Posted: 4/23/15 at 3:17pm
"I don't think there is a clear cut line on whether it is ok to walk out or not."
That's ridiculous. Of course it's ok to walk out if you're not enjoying it. You're not a prisoner and you can leave if you want to for any reason at any time.
Posted: 4/23/15 at 11:57pm
"Also keep in mind that Brantley really didn't like Wicked at all, and that is still running all over the world."
That's interesting.
Did Wicked have the same kind of build up this show (and even Neverland) had in previews?
Sometimes I wonder if some shows don't have this reputation that precedes them, which then makes it difficult to fulfill the expectations of the critics when they finally open. Wasn't there quite the buzz and a lot of curiosity about Neverland? Likewise, Something Rotten opened in previews and was initially getting great reviews from the audiences. But then others started seeing it and maybe had this magnificent show built up in their head….and then the show just didn't deliver to the degree they had hoped.
Personally if Brantley didn't like this show, that's cool. He certainly has given high praise to several shows I've seen this season and really liked (OTT, OTTC and FH).
As to the comments that suggest the puerile and sophomoric elements of SR though. Well BOM is chock full of that same humor. And that kind of humor really doesn't click with me. It just seems a bit contrived. I saw a bunch of blasphemy, language, and allusions to all sorts of controversial behavior…and jokes to try to hold it together. Was it meant to be funny, or just shock the audience into thinking it was funny. 'Well everyone around me is laughing, so I better do so, as well,' e.g.
Will SR last as long as BOM? Maybe not. But here's hoping for a healthy run. It's a musical that is really a lot of fun and has a lot to give the audience.
Posted: 4/24/15 at 8:41am
I found Book of Mormon to be adult, audacious, surprising, envelope-pushing, with a wit and cynicism that worked on more than one level.
Something Rotten felt childish, easy, safe, surface, and one-dimensional. But there are audiences that prefer those qualities over the ones mentioned above.
Posted: 4/24/15 at 8:54am
"Something Rotten felt childish, easy, safe, surface, and one-dimensional."
No different than BOM. Except the latter was more obnoxiously self-satisfied.
Updated On: 5/2/15 at 08:54 AM
Posted: 4/24/15 at 8:55am
As Helen Lawson so succinctly put it - "You oughta know, honey."
Posted: 4/24/15 at 9:13am
Awaiting comments on the "Rotten" TODAY appearance this morning. I suppose wherever you fall in this discussion, the performance underscores your point of view.
Posted: 4/24/15 at 10:00am
" Here are other experiences that I think can be cut short:
When eating out, if the meal isn't good, I don't clean the plate.
If reading a book that I find dull or poorly written, I may not finish it.
When a TV show isn't entertaining, I change the channel.
While visiting a museum, I don't feel compelled to see every single exhibit."
Do you think those revelations are remarkable in any way? Perhaps you do, but I think any sane person takes those things for granted.
Posted: 4/24/15 at 10:17am
"Remarkable?" Did someone say "remarkable?"
Interpret it as you like, it really doesn't matter; others will easily understand the intention better than you have (which had nothing to do a non sequitur like "remarkable").
Posted: 4/24/15 at 10:39am
Isn't that the point, that it's not remarkable So why should eaving show be?
Posted: 4/24/15 at 11:05am
I think if Something Rotten had gone to Seattle as originally planned, they would have been able to work some of the problems out, and the show would have been stronger in New York. Does anyone know why they cancelled Seattle? Was it money, or they had to grab the theater?
Posted: 4/24/15 at 11:27am
newintown, you don't understand the word remarkable, so never mind.
Posted: 4/24/15 at 11:36am
"I think if Something Rotten had gone to Seattle as originally planned, they would have been able to work some of the problems out, and the show would have been stronger in New York. Does anyone know why they cancelled Seattle? Was it money, or they had to grab the theater? "
Correct, they'd wanted the St James and the sudden closure of side show left it open so they took the risk and cancelled Seattle
Posted: 4/24/15 at 11:42am
"newintown, you don't understand the word remarkable, so never mind."
I bet Betty Comden and Dorothy Parker both would have envied that snappy wit of yours.
Posted: 4/24/15 at 11:47am
"I bet Betty Comden and Dorothy Parker both would have envied that snappy wit of yours."
Nah, I don't have anything on them.
Posted: 4/25/15 at 4:06pm
"I found Book of Mormon to be adult, audacious, surprising, envelope-pushing, with a wit and cynicism that worked on more than one level.
Something Rotten felt childish, easy, safe, surface, and one-dimensional. But there are audiences that prefer those qualities over the ones mentioned above."
I think that in reflecting over these two musicals, it's just too difficult to compare them. They are different in so many ways.
There are those who will try to find some deeper meaning or "message" in BofM.
Conversely, Something Rotten is what it is. It really doesn't pretend to be something deeper.
I wouldn't consider it "childish" though. In fact, I'm not sure children would really find this brand of humor meaningful or entertaining outside of the colorful nature of the production.
Now, if "childish" was meant to suggest the sense of humor one has to have to appreciate it, then I'd also have to disagree. I would put Something Rotten somewhere akin to Spamalot, and I know lot of very highly educated people who find such humor refreshing. They take it for what it is.
