The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee Reviews- Page 5

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 12:28pm

Did Kissel rave about Spamalot? I am only curious because THAT's like putting SNL onstage...Spelling Bee fares much better in the book department as it starts with a group of disparate characters and a seemingly odd premise and, slowly, these characters come together, you learn a bit about them, and leave the theatre happy.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 12:32pm

I don't think much of Kissel, but I think people were dumbfounded when he absolutely raved over PIAZZA.

[joniray]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 1:17pm

Kissel: "Spelling Bee," with a score by William Finn and book by ­Rachel Sheinkin, is an ­elongated skit. It is hilarious that there is a ­separate credit for Rebecca Sheinkin, who "conceived" this painfully cutesy farrago.

Plum: Since when is giving someone credit for their work "hilarious"? I'm not too fond of critic-bashing, but dear lord, that's an ignorant statement on Kissel's part.

Me: Not to mention he didn't even get her name right. I believe it is the separate credit for Rebecca *Feldman* that he is referring to.

[leomaxfrank]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 1:36pm

Filicia's review is very well-written. That's the type of negative review that I like - even if I don't agree with all that he says. He was very open-minded about much of the show, and stated why he didn't like it, without being pretentious or just an asshole. JoeKv - I know what you mean about preconceived notions, but at least he admitted to it, he almost explains in detail what he wants and why he wants it that way. I admire that.

Kissel's just seems so angry and lacks any involved "criticism".

Updated On: 5/3/05 at 01:36 PM

Posted: 5/3/05 at 2:07pm

Leo, I guess we just have to agree to disagree; If this had been an article or an essay, I wouldn't have disliked it. I see reviews as "Consumer Reports" type items: Is this show well done? Is it worth seeing? Should I lay my money down?

Roger Ebert has a habit of starting off his film reviews with what appears to be a non-sequiter sometimes ("With Prettybelle, I saw the show four times.") but he then brings out some feature of the film he particularly liked or disliked and how it related to that odd opening line. This reviewer spends nearly 1300 words on what other people thought, what other shows he liked, what he thought of the composers neurosis- and then slips in a 16 word review of what's on stage: "And please let me make clear that I find Bee skillfully written, composed, directed, and performed."

I guess it's just me, but THAT'S the point of reviewing.

[leomaxfrank]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 2:45pm

I definitely understand what you mean.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 3:28pm

Something must have been up Clive Barnes' A** last night because he was extremley negative about it in his review (2 stars). I dont get it. Oh well....

[Plum]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 3:33pm

Filicia's piece seemed more like commentary on existing reviews than a review in its own right.

[joniray]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 6:00pm

That's because it was a commentary. The piece quoted was not from Filicia's review in the NJ paper. It was from his column "Peter Filichia's Diary" at TheatreMania which features his often illuminating musings on all sorts of subjects related to musical theatre. In this instance he was working out his feelings about Bee in relation to how other critics reacted to it. I like Bee quite a bit, but I thought it was, as usual, an enlightening column. That's *column* - not *review*. There is a difference.

PS - this is not directed specifically to Plum but to those who are critiqing his column as if it were a review.

Posted: 5/3/05 at 7:37pm

Saw it and thought it was great off-Broadway. But this isn't a Broadway show.It's cute and I had a great time, but I expect Broadway show's to be larger than life. I think everyone's caught up in the hype - this should have stayed off-broadway. Just my opinion. Getting ready for the haters to fire back...
Updated On: 5/3/05 at 07:37 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 8:07pm

TomasMarx, why is something like Oklahoma! or A Little Night Music larger than life in a way that Spelling Bee is not? Is it just a matter of cast size?

Posted: 5/3/05 at 8:28pm

No I think it's about grandeur, and the spectacle that people expect from a BROADWAY Musical. I know that when I saw Spamalot, DRS, and even All Shook Up, I walked away thinking I got my $100 bucks worth.

I liked Spelling Bee. But,I think a larger venue with a show like Spelling Bee, creates a greater disconnection with an audience. Did you see it off-Broadway? It's a small show and it need's the intimacy of a smaller theater. Let’s face it, nowadays decisions are always about what can make the most money,and not what's the right venue to tell the story in.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 8:32pm

I have a bit of an allergy to the word "spectacle" as associated with Broadway musicals- it makes me think of chandeliers, and that's not a happy thing.

But I really have to disagree with you. When Oklahoma! opened, someone famously said that it had "no gags, no gals, no chance." Not enough spectacle, in other words. Funny, it seemed to turn out pretty well anyway- story and character trumped pure razzle-dazzle, which to me is as it should be.

I did see Spelling Bee Off-Broadway, and I've thought for a while that Circle in the Square is almost an ideal space for it. I haven't seen it there yet, but judging by the reactions, it seems the transfer worked out okay.
Updated On: 5/3/05 at 08:32 PM

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 8:34pm

I think Bee requires a certain kind of quirky, off-beat sense of humor that Barnes and Kissel obviously doesn't have. I personally loved Bee, I thought it was hilarious with a lot of heart.

Posted: 5/3/05 at 8:34pm

um I think you and I agree on almost everything except I hated Oklahoma :)

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 8:43pm

I agree 110%, Bobby.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 10:23pm

Drama critics like Isherwood should refrain from commenting about a show's musical component lest they make abject fools of themselves. To compare Finn's music to Sondheim's (predictably, inaccurately) only reveals the extent of his ignorance and lack of discernment.

Plum, a show's 'largesse' is not a matter of cast size, it's about the amplitude and resonance of its theme. SPELLING BEE, whatever its charms, is a very small, gimmick-dependent show about absolutely nothing.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 10:56pm

I thought, by the end, it was about growing up, though that theme still needed strengthening when I saw it.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 11:15pm

Plum: Did you like the show?

[Plum]

Posted: 5/3/05 at 11:22pm

Yes, I did. I thought it needed work in some places, but it was also the funniest thing I'd seen since Avenue Q. And I'm absolutely nuts about that set design, probably because of all the memories it conjures up so skillfully.