THE DROWSY CHAPERONE- Page 3

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 7:05pm

How about this then:

"My most treasured Tome of personal ruminations,

Upon this very present moment, I have crafted a bounty of voluminous articulations, predominantly, so that I might witness their presence upon publication….It appears that I possess quite the talent for the ‘bon mot”…have I not?…Have I not??"


Idiot
The Village

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 7:08pm

It's a beginning.


What part of the Village?


Contessa
Ship Of Fools, Bremerhaven

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 7:14pm

Wow, this sure got personal in a hurry!

Even though I disagree with TEC's review, I don't deny him his opinion, and I don't feel like attacking him for it. I'm sorry that he didn't come away with the same experience that I did after seeing it in L.A.... but that doesn't detract from my own high opinion of this show in the least. He is no more "right" than I am.

It's just an individual's opinion and perception of a musical.

I hope that TEC can find a show somewhere (soon) that he likes as much as I adore "Drowsy." We should all feel that "good" after leaving the theatre.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 7:19pm

Well spoken Best!

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 7:41pm

"It's just an individual's opinion and perception of a musical."

From Tom Stoppard's THE REAL THING:

"This thing here, which looks like a wooden club, is actually several pieces of particular wood cunningly put together in a certain way so that the whole thing is sprung, like a dance floor. It’s for hitting cricket balls with. If you get it right, the cricket ball will travel two hundred yards in four seconds, and all you’ve done is give it a knock like knocking the top off a bottle of stout, and it makes a noise like a trout taking a fly… [He clucks his tongue to make the noise.] What we’re trying to do is to write cricket bats, so that when we throw up an idea and give it a little knock, it might...travel...[He clucks his tongue again and picks up the script.] Now, what we’ve got here is a lump of wood of roughly the same shape trying to be a cricket bat, and if you hit a ball with it, the ball will travel about ten feet and you will drop the bat and dance about shouting Ouch! with your hands stuck into your armpits. This isn’t better because someone says it’s better, or because there’s a conspiracy by the MCC to keep cudgels out of Lords. It’s better because it’s better. You don’t believe me, so I suggest you go out to bat with this and see how you get on."


Jerusha Bromley
Walpole, Massachusetts

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 8:33pm

Why use big words? Just say what has to be said.

Your **** stinks like everyone elses.

Mr. Awesome
Hoohoodilly, Pennsylvania

[Hawker]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 8:54pm

I have several major difficulties with your take on this show.

The first:

"So what? The point is not the commercial success or failure of any given show (it couldn't matter less to me) but the opportunity for individuals to exercise their critical faculties and engage in healthy debate and argument, such as whether a show fulfills its premise or not. It's an end unto itself and one of the reasons boards like this one were created."

Frivolous intellectual sparring on a discussion board may trump "commercial success or failure" of a show for you, but it certainly ranks far below the reality for me that behind every show--ill-conceived or otherwize--there are human beings for whom the show means the opportunity to engage in their passion or the ability to pay rent. It may mean the realization of a lifelong dream.

The Second:

You attempt on several occassions to blow by the "mandatory invention fallacy" on people: artists are required to bring something new and compelling to the table.

"The writers have simply trotted out the hoariest of cliches from these early shows which already have been parodied to death for decades (and far more successfully, I might add)."

Hey, it worked for "Me and My Girl", "Anything Goes", and "Crazy for You." There was no new ground broken in those shows. (Apparently, it's also working wonderfully well in the most-current incarnation of "White Christmas".)

The third: What begins as "constructive criticism" mutates into "moral criticism":

"If you're going to take cheap, predictable shots against such shows like CATS, MISS SAIGON, et al, you better damn well deliver the goods on your own terms."

One can reasonably rephrase this statment as,

"If you're going to take cheap, predictable shots against such shows like CATS, MISS SAIGON, et al, you should damn well deliver the goods on your own terms."

You, as the critic in this case, have now given yourself license to dictate how the artist should go about his task, subtely suggesting that as it stands, the work ought not to exist. I believe it is the moral position you are taking concerning TDC that has made the fur fly on this thread.

Finally, you also, in my opinion, mistakenly employ the fallacy of imitative form which would have us believe art must communicate rather than merely evoke feeling in the observer:

"One need only listen to Scott Frankels' score to the first act of GREY GARDENS to hear pastiche of the first order: inventive, melodic, sophisticated, memorable."

Cherubini's "Requium" is all the above--far more "inventive, melodic, sophisticated, and memorable" than hundreds of classical pieces that came before or after it (Beethoven himself declared it to be "The greatest piece written by the greatest composer who ever lived") and yet it has not moved people in the way "Fur Elise" or "The Moonlight Sonata" has.

The theater is all about feeling. No less an authority than George Baker declared repeatedly that the writer's goal was to take people from "feeling to feeling" in the most economic manner.