Conversely, I know that the TV show the writers of BofM are responsible for, interestingly, does appeal to kids, and adolescents. Why? Because they like the controversy. They like the language. It's not that they give a flip about the "message."
So it can be argued that their brand of humor isn't meant only for the intellecual, as well. That may be it's purpose, but you know there are plenty of audience members who don't give a darn about the "message." They're there because they want to see bawdy, obscene and envelope-pushing. And none of those always automatically equate to "adult."
We can make all kinds of generalizations about the typical audience member of both shows. But they're not always spot on. For every audience member who enjoys the silliness of SR, there is an audience member at BofM who finds that show funny only because of the language and controversy. Likewise, for every audience member who is going into BofM with some need and awareness for the "message," there's an audience member at SR who can appreciate the Shakespearean and musical allusions they recognize and find it entertaining.
I think the savvy theater goer can differentiate between a musical that isn't being serious, and isn't meant to be serious; and one that desires to take things deeper. And can appreciate both.
Are there SR audience members who are patting themselves on the back because of their recognition of the allusions referenced in the musical? Sure. But there are also audience members at BofM who fancy themselves "progressive" and "edgy" just because they find obscene humor funny. It's not because they're picking up any deeper "message" in the story.
How about we just let audience members like what they like, and respond in the way they want to respond?
Personally when I go to a "message" musical, I'll go to The Visit, Next to Normal or Fun Home. Those invoke opportunities for deeper discussion.
When I want to be entertained without the message, I'll go to On the Town, On the Twentieth Century, Something Rotten, Crazy For You, whatever.
Updated On: 4/25/15 at 04:06 PM
Posted: 4/25/15 at 4:18pm
Not every musical or show for that matter needs to have a deep dark message & be as serious as ****. People do go to be entertained, first and foremost.
Sometimes you need a show like Rotten just to cheer you up. No deep hidden meaning just entertainment.
If you need a lift, you do not go to King Lear. You see something to make you laugh and make you forget about what is getting you down. Some problems I have with critics is that unless everything is boring or deadly serious, they do not think it is worthy of Broadway.
Posted: 4/25/15 at 4:24pm
Very succinctly stated, Mr. Roxy.
I was an English major and can be very long-winded! Sorry! 
Posted: 4/25/15 at 4:29pm
"Not every musical or show for that matter needs to have a deep dark message & be as serious as ****. People do go to be entertained, first and foremost."
Well, I guess that settles it. First and foremost. Take note producers lest ye be punished by dwindling audiences. I get what you're saying (I think), but there's a long continuum between dark and serious and frivolous and frothy (some of the adjectives reviews used for Something Rotten).
For me, entertaining is too limiting of a descriptor to use as the ultimate audience expectation. I didn't return four times to the recent revival of The Glass Menagerie because it was entertaining. I kept seeing it because I found it to be a production with excellent craftsmanship all around. I enjoyed it immensely, but I wouldn't say I found it entertaining.
Updated On: 4/25/15 at 04:29 PM
Posted: 4/25/15 at 5:01pm
I'm totally okay with a fun show that's not deep and is just entertaining. It's just that Something Rotten didn't do that for me (but I'm glad it did for others).
Posted: 4/25/15 at 7:01pm
That's a fair assessment, Lizzie. Some things resonate; some things don't.
As for use of the word "entertaining," I can understand where you're coming from with that, indy.
Can the word be too limiting? Yes. It can also be too general.
I tend to use the word when I'm describing something of lighter fare. Something that doesn't really take you to deeper levels of analysis or doesn't convey some thought-provoking message.
In fact, if I have ever used the word to touch on shows like Fun Home, Next to Normal, or The Visit, I'd probably have to go back and qualify it a bit. For me, shows like that are touching, thought-provoking, moving….that kind of thing.
"Entertaining" would be more reserved for light-hearted, more one-dimensional story lines that are fun and energizing in some way, without being deep.
I considered SR as being an entertaining evening in the theater. I'm glad I saw it and thought it was good.
However, I won't limit myself to the word "entertaining" for those light-hearted shows I REALLY loved. At that point I will use an even stronger word. The word "entertaining" shows appeal to a show, but it's still somewhat tempered. At least for me.
I guess the connotation of such a word can exist on a continuum, with its own meanings varying with individual experiences.
Posted: 4/25/15 at 7:18pm
I go to the theatre to be entertained. My definition, however, is not limited to one word. For me, direction, wardrobe, blocking, makeup, and all the rest must be top notch for it to be entertaining.
Posted: 4/25/15 at 7:28pm
"I go to the theatre to be entertained. My definition, however, is not limited to one word. For me, direction, wardrobe, blocking, makeup, and all the rest must be top notch for it to be entertaining."
Those things too, Jane. For sure.
Like Indy said…..a well-crafted show.
I'm anxious for the nominations to come out. I haven't caught any of the plays, but have seen a number of the musicals from the season. I'm sure I'll be disappointed in some of the choices...if mine aren't recognized …. but excited about others.
Posted: 5/24/15 at 10:39am
I was immensely entertained with Something Rotten which I finally saw last night! Lots of laughs, fun and just an enjoyable time at the theater. The jokes and wit came fast and furious. For me the best new musical of the season! Also glad to be part of the standing ovation after The Musical number during the first act!!!
Updated On: 5/24/15 at 10:39 AM
