Posted: 4/25/17 at 6:56pm
There's no reason to deny the things that were said about teenaged girls in this thread - positive as well as negative. That's what teenage girls are! That's what they do! I'm glad I was like that as a teenager - silly and normal!
Posted: 4/25/17 at 7:17pm
Jane2 said: "There's no reason to deny the things that were said about teenaged girls in this thread - positive as well as negative. That's what teenage girls are! That's what they do! I'm glad I was like that as a teenager - silly and normal!
"
Sure, but when reviewing a show, that shouldn't be a focus
Posted: 4/25/17 at 7:23pm
"Sure, but when reviewing a show, that shouldn't be a focus "
Isn't that what my post means?
Posted: 4/25/17 at 7:28pm
I totally agree with the original post and I think it goes well beyond the recent reviews that talk down to teen girls. It is a systemic issue with how women are perceived and until there's a change in the disappointing lack of representation in critic positions, I don't think this will be fixed. Perhaps another reason that critics are becoming somewhat obsolete to general ticket buyers?
Posted: 4/25/17 at 7:38pm
Jane2 said: ""Sure, but when reviewing a show, that shouldn't be a focus "
Isn't that what my post means?
"
Ah sorry, misread it
Posted: 4/25/17 at 7:43pm
Maybe there would be a better argument if the shows that were obviously made to pander to teenage girls weren't fvcking terrible...
Also I think it's fair to say that all teenagers, regardless or race/gender/sexual orientation, can be insufferable. That's just what teenagers are. It's not that female teenage fans make musical theatre insufferable, it's that TEENAGE BEHAVIOR makes them insufferable.
Updated On: 4/25/17 at 07:43 PM
Posted: 4/25/17 at 7:47pm
ALittleFallofRain said: "I totally agree with the original post and I think it goes well beyond the recent reviews that talk down to teen girls. It is a systemic issue with how women are perceived and until there's a change in the disappointing lack of representation in critic positions, I don't think this will be fixed. Perhaps another reason that critics are becoming somewhat obsolete to general ticket buyers?
It's not just women, in my opinion (although there's a whole discussion to be had about the "rom-com ghetto" in film and "chick lit" in literature), but also young people. Teenage girls are the intersection of these two groups that are perceived to have the least sophisticated or most "silly" tastes. But, as others here have pointed out, over-the-top reactions to entertainment aren't limited to teenage girls, even though that's the stereotype. I've seen men of all ages yelling and swearing at the TV during sports games; I've had the misfortune of sitting in front of middle-aged women at shows like Mamma Mia and had to complain about their singalongs.
But, yes, I think that these audiences especially are becoming more savvy to the idea that critics represent a very narrow viewpoint, and instead make up their own minds. I can see why that might make critics deride them even further, but that's something I applaud.
Posted: 4/25/17 at 8:30pm
gleek4114 said: "..... I do have my favorites too. I personally love Stephanie J. Block, Alice Ripley, Carolee Carmello, Rob McClure, Kate Baldwin, etc. but again I'm not obsessive.
I bet these Actors would be pleased to be in the "older" category. I can only imagine where you would put Bernadette Peters, Joel Grey, Bette Midler etc.....
(I get your point gleek, just pullin' your leg.)
In all fairness, Bentley, himself can act like a teenager when it comes to certain performers. Read his Fan Girl Love Letter to Cheno in his WICKED review. He has no room to talk.
"
Posted: 4/26/17 at 4:24am
Lots of "groups" have annoying behaviors. But then, those are never really those groups acting as a monolith but individuals that happen to belong to one cultural subset or another. I'm not all sunshine and unicorns but if someone does something that annoys me, I don't think, "X" people are terrible. I think that one person is an a******.
Short answer. Misogyny... which is even more acceptable when applied to the young.
Posted: 4/26/17 at 5:06am
I am a major theater supporter. Some of the time I end up sitting next to tweens..... And I get anxiety. Are they going to talk, tweet, pull out the phone when they get bored? Some of the best patrons I have sat next to are tweens... they pay attention. The worst people I have have sat next to are middle age non theater goers. The tweens are cool and since I am old enough to be their parent, if they are being loud enough to disrupt me and others around me, a simple SHHHHHH! and don't hear a peep again.
At DEH last week. hubby and I sat with a bunch of tweens, the were cool. not a peep that should not have been uttered.
Posted: 4/26/17 at 6:11am
Then why the anxiety?
Posted: 4/26/17 at 6:39am
ALittleFallofRain said: "I totally agree with the original post and I think it goes well beyond the recent reviews that talk down to teen girls. It is a systemic issue with how women are perceived and until there's a change in the disappointing lack of representation in critic positions, I don't think this will be fixed. Perhaps another reason that critics are becoming somewhat obsolete to general ticket buyers?
"
Ditto. This isn't a problem specific to Broadway. Remember that town hall a few years ago where the politician belittled a younger woman's concerns by telling her to go to a Taylor Swift concert? Yup. Societal issue.
Posted: 4/26/17 at 8:57am
"It is a systemic issue with how women are perceived and until there's a change in the disappointing lack of representation in critic positions, I don't think this will be fixed."
Oh, yes, hiring more female theatre reviewers will significantly alter the public's perception of women. Of course, they should be a different kind of woman, as Claudia Cassidy, Dorothy Parker, Linda Winer, Margo Jefferson, Elizabeth Vincentelli and other female reviewers didn't make that happen. Maybe they weren't/aren't really women...
Updated On: 4/26/17 at 08:57 AM
Posted: 4/26/17 at 9:21am
newintown said: ""It is a systemic issue with how women are perceived and until there's a change in the disappointing lack of representation in critic positions, I don't think this will be fixed."
