The Critics on Little Women- Page 6

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 11:16am

Egg zactly, robbiej.

Another thing about Sutton or Idina...I don't know anybody that actively "hates" them the way a lot of people "h2te" perky-squeaky-trilling Kristin.

The worst that anyone can say about either of them is: "They're Okay".

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 11:16 AM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 11:33am

robbie, I said exactly what you said about Foster last night on another thread about the reviews. There were posters on there who are rabidly putting forth that Foster will win the Tony hands down. I was trying to point out the difference between Foster's "hard working" style and McGovern's natural, effortless one.

[baddadnpa]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 11:54am

I saw the show in previews and I will be very surprised if this show is running in 6 months. It will get the initial LITTLE WOMEN fans who love the book and the Sutton Foster fans, then word of mouth will keep others away. The show is mediocre at best.

[FOCI]

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

Well, I understand what both robbiej and masterlcz are saying, however from Brantley's review I would go into the gershwin theater expecting the messiah of the musical theater and instead would be faced with a tiny blonde perky woman who can sing really high and mug really well. I think it is somewhat misleading that he never recognizes Kristin's performance as a "schtick" and even though he might adore it, others who do not think an almost 40 yr. old woman prancing around like a 12 year old and squeaking is quite as entertaining will certainly be misled from his reviews. I mean, I never once get a sense of what Kristin's performance is ACTUALLY like. All I get is superlatives about angels falling from the sky when she is onstage.
I'm not saying Sutton is the messiah either, but I think it is important to recognize that there are different "styles" involved here. Unfortunately, while an avid theatergoer is able to discern the obvious biases in Brantley's reviews the people who most matter-tourists, most likely won't. Damn critics, always "towing-the-line" and taking the safe route. Bashing.

[MargoChanning]

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

For those who still care, here are a few others, all mixed:

Clive Barnes (NY Post) who praises all the actors, but:
" .... For, just as you can't make a good beef stew without plenty of flavorsome beef, you can't make a good Broadway musical, however appealing the seasoning of the story may be, without the right music. And the score to "Little Women," with its Jason Howland music and Mindi Dickstein lyrics, is weak, generic and, when it's not unnoticeable, boring."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01242005/entertainment/39215.htm


Michael Sommers (Newark Star-Ledger) is mixed:

"An irregular patchwork quilt of good, bad and indifferent elements, the musical functions well enough as a show to please undemanding customers. Daddies and sons (unless their little men already profess to love Broadway musicals) will probably want to seek entertainment elsewhere."

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/ledger/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-2/1106547188289250.xml


Gordon Cox (Newsday -- where's Linda Winer?) is also mixed:

"On its own terms, this "Little Women" probably will satisfy, with a condensed take on a heartwarming story that hits the right broad emotional notes. When held next to the delicate novel, though, the pumped-up proceedings look somewhat diminished."

Newsday

[MatureDignity]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 3:33pm

re: Brantley's last paragraph... is he making a direct comparison between Idina Menzel and Sutton Foster, or between the two characters? Or something else entirely? As performers, I think they have very little in common. It seems like he's referring to both the characters and the actresses, but what is he trying to say?

That's one reason why Brantley can frustrate me... sometimes his sentences are full of big words and little clarity. I hate having to take apart his snobby prose to find anything of substance.

Margo - in your opinion, what are Brantley's biggest flaws as a critic? You seem to know a lot about the art, which I'm just beginning to study. PM me if you like! Thanks.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 3:38pm

Updated On: 1/25/05 at 03:38 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 3:41pm

Aren't you going a bit far, Theater Trash? You seem quite bitter. Hate is a strong word. What did Idina do too you?

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 3:42pm

Updated On: 1/25/05 at 03:42 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 10:46pm

Howard Kissel's review from the Daily News finally made it online -- pretty negative (and a little mean):

"Perhaps out of a desire to make the material acceptable to boys, the musical version of "Little Women," with book by Allan Knee, lyrics by Mindi Dickstein and music by Jason Howland, is as mechanical as an Erector Set and just as emotionally arid......

If the musical numbers had cogency, they might have compensated for the clunky storytelling. But, with two exceptions, the songs seem strained, the lyrics pedestrian, the music formless. The exceptions are sung by Maureen McGovern, who invests them with surprising emotional power.

Sutton Foster has been given a series of songs that flounder and then, in the home stretch, aim for climaxes that have nothing to build on. There is nothing the talented Foster can do to make the material work.

Worse, director Susan Schulman has her constantly jumping on the furniture, and even on other actors, in a tiresome attempt to enliven things.