Clearly, despite its artistic liabilities, TDC is making people feel--for how long or for how many, who can tell?

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 9:51pm

"Hey, it worked for "Me and My Girl", "Anything Goes", and "Crazy for You." There was no new ground broken in those shows. (Apparently, it's also working wonderfully well in the most-current incarnation of "White Christmas".)"

One big difference - those shows had great scores.
IMHO, the score for DROWSY CHAPERONE is frantic and forgettable.

And in 'wacky jazz-age frolics among the rich and showfolk' theme was done all too recently in NEVER GONNA DANCE and MILLIE. Indeed, the Muzzy-in-the-plane and Chinese Fantasy bits seem like direct steals from the latter. Maybe it would all seem fresher if the man in the Chair had chosen a rah-rah GOOD NEWSy college musical instead.

The only things relating to the score that remain in the mind with pleasure are Sutton's showmanship, Eddie Korbisch's lightning taps and Beth Leavel's Diva attitude.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 9:51pm

Whoops, double post...

Updated On: 4/6/06 at 09:51 PM

[Jinks]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 11:13pm

"...zzzzzzzzzzz..."

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 11:13pm

"Frivolous intellectual sparring on a discussion board may trump "commercial success or failure" of a show for you, but it certainly ranks far below the reality for me that behind every show--ill-conceived or otherwize--there are human beings for whom the show means the opportunity to engage in their passion or the ability to pay rent. It may mean the realization of a lifelong dream."

Then go raise some money, produce a show and give those people jobs! Really, your illogical, sentimental argument is not a little absurd.

>>Hey, it worked for "Me and My Girl", "Anything Goes", and "Crazy for You." There was no new ground broken in those shows. (Apparently, it's also working wonderfully well in the most-current incarnation of "White Christmas".)<<

Since these shows are revivals, there's no point of comparison nor is the issue of breaking ground relevant. My contention is that the authors of TDC have resorted to unimaginative, easy cliches in the creation of their show-within-a-show and I stand by my statement.

>>You, as the critic in this case, have now given yourself license to dictate how the artist should go about his task, subtely suggesting that as it stands, the work ought not to exist. I believe it is the moral position you are taking concerning TDC that has made the fur fly on this thread.<<

First off, I have never suggested the show shouldn't exist. I stated the show is not successful in its execution and said explicitly why, as is my privilege. If the show is going to take potshots at Elton John for his banal, hackneyed scores, it stands to reason that the audience will expect TDC to deliver something better than what Sir Elton can offer. But it fails to do so. Premise unfulfilled. As far as making fur fly, who cares? People can respond as they wish. But judging from some of the cretinous responses that have been posted on this thread, there are some people out there with either serious intellectual deficiencies and/or potential mental health issues. Finally, ALL criticism is a moral position--how could it be otherwise? Criticism is founded on standards of excellence and a notion of the highest good.

"Finally, you also, in my opinion, mistakenly employ the fallacy of imitative form which would have us believe art must communicate rather than merely evoke feeling in the observer."

Evoking feeling IS communication. What are plays but a progression of feeling? Of course, comparisons can be made between TDC and GREY GARDENS. Both deal with musical comedy conventions and offer pastiche scores. One is more successful at communicating and evoking feeling than the other. Case closed.

"Clearly, despite its artistic liabilities, TDC is making people feel--for how long or for how many, who can tell?"

And that's what makes horse races.


Tilde Kooeck
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Updated On: 4/6/06 at 11:13 PM

[Parsley]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 12:22am

I have no argument with the original appraisal of TDC; more the condescending, even pretentious tone of that and his subsequent posts. What's with the abundance of quotes? Almost deliberately and painfully employed out of desperation it would seem. The attempts at word-play, despite the stated interest, lack cleverness, and really do suggest a certain pomposity.
Updated On: 4/7/06 at 12:22 AM

[Hawker]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 12:49am

I see I was uncannilly astute in my observation that you have crossed the line from artistic or constructive criticism to moral criticism.

You have taken it upon yourself to be a judge and as other sholars have noted under similar circumstances examine the show as it was a contract that had been breached, the writer failing to deliver what was promised, or a will to be examined to see if it has been properly drawn or whether it fails ab initio because it violates certain rules of estate law.

It was the "case closed" reference. I'm hardly a freudian but his theory of parataxes is absolutely brilliant--those little gestures or words that belie deeper, unconscious truths.

You have "ruled" on TDS. It has failed in your opinion to rise to the level of artistic merit.

"Case closed."

Indeed.

Atticus Finch
Maycomb, Alabama

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:22am

Im just wondering why shows like "Lestat" and "Tarzan" are being given so much more slack

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:47am

"I see I was uncannilly astute in my observation that you have crossed the line from artistic or constructive criticism to moral criticism."