Oh, yes, hiring more female theatre reviewers will significantly alter the public's perception of women. Of course, they should be a different kind of woman, as Claudia Cassidy, Dorothy Parker, Linda Winer, Margo Jefferson, Elizabeth Vincentelli and other female reviewers didn't make that happen. Maybe they weren't/aren't really women..."
I'm not sure hauling out dead-since-1967 Dorothy Parker as an example is really helping your point here, but whatever.
Posted: 4/26/17 at 9:26am
"I'm not sure hauling out dead-since-1967 Dorothy Parker as an example is really helping your point here, but whatever."
Mm. Cogent. Are you saying that Parker's career as a female critic/writer is irrelevant because she died? What are your thoughts on the others? In case you don't know it, Cassidy has been dead since 1996 - does that make her life and career irrelevant, too? And Jefferson is no longer with the Times, and Winer is leaving Newsday - should we never mention them again?
Or would you like to take another stab at a coherent reply to the actual meaning of my post, instead of cherry picking one name that you don't seem to care for?
Posted: 4/26/17 at 9:37am
No, my point was not that Parker's work is irrelevant (and yes, I was aware Cassidy is dead as well). My point was that if you're going to argue that broader representation in theatre criticism today will have no bearing on the perception an art form that is largely supported by women, you might at least do well to reference people who haven't stopped writing or have been dead for decades. It is possible to recognize the impact of Dorothy Parker's work while also realizing that said work has little bearing in a discussion of contemporary theatre criticism.
Posted: 4/26/17 at 9:46am
"Contemporary" is your word, not mine. I was responding to the ridiculous hypothesis that hiring female theatre reviewers would have any effect at all on the American public's perception of women in general, noting that there have been influential female reviewers throughout the last century who apparently did not change the public's point of view.
My point (rephrased to avoid misunderstanding) - the work of daily arts reviewers does not alter our species' views on much of anything.
Posted: 4/26/17 at 9:55am
This reminded me of a quote from Harry Styles I recently read:
"Young girls like The Beatles. You gonna tell me they're not serious? How can you say young girls don't get it? They're our future."
People have always considered teenage girls "frivolous." The Kardashians and social media are just this generation's Elvis. And why should the opinions of middle aged white men be more valid than a 15 year old girl? Art is subjective. There's no right opinion. Theater is a business and, just like Wicked, shows that seem to appeal to stereotypical teenage girls will sell tickets. Also I was a teenage girl not too long ago and now I teach them. The ones who are actually interested in theater really prefer stars like Patti and Bernadette to Kristin and Idina. I know I've mentioned this on another thread too, but the nontheatre crowd of "teenage girls" that grew up with the Anastasia movie are now in their mid-late 20s. The teen girls who are seeing Anastasia this early in the run are devoted theater fans.
Updated On: 4/26/17 at 09:55 AM
Posted: 4/26/17 at 10:00am
That is a fair point, but I think it's worth arguing that critics can champion new works and new writers. It seems more likely to me that, if critics represent a broader representative spectrum, then the work that gets highlighted will only do the same. Also, on a personal level, I find it more interesting to read differing perspectives on a show, and that's less possible when almost every critic is an older white man.
Posted: 4/26/17 at 10:16am
I agree and I am thoroughly disgusted by the reviews that I have seen. As a 30 year old white male I loved the animated film when I was younger. I think that period of history is fascinating. The entire world talked about the possibility that one of the princess survived and was smuggled out of Russia. The show didn't break much new ground, but I don't know why the story of a young women lost and trying to find her family is frivolous. I have of course noticed that reviewers don't have the same objection's about the Hello Dolly revival.
Posted: 4/26/17 at 11:32am
I found it very weird that the first three Anastasia reviews I read last night (Time out, EW, Hollywood reporter) mentioned screaming teenagers.
Which was probably nothing compared to the screams for Midler in Hello Dolly.
The Kardashians and social media are just this generation's Elvis.
Huh? Those comparisons make no sense.
The show didn't break much new ground, but I don't know why the story of a young women lost and trying to find her family is frivolous.
It's really not, as it was the subject of previous film and musical treatments prior to the animated film. I think perhaps this adaptation seems frivolous because both the animated film and this musical were clearly written for families and younger audiences. Obviously, they made some changes for the stage to make the staging more feasible and perhaps elevate the story from the magical fanciful tale to something slightly more sophisticated (e.g. changing the Rasputin and Bartok characters). The style and the tone of the show do come off as pretty light fare. There's nothing wrong with that as that seems to be their intent, but it's probably where the idea of "frivolous" is rooted. It's not necessarily in the basic plot, but the treatment of it by the creative team.
Posted: 4/26/17 at 11:37am
wonderfulwizard11 said: "That is a fair point, but I think it's worth arguing that critics can champion new works and new writers. It seems more likely to me that, if critics represent a broader representative spectrum, then the work that gets highlighted will only do the same. Also, on a personal level, I find it more interesting to read differing perspectives on a show, and that's less possible when almost every critic is an older white man"
I think the fact that it's an older white man saying this is also key. Even if Brantley and other critics don't mean to sound like they're denigrating teen girls and their interests, they are still coming from a place of privilege in our society. (Yes, even gay older white men have more privilege than teenage girls.) It's like how sometimes my boss, a middle-aged straight white guy, says things that I know he means in jest but doesn't realize how it could actually come across when directed towards his younger female colleagues. (And not weird sexual things.)
Posted: 4/26/17 at 2:39pm
Mister Matt said: "The Kardashians and social media are just this generation's Elvis.
Huh? Those comparisons make no sense.
" I'm referring to how people used to think Elvis and the Beatles were "corrupting" young girls- just like some would say about the Kardashians.
