The Critics on Little Women — Page 5

I doubt it, Mattio. With those reviews, Foster doesn't stand a chance. They're not going to give her a repeat Tony (when she recently won one) unless the performance was universally acclaimed, which is was not. Nomination? Perhaps. Award? No way. The supporting actress award will undoubtedly go to Ramirez.

Nope, LITTLE WOMEN will come up empty handed this June at the Tonys.

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 02:03 AM

If by "raved" you mean gave a terrible review to, then okay.

If advance word is to be believed, Sara Ramirez is the likely favorite in the featured category (though McGovern will certainly be nominated). Sutton will duke it out with Clark, Scott and Applegate -- there's no telling how that race will go at this point. We'll have to see how all of those ladies are received when they get here.

Little Women has a small cast and orchestra (the running costs are relatively modest) and a certain built-in following of mothers and daughters (remember that women make up 65% of the Broadway theatregoing audience according to the recent survey), so I'm guessing it'll have no trouble making it through summer at least. But, judging by the reaction in the theatre the night I saw it, this is a real audience-pleaser of a show -- critics be damned.

Even without any Tonys, if it gets nominated and has a nice showing on the show, it shouldn't have too much trouble running through the end of the year (it might be one of those shows that closes next January -- however if word of mouth is as strong as I think it will be, it could surprise everybody and go on for a while after that).

---

That's why we have Margo- to say everything we want to say, but don't have the eloquence or knowledge to.

I remember that review very well. It's so ODDLY unbalanced, with barely a mention of Idina Menzel -- and look, I'm not one of those folks overly enamored with either Menzel or Chenoweth, but C'MON, reading that review you'd think Menzel disappeared into the scenery in her scenes or something. In the show itself, I thought they were fairly evenly matched (if anything, I thought Menzel stood out a little more). The only thing unbalanced is Brantley's ludicrously fawning pro-Chenoweth review. It's as if he was moonlighting as Chenoweth's publicist or something.

---

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 02:25 AM

No kidding. That WICKED review is a perfect illustration of why I dislike Brantley as a critic.

I totally understand being enamored by female musical theatre performers. But to write a review that misguided because you're in love with some particular diva (and he does it often) makes his criticism useless, in my opinon. And he's in the power position. Raises my hackles, that does.

The Producers and Hairspray both received across the board raves as I recall. The current off-Broadway production of Doubt got only enthusiastic raves -- not even a mixed write up. The same with Long Day's Journey with Redgrave and Denehey. I believe Dame Edna's and Avenue Q's reviews were nearly all positive.

It still happens, but it seems to be a rarity. I blame the critics for creating this uncertain climate. They seem to be unaccepting of shows that take any real chances with form or content or style (Caroline or Change being a notable example), so producers tend to favor "safe" unchallenging shows (jukebox musicals, adaptations of 150 year old novels) -- but you don't get great art that way, you get bland predictable stuff; entertaining on some level, perhaps, but nothing truly transcedent.

It'll be interesting to see how they receive Spamalot, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Piazza, Spelling Bee, Dessa Rose and some of the plays that are scheduled to open in the next few months.

---

I remember that he wrote a multi-paragraph love letter to Donna Murphy when Wonderful Town opened.

---

Margo, I'm curious as well.

It seems as if a majority of the New York critics (and not all of them, but a majority) are "towing the line," and afraid to stick their neck out with an actual opinion about a show. I loved both THE PRODUCERS and HAIRSPRAY, but I feel there were valid criticisms to be made about both shows, and I wonder if the NY critics dropped the ball, because they knew the buzz for both of those shows was terrific and that if they wrote a review that questioned aspects of those shows (THE PRODUCERS' rather weak score, or HAIRSPRAY's odd construction) they would come off as not knowing what they were talking about. Considering SPAMALOT's pre-buzz, it will be interesting to see if this holds true.

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 02:52 AM

DGrant, I'm harsh on critics from both coasts, because I honestly believe in the value of good theatrical criticism, and consider it as an art form in and of itself.

There are a number of critics working today that I admire. But there's an inherent problem here -- newspapers and magazines are cutting their theatrical coverage to such an extent that it is hard to judge whether a reviewer is bad, or whether his editor sliced his review to bits to fit column inches.

I am hopeful for the future of theatrical criticism on the Internet -- there are no space requirements, and one can judge whether a critic is worth his (or her) salt without having external variables that a reader can't possibly know.

The same tendencies towards 'hedging ones bets' holds true with nearly all music and art criticism today.

I actually understand Brantley's enthusiasm for Chenoweth as opposed to Sutton. Chenoweth is stranger. Sutton is more generic. As is Idina.

---

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 08:28 AM