...

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 2:44pm

I returned last night as well. And it's just getting tighter and tighter. I really don't see any reason why it wouldn't get across the board raves although I except some critics will find problems with it as the source material, while undeniably strong, has flaws. It's not a perfect show but this is a pretty damn near perfect production and I hope the critics recognize that.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 3:02pm

The "source" material is IMO one of the best books I have ever read.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 4:31pm

The source material is also far less patriotic than the stage version, a fact Doctrow completely ignores now.

Don't get me wrong, it's a brilliant show and this is a brilliant production, but it completely changes the tone of the original novel on which it's based.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 4:37pm

I meant the source material as in Doctrow's book AND (more so) the material itself. Sorry, I misworded it.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 5:11pm

Just out of interest how often does a reviewer go and see a show before writing the review?

"I don't see why Brantley wouldn't review it. Though I am sure the producers would rather have Isherwood, as Brantley famously hated the original production."

I did not know a producer can pick, who reviews their show?
Updated On: 11/13/09 at 05:11 PM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 6:41pm

I did not know a producer can pick, who reviews their show?

They don't. Presumably the poster meant IF the producers had their choice, they'd rather have Isherwood, given Brantley's past review of the show.

Just out of interest how often does a reviewer go and see a show before writing the review?

I assume they are provided with one pair of comp tickets to one performance.

[mormonophobic]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 6:49pm

That's strange, as I didn't notice anyone with notepads there last night. Kind of excited about that fact (nerdy, I know) since whatever the review says will directly be talking about the performance that I saw. Either way I can't really see it getting anything but raves. (Slight spoilers ahead) It was truly spectacular, with the performances being the cornerstone of this great production. And with thought-out sets and a powerful score that's quite the accomplishment. Another poster said on here that they liked how well-balanced the sets were (as opposed to going completely minimalist or full-blown sets like the original) and I definitely agree. Set pieces like the car or the piano are important parts of the show and I loved how they were used (especially the piano at the end...I get chills just thinking about it). Oh and sidenote: how ADORABLE is that little kid at the end? I smiled for a second at the cuteness and then it hit me who he was supposed to be and the tears just kept on coming.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 7:20pm

"Just out of interest how often does a reviewer go and see a show before writing the review?"

Wouldn't a critic also have to attend on press night, I guess without notepad.

I would of thought a critic would see a show several times, to get a more rounded review.

"I did not know a producer can pick, who reviews their show?

They don't. Presumably the poster meant IF the producers had their choice, they'd rather have Isherwood, given Brantley's past review of the show."

lol, I guess the producers would prefer Isherwood for the fact he gives good reviews, think he is glad to just go to a Broadway Theatre!

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 7:24pm

If the producers expressed a preference for Isherwood, undoubtedly Brantley would go just to spite them.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 7:27pm

I saw Brantley at the performance of next to normal he reviewed, and he didn't have a notepad then, either. He spent intermission bellying up to the bar, not sitting in his seat consulting notes.

[BroadwayAbridged]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 7:28pm

There are a gazillion shows out there. Could you imagine if each show needed to be visited more than once for each critic? How many more comp tickets producers would have to give...

Nowadays reviewers don't come opening night (did they ever? I'm not sure actually). They come up to a week before, and sometimes staggered based on each critic's schedule. So Brantley was there 3 days before opening, sounds about standard.

I imagine that when you write that much, that often, it works a sort of memory muscle where you at least remember what details you need to in order to get a review out.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 8:06pm

Yes, they used to come on Opening night and then they would run up the aisle during the curtain call, type up their review and get it to the presses ASAP, yes, type on a typewriter.

[BroadwayAbridged]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 9:05pm

Yes, they used to come on Opening night and then they would run up the aisle during the curtain call, type up their review and get it to the presses ASAP, yes, type on a typewriter.

Typewriter? What's that? So confused!

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 9:19pm

Curtain, then how could someone start a review thread 24 hours in advance if reviews weren't printed until after opening night?! What else was there to do with your time if you couldn't post that the Mercer County Weekly Gazette was mixed-to-positive?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 11/13/09 at 9:31pm

It was the stone age,
but it was exciting to see them all run.
Oh yeah, no cell phone texting during intermission either.
Crazy right?

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 2:31am

Very famously in the late 1960's Stanley Kauffman reviewing for the Times asked to be allowed to cover the final preview so he could put more thought into the review.

David Merrick didn't like this and refused to issue comps, so the NY Times bought Kauffmann a ticket. (I believe the play was PHILADELPHIA HERE I COME but I am not at home to check the Best Plays book...I may correct this line later.) Anyhow, Kauffman arrived at the theatre and there was a sign up saying that the performance had been cancelled and people could get refunds or exchanges at thw box office. Yes Merick refunded 1,000+ tickets JUST to keep one critic out of the theatre.

By the early 1970s Hal Prince began offering critics a choice of several late previews so the cast wasn't under such great pressure on the official opening night. (If you read Ted Chapin's FOLLIES book Clive Barnes attended a Wednesday matinee a few days before the show opened, but he was also invited to come on opening night if he wanted to see the show. By then of course the review was on file.)

With RAGTIME I expect the New York press will be in all this week and those of us coming from out-of-town (like me) will see it next week.

[trombonist]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 7:19pm

Just one question, well, thought. Please tell me that Christiane Noll was just having an off night when I saw it and that she really does usually SING "Back to Before" rather than the TALK-singing she did the night I saw it. (Emphasis on TALK was intentional.) I normally adore her, but I was so disappointed that she didn't really sing the majority of that song.

[Oldschool]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 7:27pm

What night did you see it? She doesn't just sing it she belts it -- I don't mean to suggest power singing, but its in the meat of her range and she just builds the song and hits the last seats. Must have been an off night for her.

[trombonist]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 9:26pm

Not last night but last Friday night. She talk-sang the entire middle section. I was so unimpressed I almost sold the tickets I have for me and my parents to get something else. I held onto them only because I figured I hadn't paid that much and maybe it will be better.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 9:37pm

Noll is giving an absolutely breath-taking, brilliant performance (the strongest in a very strong ensemble of actors). I expect she'll get a chorus of rave reviews tomorrow evening.