Incorrect. A more accurate assessment would be "Your criticism has a moral underpinning" which I would consider a great compliment, thank you. While we're on the subject, I came across this quote by Maxwell Anderson that is pertinent to our dialogue:
"The theatrical profession may protest as much as it likes, the theologians may protest, and the majority of those who see our plays would probably be amazed to hear it, but the theater is a religious institution devoted entirely to the exaltation of the spirit of man. It has no formal religion. It is a church without creed, but there is no doubt in my mind that our theater...is as much a worship as the theater of Greeks and has exactly the same meaning in our lives...Any other art, practiced separately, can be either moral or amoral, religious or pagan, affirmative or despairing. But when they come together in the theater they must affirm, they cannot deny.It is as if poetry, music, narration, dancing and the mimetic arts were bits and pieces of theatrical art, stripped away to function alone and rudderless without the moral compulsion of theater." Isn't that great!!


"You have taken it upon yourself to be a judge and as other sholars have noted under similar circumstances examine the show as it was a contract that had been breached, the writer failing to deliver what was promised, or a will to be examined to see if it has been properly drawn or whether it fails ab initio because it violates certain rules of estate law."

That's a most apt comparison since every play is a premise and an argument which either succeeds or fails to convince the judge, in this case, the audience.

"You have "ruled" on TDS. It has failed in your opinion to rise to the level of artistic merit."

Well, sure. Just like anyone else who comes to a conclusion about a show they've seen. So what?

Regarding Freud: As Sigmund once told his daughter, "Anna, sometimes a banana is just a banana." 'Nuff said.


BooBooKitty
Hell's Kitchen, NYC

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:49am

"Im just wondering why shows like "Lestat" and "Tarzan" are being given so much more slack"

'Cause I haven't gotten free tickets to them yet!


Sr. Aloysius
Brooklyn, NY

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 10:06am

Singingbackup---Because people were not hailing those two shows as "the second coming."

BWW posters (or should I say a certain few) feel compelled to give "Droswy" an extra-hard slap, overstating their points and negative opinions of the musical. If people have said, "This is the best show EVER!" going into it, they feel it necessary to weigh their dislike with, "This is a TERRIBLE show." They want to be heard, after all... So they amplify their dislike of it with equal volume.

They're reacting more to the advance praise and word-of-mouth HYPE than their actual feelings about the show itself. Some people unfortunately CANNOT separate the two. They probably walked into the theatre with arms folded thinking, "This BETTER BE GOOD," after everything I've heard about it. That's usually a set-up for a bad night out. This is why I encouraged theatre-goers from the start to read nothing about "Drowsy" in advance and just go in with an open mind expecting nothing.

Art and the mass-perception opinion of it, go hand in hand, unfortunately. It's like people who automatically LOVE the painting of the Mona Lisa because of its legendary status, instead of looking at it and seeing it for what it means to them, and what it meant at the moment in time it was created.

[NYLG]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:36am

TEH...or maybe I should call you Sybil?

"So what? The point is not the commercial success or failure of any given show (it couldn't matter less to me) but the opportunity for individuals to exercise their critical faculties and engage in healthy debate and argument, such as whether a show fulfills its premise or not. It's an end unto itself and one of the reasons boards like this one were created."

WHAT planet are you from? Commercial success or failure is intrinsic to the point, and as much as some individuals might like to forget that fact, we wouldn't be having ANY of these debates without that elephant on this board. It seems to me that the majority of the work discussed on "boards like this one" are those that have been produced commercially, so how can one ignore commercial viability when engaging in the "intellectual" discussion of a show? Why the hell do you think these shows are written? To decorate a shelf in a den???? To be discussed on theatre boards? They are written to be produced...hopefully with some modicum of commercial success. Whether or not a show will work in the commercial arena simply cannot be separated from the work because theatre is an interactive process.

Perhaps YOUR interpretation of the premise of DROWSY differs from that of the creative forces behind the show in its current incarnation. Have you discussed this with the writers personally? Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, this production fulfills THEIR premise?

[NBC]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:46am

TED, just curious, do you drag out that Tom Stoppard quote all the time in order to indicate that your opinion might carry more weight than that of others?

Rafe Hoxworth
Hawaii

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 12:04pm

>>>WHAT planet are you from? Commercial success or failure is intrinsic to the point, and as much as some individuals might like to forget that fact, we wouldn't be having ANY of these debates without that elephant on this board. It seems to me that the majority of the work discussed on "boards like this one" are those that have been produced commercially, so how can one ignore commercial viability when engaging in the "intellectual" discussion of a show? Why the hell do you think these shows are written? To decorate a shelf in a den???? To be discussed on theatre boards? They are written to be produced...hopefully with some modicum of commercial success. Whether or not a show will work in the commercial arena simply cannot be separated from the work because theatre is an interactive process.<<<

So shows get produced and they get discussed here, so what? Good or bad, love-it-or-hate-it, it has no bearing whatsoever on the ultimate success or failure of any given show in the marketplace nor does a show's success or failure have anything to do with me. Sure it's nice to see dreck flop and quality flourish, but
unless my money is tied up in one, the fate of any given show ultimately has little impact on me.

