THE MUSIC MAN Reviews — Page 4

ShowBro said: "Georgeanddot2 said: "Jordan Catalano said: "ShowBro said: "With these mostly underwhelming reviews, here is yet another potential door left open for C,OC in June. Ammirite @Jordan?"

I think “Company” was always going to be COC’s major competition for Revival."

Is Company not considered the frontrunner for Best Revival?"

Why, because Sondheim died last year? Mostly joking here."

Well there's that, but it also seems like a super buzzy and much loved production.

By all accounts, there are things Rudin's micromanaging could have fixed during rehearsals/previews. Like we might not have had the rewritten Shipoopi lyrics, and some of the other cut lines might have been restored. I think Hugh became "the muscle" after Rudin's departure –– not that he isn't collaborative, but he became the loudest voice in the room.

But remember, this MUSIC MAN was never the same situation as DOLLY. Rudin's DOLLY was largely a souped-up recreation of the original production, to the point where the choreography was deemed ineligible at the Tonys.

MUSIC MAN deviated from the set design, it had all new dance arrangements/orchestrations (and added choreo), it cast the leading actress against type, and it doesn't lend itself as well to the glamor of DOLLY, which is set in New York at the very end of the Gilded Age. MUSIC MAN is supposed to look a little shaggier. (The set design is a problem of this revival.)

DOLLY was also something of a surprise because we hadn't seen a commercially-produced revival like that in quite some time. And for those of us who saw all 3 Broadway Dollys, our love for it might have grown beyond that first viewing.

Hugh also probably would have been better in the part 10 or even 5 years ago. This isn't me saying "he's too old for the part;" Harold can be 53. But Hugh is coming to this after an interesting run in post-Wolverine movies, and the energy of Oklahoma! or Boy From Oz has sort of shifted as he has naturally aged.

Updated On: 2/11/22 at 10:53 AM

everythingtaboo said: "In the case of this one, were a lot of the decisions already made when the show was set to start in 2020, was there anything significantly changed when he was dropped?"

The professional barbershop quartet was let go.

I will say I'm glad that someone on Twitter caught this from the DEADLINE review. Hopefully they rub Barry and David's faces in it:

"Hard-hit and laid-up just weeks ago by Omicron, The Music Man, which opened Thursday at a celebrity-packed Winter Garden Theatre, certainly seems to have made a full recovery, at least if cheerful enthusiasm is any indication. (And for the record, producers Diller and Geffen displayed little indication of over-concern about Broadway protocol, sitting maskless in the audience throughout much of the evening.)"

Georgeanddot2 said: "
Is Company not considered the frontrunner for Best Revival?"



100%. I’d say it’s pretty much a sure bet it’s going to win

Ok, I'm surprised by the negativity towards the show...I saw it and thought it was a joyous, fun production.

Also, Jesse Green is single-handedly helping the NYT reviews become irrelevant. He just seems to be out of step with the world. I'm hoping he's ok...it's like he's using his reviews as a cipher for his sad, cantankerous view on life and theater.

Owen22 said: "FirstNighter2 said: "How you can screw up The Music Man is beyond me. It’s time tested and pure Americana. They cut a song. From a classic American musical comedy. Why? They added a tap number. Why? They put a big red wall up. Why? So many odd and disrespectful (to the property and the audience) decisions — all of which have been a topic here for the last two months. It’s not as if they didn’t have notice. It’s that they didn’t care. And that’s what makes this revival so easy to skip.


They did NOT screw up The Music Man. They did NOT screw up The Music Man. They did NOT screw up The Music Man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a first rate revival with star performances that is the essence of the pure joy of musical theatre. No, I did not get the otherworldly rush I got from the Hello, Dolly! revival (which is odd as Music Man is a better, way more creative musical) but it came as close to anything I've seen in the years since
"

The Washington Post disagrees, saying: “The enterprise is a golden-age opportunity squandered. All I kept thinking as I scarpered out of the Winter Garden was: They didn’t know the territory.”

If you decide to mount The Music Man, a tried and true piece of theatrical perfection, that has stood on its own for nearly 60 years, and you get these kind of reviews, you definitely screwed it up.


There is absolutely no excuse for getting these kind of reviews for a piece like The Music Man.

I love the Music Man. I love love love Hugh and Sutton. But when I saw this a month ago... my heart was crushed. It's is boring, and the reviews are accurate. I thought maybe they were both still sick, tbh, because it was at once high energy and very sleepy.

dexter3 said: "Ok, I'm surprised by the negativity towards the show...I saw it and thought it was a joyous, fun production.

Also, Jesse Green is single-handedly helping the NYT reviews become irrelevant. He just seems to be out of step with the world. I'm hoping he's ok...it's like he's using his reviews as a cipher for his sad, cantankerous view on life and theater."

....I hope YOU'RE ok, because his review of this show largely reflected most of the sentiment expressed here by a focus group of pretty seasoned theatergoers.

I agree, many of his reviews are garbage and his snark calls into question his journalistic integrity (and, frankly that of his editor Scott Heller), but THIS is the review you're gonna psychoanalyze him over? K...

Here's a pull quote from Peter Marks.

You get none of that. This Professor Hill seems less a traveling salesman than a song-and-dance man on a second-class national tour.

I love when people think reviews are irreverent when they don't agree with them. Love 'em or loathe 'em, I absolutely believe they serve a value. If anything, they provoke discussion, just take a look at this thread, and why we have review threads at all.

(Say what you will about Jesse Green but the Times just hit 10M subscriptions, so clearly they know what works or them.)

everythingtaboo said: "I love when people think reviews are irreverent when they don't agree with them. Love 'em or loathe 'em, I absolutely believe they serve a value. If anything, they provoke discussion, just take a look at this thread, and why we have review threads at all.

(Say what you will about Jesse Green but the Times just hit 10M subscriptions, so clearly they know what works or them.)"

To be fair, I'd be willing to bet money that Jesse Green's reviews have zero to do with a single one of those 10M subscriptions. I think the point some people are trying to make is that the reviews are irrelevant because this particular production doesn't need them to survive. People just needed to be reminded Hugh was in the show and it's open. I would also say the value of reviews has diminished quite substantially in the past few years. Struggling shows get raves and the needle doesn't move. Hits get panned and they survive. So the relevance of reviews in the digital age? Jury's out.

That's different than dismissing opinions out of hand because they don't align with their own.