As for her sisters, only Jenny Powers as Meg is appealing. I kept wishing Megan McGinnis, as Beth, would die sooner. Amy is supposed to be annoying, but probably not as grating as Amy McAlexander makes her."
Dailey News review of Little Women

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 10:47pm

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 10:47 PM

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 11:20pm

I kept wishing Megan McGinnis, as Beth, would die sooner.

How completely uncalled for.
Howard, you should be ashamed for that comment.
It served no purpose but to be cruel.
And Megan was a delight the whole show, especially in 'Some Things Are Meant to Be'

[Mattio98]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 11:27pm

Agreed. He went way too far with that one.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 11:31pm

Kissell is the hack of hacks and no one pays any attention to anything he has to say. He's been writing his pathetic, misguided reviews for three decades and it's sort of like the proverbial tree falling in a forest -- if no one reads or cares about what a critic says, does his opinion have any merit? Not in Kissell's case -- he's one of the chief reasons for my argument that there need to be term limits for some of these idiots. His opinions were uninformed and irrelevant in the 70s and have only become successively more so in the years since. While I may agree with some of the the general points he makes about Little Women, the overall tone and unnecessary cruelty are unconscionable.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 11:33pm

Amen Margo. I truly do hate when critics are mean just for the sake of getting attention.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 11:46pm

Well, if ANYTHING, there is certainly life after Howard Kissel.
I just hope Megan McGinnis doesn't read this and take it too harshly. As they say, it is just one person's opinion. I just hope she knows what a washout and bitter man Kissel is.
And while I, like Margo, agreed with his views on the material (if not as strongly) and was not a fan of the show, the show is cute and affectionate and did not deserve this cruel, cut-throat review.

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 11:46 PM

[Phantom Chicken]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 11:47pm

what a surprise! A thread, that had nothing to do with Idina, with Idina's name in it!

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/24/05 at 11:48pm

Phantom Chicken, please keep your off-topic ramblings to the off-topic board.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 9:45am

I just read Kissel. What a jerk. Not only the McGinnis comment, but many others were ridiculously inaccurate and uncalled for.

And Priest, McGinnis lived in LA and worked in the business there as a child/teenager. I'm sure she's dealt with idiots before.

Updated On: 1/25/05 at 09:45 AM

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 10:19am

The Beth comment was completely uncalled for. And is he crazy? She was one of the perfect performers in that show.

[ElphieDefiesGravity]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 11:05am

Boy, was he HARSH. That was ridiculous. Megan McGinnis hardly had that much to do anyway, why would he wish Beth would die sooner? We hardly got to see her. As for the pants thing, my mom pointed that out when we saw it and she didn't like it, but my aunt said she only wore the pants in the house, never outside.

[steveshack]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 11:28am

Howdy yall. I've been kind of out of it for a couple of months and couldn't help but want to say howdy after reading this thread. I need to get back up to speed on what's happening! (We took a long trip and then I got the flu).

Margo, I love John Heilpern too. He gave our show The Last Session one of the most sensitive and beautifully written reviews I've ever read. He turned it into a personal thing, recalling a long dead friend of his. It made me cry. Good writing always makes me cry.

[twogaab2]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 12:53pm

Apropos of the Beth death comment. Does it strike anyone that it's odd that one of the Big moments the book and movie versions takes place "OFF STAGE". It would have made sense to musicalize this section. It could have been a very sweet, sentimental moment(not a dry eye in the house). Also, we could could have lost one of Jo's "I want" songs or fiction fantasy sequences. A real missed oportunity. A musicalization of this novel could have been SO much better. Also using some of Alcott's wonderful dialogue would have been better than makeing up their own (not so good).

Just my opinion, I may be wrong.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 1:33pm

Nice to see you again, Steve. Hope you're feeling better and best wishes to Jim.


And twogaab, I agree that not dramatizing Beth's death was a missed opportunity.

Updated On: 1/25/05 at 01:33 PM

[Kris2]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 2:20pm

I'm glad the show wasn't universally panned at least. I enjoyed it very much but "pleasant" is the best term I can use to describe it. I think the mostly mixed reviews are what it deserved (and got).

I think the creative team didn't want to take the risk of putting Beth's death on stage and having it come off as incredibly cheesy and overly sentimental. In their hands, it probably would've come off that way. It's the style of the show though. Most of the action takes place off stage. They also didn't want to reach for anything too heavy, so they kept it fairly light and comfortable. Oh well. Maybe next time.