Vivian Darkbloom
Ramsdale, New England

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 12:09pm

"TED, just curious, do you drag out that Tom Stoppard quote all the time in order to indicate that your opinion might carry more weight than that of others?"

No, but because the monologue articulates its point brilliantly and much better than I could ever hope to.


Abner Hale (aboard the Thetis)




Updated On: 4/7/06 at 12:09 PM

[Hawker]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 12:20pm

"That's a most apt comparison since every play is a premise and an argument which either succeeds or fails to convince the judge, in this case, the audience."

No. It is YOUR premise that a work of theater is an argument, although it is shared by many other critics. Furthermore, there is in criminal law, and despite the decades of controversy, in art itself the concept of intentionality and its indespensibility in "judging" a work of art.

You've conceded that you are completely in the dark as to the writer's intended audience. If you do not understand this element of the writer's intent, how do you presume to know his greater intent?

To take the analogy to jurisprudence a step further, imagine a man dying from a gunshot but that it is not known that the victim was the intended one by the accused. He was actually intending to kill someone else. The judge (or jury) cannot reach the same verdict without knowing the intent of the accused.

You're assuming you KNOW the intentions of the writers (an assumption I PRESUME is based on what you've read from secondary sources concerning the author's intention rather than direct quotes from the author. Perhaps you can provide a source that says the has the author discussing his specific intent for the show.)

I remember Lloyd Webber commenting on "Starlight Express". He merely wanted to write a silly little story for his young child who was mad about trains. He did. The PRODUCER'S took the thing and turned it into this behemoth that was ridiculed by critics who found it appalling.

It was never ALW's intent to produce it on the West End or on Broadway. It was a gift for his kid. Nothing more. TDC as I understand it was a gift from two guys to a friend who loved silly theater. The word got out. Someone paid the writer's fifty grand to option it.

Where is the religiousity in this or the dicta that it exalt man?

I wonder what Anderson wouldhave thought of "GlenGary GlenRoss". Now there's a show that exalts the spirit of mankind.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:18pm

>>>"No. It is YOUR premise that a work of theater is an argument, although it is shared by many other critics. Furthermore, there is in criminal law, and despite the decades of controversy, in art itself the concept of intentionality and its indespensibility in "judging" a work of art.<<<

No, it's not MY premise. Conflict is an essential component of drama, whether explicit or inferred.

>>>You've conceded that you are completely in the dark as to the writer's intended audience. If you do not understand this element of the writer's intent, how do you presume to know his greater intent?<<<

Because a play, like any piece of literature, can be analyzed. Audiences can't.

>>>You're assuming you KNOW the intentions of the writers (an assumption I PRESUME is based on what you've read from secondary sources concerning the author's intention rather than direct quotes from the author. Perhaps you can provide a source that says the has the author discussing his specific intent for the show.)<<<

No secondary sources necessary. Any author worth his salt will make his intentions clear in the piece he has chosen to write and in the manner in which he presents his subject. That's not to say, however, that the work can't be subjected to various interpretations.

>>Where is the religiousity in this or the dicta that it exalt man?<<

It's life-affirming and celebrates things of the spirit. Even I can give TDC that much credit. I just wish it had been done better.

>>I wonder what Anderson wouldhave thought of "GlenGary GlenRoss". Now there's a show that exalts the spirit of mankind.<<

As a cautionary tale and a ruthless dissection of contemporary values, it most certainly does--by showing a man how NOT to live.

Now, it's been lovely chatting with you, Hawker, but I really must run. I'm outta here.


Marcellus Washburn
River City, Iowa
Updated On: 4/7/06 at 01:18 PM

[Hawker]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 3:03pm

"Any author worth his salt will make his intentions clear in the piece he has chosen to write and in the manner in which he presents his subject. That's not to say, however, that the work can't be subjected to various interpretations."

Robert Frost, ad nauseum, told audiences, readers, and critics that "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" was autobiographical--a remembrance of a young father taking solace in nature when he realized he couldn't afford to buy his kids Christmas presents and yet thousands of critics employing all manner of versimilitude declare it a poem about death and the longing for extinction. It apparently didn't matter at all that Frost said (particularly to a guy in the New Yorker)"Sorry. You just don't get it. It's not about death. It's about life."

I truly appreciate your input insofar as it does douse excessive expectation for the TDC and that is a service because expectations are often the parents of future resentments.

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 3:18pm

Each person's experience of a show is personal. I LOVED Drowsy Chaperone but I can definitely see how this show will only appeal to a limited audience.