THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES Reviews- Page 6

[BeyondtheBoards]

Posted: 11/11/25 at 1:59pm

I didn't love this, but went in expecting a pile of garbage, which was absolutely not what I got. I thought the show had some lovely moments with some great belting from Cheno, but beyond that lacked depth or excitement or a hummable score. 

Not worth Broadway prices, but worth a rush ticket. 

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 11/12/25 at 4:52am

The pull quotes of the season! We just started, folks!

[Ensemble1711444445]

Posted: 11/12/25 at 7:52am

BrodyFosse123 said: "The pull quotes of the season! We just started, folks!

"

 

Updated On: 11/14/25 at 07:52 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/12/25 at 9:01am

"Not worth Broadway prices, but worth a rush ticket."

More or less the consensus on these boards since the first preview. Get a discounted ticket and you won't have missed it when the show eventually closes. I'm trying to imagine folks coming to town for the holidays - or more telling, the dead of winter, January - March - and finding this must-see. Maybe I'm wrong; it pulled a million last week (though apparently still below the nut?)  It's hard to dismiss word of mouth, regardless of the 3 odd raves. Has word of mouth changed? When I saw the show last Wednesday afternoon, people shook their heads leaving, much eye-rolling, hitting the street outside the St. James. And a handful of folks angry at the hagiography in the show's DNA stood around the rest rooms venting, "Why?" 

[inception]

Posted: 11/12/25 at 10:03am

I put my ticket for next week on stubhub at face value.  I doubt it will sell, but it doesn't cost me anything to list it.  Lots of other tickets there.  Probably lots of other suckers like me who bought early based on Chenoweth's name.  She'll probably never get another penny out of me for the rest of my life.

[chernjam]

Posted: 11/12/25 at 1:27pm

I'm legitimately puzzled how the NY Times labeled it a "critics pick" while the rest of the reviews were so mixed to bad.  I realize that these things are subjective (for example, I'm not a fan of Ragtime, but I can completely understand why people were raving about it and why it receives such creative accolades), but this really stands out as bizarre. 

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 11/12/25 at 1:30pm

chernjam said: "I'm legitimately puzzled how the NY Times labeled it a "critics pick" while the rest of the reviews were so mixed to bad. I realize that these things are subjective (for example, I'm not a fan of Ragtime, but I can completely understand why people were raving about it and why it receives such creative accolades), but this really stands out as bizarre."


They are being paid to do so. How else do you explain this, Smash, and Redwood getting Critic’s Picks? They are all flaming piles of dog mess.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 11/12/25 at 1:35pm

chernjam said: "I'm legitimately puzzled how the NY Times labeled it a "critics pick" while the rest of the reviews were so mixed to bad. I realize that these things are subjective (for example, I'm not a fan of Ragtime, but I can completely understand why people were raving about it and why it receives such creative accolades), but this really stands out as bizarre."

As I said earlier, he just flips a coin and laughs. They are also getting bribed to do so, of course.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 11/12/25 at 2:11pm

Sutton Ross said: "As I said earlier, he just flips a coin and laughs. They are also getting bribed to do so, of course."

Jesse Green is no longer the chief theatre critic at the NYT. Laura Collins-Hughes is the responsible critic for the QofV and Ragtime reviews. I wonder what Elisabeth Vincentelli would have said about QofV, she isn’t my favorite but she seems much more restrained in what she gives a critics pick.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 11/12/25 at 2:19pm

Thanks Jorge, I forgot that he was removed. Not sure what Laura was watching, but I will always believe the Times gets something in return for these critics picks, which I truly don't think makes a difference. As TotallyEffed pointed out this show, Redwood, and Smash were all critics picks that failed miserably.

[Owen22]

Posted: 11/12/25 at 2:31pm

chernjam said: "I'm legitimately puzzled how the NY Times labeled it a "critics pick" while the rest of the reviews were so mixed to bad. I realize that these things are subjective (for example, I'm not a fan of Ragtime, but I can completely understand why people were raving about it and why it receives such creative accolades), but this really stands out as bizarre."

Because Hughes is an even worse critic than Jesse.

 

[HaveAGoodShow]

Posted: 11/12/25 at 6:05pm

I went to QUEEN OF VERSAILLES last night thanks to a Lucky Seat win (for the record: Mezz Row O, Seat 16, which was perfectly fine). In all my years of going to the theatre, I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve left at intermission and last night became one of them.

For me, there was nothing about the show to enjoy. Kristin Chenoweth is certainly giving it her all, but she is not doing anything we haven't seen her do before. I found the characters unlikable across the board, the music surprisingly bland and the book oddly amateurish for Broadway. And the Act One closer felt tone deaf. "Oh no! He lost all of his money! But what about THE HOUSE??!" It landed as more offensive than dramatic.

I kept thinking about Stewart Klein’s old review of the original Broadway production of CARRIE, where he said something to the effect that there was no reason for the show to be mounted. That is exactly how I felt watching this. So I left.

Maybe Act Two lands better, but this one just wasn't for me.

[Soaring29]

Posted: 11/12/25 at 10:06pm

I'm sad to hear all the negative reviews- hopefully the show will get better and Chenoweth can get a second Tony.

