The Critics on Little Women- Page 5

[Mattio98]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:00am

And I wouldn't rule the show out for any Tonys yet. Both Sutton and Maureen have very serious chances at winning in their respected categories and I feel like Danny Gurwin might get himself a supporting nod.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:03am

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

[Mattio98]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:04am

I don't know about that. Brantley raved more about her this time than in Millie. And I still think that McGovern is a very serious contender for supporting.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:07am

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

[Mattio98]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:09am

Agreed, he wasn't raving. Is he ever? But he did seem to like her better in this than in Millie. Ramirez will be a serious contender but I heard she might be considered for leading instead of supporting. Who knows...

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:12am

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).

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:14am

I don't see how "performed by Ms. Foster in a cyclone of gestures and grimaces" could be construed in any positive light. Referring to a performance as "gestures and grimaces" is intentionally insulting. There's really no other way to spin that.

(I'm not agreeing with what Brantley said here, I'm just interpreting the review, and trying to gauge its consequences for the future of the show.)

[Mattio98]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:15am

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

[FOCI]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:17am

I just went back and re-read Brantley's reviews of Wicked. Please allow me to share with you some favorite quotes:

"Ms. Chenoweth must put across jokes and sight gags that could make angels fall.
Never for a second, though, does she threaten to crash to earth. Even lying down, Ms. Chenoweth -- who performed similar magic in ''You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown'' four years ago (and won a Tony) -- remains airborne"

"Yet it's hard to avoid the impression that whenever Ms. Chenoweth leaves the stage, ''Wicked'' loses its wit"

"Her vividness creates a balance problem, since ''Wicked'' is nominally Elphaba's story. Surely the show's creators didn't mean for audiences to root so ardently for a terminally superficial party girl, even before her political rehabilitation.
But, ah, when you have an actress who can so skillfully sell and send up her character, turning social vices into show-stopping virtues, how can you resist?"

"Wicked'' does not, alas, speak hopefully for the future of the Broadway musical. Ms. Chenoweth, on the other hand, definitely does. "

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 02:17 AM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:25am

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

[FOCI]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:29am

"It's as if he was moonlighting as Chenoweth's publicist or something."
:), I was going to make some predictable joke about her sleeping with him or something, but that was much funnier.
-Margo, do you happen to know offhand when the last time critics universally raved about a production was? They all seem so negative these days...

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 02:29 AM

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:32am

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.

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:34am

Quite honestly, Margo, my experience was pretty much what Mr. Brantley described - although the way you interpret that, I guess I feel a little sheepish admitting that

With the exception of two big 'wow' moments vocally (The Wizard and I and Defying Gravity) Idina didn't seem to make much of an impression beyond what was written for her - which admittedly was a little muddled. Kristin, on the other hand, came through loud and clear with effervescence, theatrical adroitness and good ole show-biz know-how. Admittedly, I've never seen her do other things, so it may very well be her 'usual schtick'. But to the neophyte, she was extraordinarily noticable, whereas Idina seemed to be just another part of the spectacle. Updated On: 1/24/05 at 02:34 AM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:41am

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.

[Kris2]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:42am

I haven't read Brantley's full Little Women review, but from that excerpt it certainly seems less muddled and a tad more satisfying than some of his others (I'm remembering Brooklyn's review).

Random question - What other divas does Brantley admire besides Chenoweth? He obviously doesn't care much for Sutton.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:45am

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

[TGIF]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:46am

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 02:46 AM

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:52am

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

Posted: 1/24/05 at 2:56am

Veuve - now you've sparked MY curiosity. If you feel that the NYC critics have these issues, why are you summarily dismissive of Left Coast critics, who don't seem to have that problem, as you describe it.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 3:06am

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.

Posted: 1/24/05 at 3:09am

Veuve - Granted. So which critics (either working now, or in times past) do you admire?

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 3:20am

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.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 3:34am

Unfortunately, most of the New York critics are know-nothing hacks. I read Brantley, not because he's a good critic, but because his is the only opinion that has any weight or power - a shame, really.

I respect Feingold in the Voice, though he's "out there" with his opinions sometimes -- however, he knows theatre and I occasionally learn something reading his reviews. Winer in Newsday isn't bad usually. I used to like John Lahr of The New Yorker, but in the last year he's taken to publishing long, rambling, spoiler-laden summaries of shows, and passing them off as actual reviews (did he have a stroke or something?). The only really perceptive critic with whom I agree 90+% of the time is John Heilpern of the Observer (but who reads the Observer?) -- a really sharp guy. The rest are an embarassment to the art of criticism.

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 03:34 AM

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 8:28am

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

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 10:55am

What I find FASCINATING about Brantley's review is that he not only reviews Little Women, but also gets in a dig at WICKED, Idina Menzel and half the posting population of this board.

When it comes down to it, I understand COMPLETELY the difference between Chenoweth and Foster (and it's much along the line of what Master said). Chenoweth is a star in the old-fashioned sense...an oddity. Someone so completely original that any role she does will have her unmistakable mark. Foster is extremely talented and hard-working...too hard-working. You can see the effort. And, in the end, she's not particularly distinctive.