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

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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?

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

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

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: Did you like the show?