[Falsettolands]

Posted: 11/12/25 at 10:38pm

Soaring29 said: "I'm sad to hear all the negative reviews- hopefully the show will get better and Chenoweth can get a second Tony."

the show is frozen.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 11/13/25 at 5:40pm

Tickets for Sherie Rene Scott’s first standby performance in Queen of Versailles (11/25) are now available on TDF

[GottaGetAGimmick420]

Posted: 11/13/25 at 7:25pm

$5 on Bat Boy taking the St James this spring

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/13/25 at 10:02pm

Auggie27 said: "Though not universal, the consensus finds the piece's unworkability tied to itsDNA: few if any people want to spend an evening in the company of this particular woman. Nice enough songs sung by a gifted performer areultimately irrelevant.

If Arden and Schwartz areto blame for not takingleadership roles,pulling the plug after Boston, "

The show hardly got raves in Boston, but it did have better word of mouth and, more promising reviews.  There was also (understandably) far less of an issue about the subject of the musical.  The reaction in Boston certainly was not remotely one that would cause people to pull the plug on the project.  (Although I do think it should have caused them to see the need for more changes.)  I certainly can't fault Arden, or Schwartz (who, remember, actually came to this kinda late compared to the other creatives) or Chenoweth for not killing the show after Boston.

 

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 11/13/25 at 10:24pm

This should've been done in Boston but they already had deals in place for NYC.  what they should have done was WORKED ON IT.  Very little significant changes from Boston happened in the months before Broadway.  I can give Schwartz more of a pass being brought on much later but the book writer and Arden were in cahoots together from the beginning.  Arden believed in it to the point of producing as well.

Updated On: 11/13/25 at 10:24 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/13/25 at 11:10pm

I've seen it, I've read most reviews, and I honestly cannot imagine what would've fixed any show about this woman and her quest. A 90 minute black comedy, might work. Maybe a writer like Diablo Cody could've excavated a wicked portrait of vaulting ambition. But a big, bloated extravaganza with an earnest I Want, a historical conceit that drives home a parallel that only makes the subject less appealing, and a pile-on of digressive material - we're left with what consensus argues: what were they thinking? 

The show operates on a fragile construct: that the documentary has musical theater adaptability, the presence of class struggle alone in any vivid slice of Americana makes it worthwhile, root-for be damned. This presumption of being viable musical fodder damns the execution, because Jackie as protagonist is an unknowable cipher, afflicted with entitlement romanticized as a “dream” and thus awarded an unearned (anti) hero's journey. The 2025 audience in NYC cannot invest. That should've been clear a year and a half ago.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/13/25 at 11:59pm

I think this speaks to one of the problems with the current (oft-used) model of opening these shows out of town in full productions and then bringing them to Broadway--and often with insignificant changes.  From what I understand, if QoV just did its Boston run and then died then and there, it would have been at a great loss (and this wasn't done--as often happens--with a regional theatre's not for profit support.)  I still say that the reaction in Boston was certainly not overwhelming one of "WHY are they doing this musical, especially now" (even the negative reviews mostly didn't address this.)  I get why those involved saw the reaction as promising, at the very least, and why there was no real discussion about abandoning ship.  (Although the fact that they waited a season before the move did make me think more work would be done on it--but that's neither here nor there.)  It's easy to say *now* that they should have cut their loses in Boston--but I don't think the overall reaction to the work there would cause that reaction.

[DrMonicaDeMoneco]

Posted: 11/14/25 at 8:57am

Michael Arden speaks: https://www.out.com/theater/michael-arden-the-queen-of-versailles-kristin-chenoweth

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/14/25 at 2:52pm

Does Arden understand that a cautionary tale demands an audience that requires cautioning? Does he honestly believe people spending $600 for a pair of seats will gasp with knowing recognition and intone “but for the grace of God go I” witnessing this navel-gazing cipher sing incessantly about “American royal-tee” ?  The specious reasoning - that Jackie’s narrative has an every woman universality - defies logic. Simply being able to musicalise a story does not make said story viable for the form. And as Marsha Norman famously schooled playwrights, failing to recognize that your audience is a required collaborator can create a story no one wants to share. And sharing is what seals the connection between artist and audience.

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 11/14/25 at 3:12pm

Agree.  Also the only cautionary tale directed (and collaborated with writer) seemed to be at the end with the destruction of the versailles set - trying to shoehorn in a random fast comment on America?  (that is too little too late, and does not land).

This article is even more damning with Arden's connection with writer collaborating from the beginning.  He's as much to blame as her. This should have been WAY better.  New musicals, from the beginning, do not appear his skill...  Overspending, sets, excess & surplus without return seems to be. And shows or revivals of shows that are done or mostly done ready for production.

Arden likely knows he is responsible, and will probably write a memoir to making reasons why 'it wasn't me" to deflect, if this article is any indication.

Updated On: 11/15/25 at 03:12 PM

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 11/14/25 at 3:18pm

 Does Arden understand that a cautionary tale demands an audience that requires cautioning?

I truly don't think he does. This misfire is just wild for a person as talented, intelligent, and insightful as he seems to be.

Updated On: 11/14/25 at 03:18 PM

[marytylermoore]

Posted: 11/14/25 at 3:29pm

CoffeeBreak said: "This should've been done in Boston but they already had deals in place for NYC. what they should have done was WORKED ON IT. Very little significant changes from Boston happened in the months before Broadway. I can give Schwartz more of a pass being brought on much later but the book writer and Arden were in cahoots together from the beginning. Arden believed in it to the point of producing as well."

I will say that in Boston, Act II was abysmal and even the most critical of commenters seem to have a general consensus that the second act (as it currently stands on Broadway) is significantly better from a structural/writing/entertainment POV. 

Updated On: 11/14/25 at 03:29 PM