The Nance was ....
The Nance was ....
On the cynical side
Swing Joined: 3/23/13
#1The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 10:01am
Really, really wanted to love this show, but felt there were just so many problems. Saw the 2nd preview performance last evening (and yes, I understood that I was seeing a PREVIEW - unlike, apparently, many in the audience) and would almost like to see what they do with it between now and the opening. But I'm not sure it's "fixable" in it's present form. Of course Nathan Lane was terrific, whenever he was on stage the star power was right there. The man is a true genius. He can move the audience with the simple arch of an eyebrow. The play, however, fails him terribly. So obvious, no subtly at all - big Message moments telegraphed way in advance. The same social/political points made over and over. Chauncy's a Republican - and they ruin his life. Oh the bitter irony. First act was slow, second act was d e a d l y. Felt like it took 20 minutes for Lane to crawl down the stairs in his darkened apartment. Long chunks of static inactivity. You could literally feel the audience drifting away. Many empty seats after intermission. The material (and I'm saying this as a proud, out, gay man) in sections was just too gay for mainstream B'way theater-goers. The mixture of vaudeville and drama was an uneasy one. The funniest, downright riotous, moments of Lane in drag (you know that's what you were hoping to see) delivered the biggest laughs of the night, and with Lane looking out into the audience and really connecting, the most powerful moments. 2 last observations; Orsini worked really hard to be earnest (and was certainly a feast for the eyes) but no charisma. None. Also - had never seen such a bitchy crowd! A couple of queens in the lobby at intermission letting everyone in earshot know just how awful they thought it was! Tacky. Clearly they didn't understand they were seeing a PREVIEW performance! Really hope they can whip this into to shape by April 15. They certainly owe it to Mr. lane to try.
Updated On: 3/23/13 at 10:01 AM
dramamama611
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/4/07
#2The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 10:17am
Preview or not, they are entitled to their opinion. How is their expressing their dislike there, any different then you doing it here?
Not sure I follow your "etiquette" lesson.
#2The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 10:23amI'm pretty sure all they owe Mr. Lane is the rate that was negotiated in his contract to do the show.
#3The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 11:07amOthers may disagree, but I think loudly proclaiming in the lobby that you think the show is awful during the preview period, when you know that there is a good chance that the creative team is nearby and can hear you, is tacky. To me, it's similar to the Jason Robert Brown/Sondheim anecdote. I think it's tacky to trash people's work to their faces while the work is still going on.
#4The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 11:19am
I love how people assume everyone in the audience knows that A) a show is in previews and B) what exactly a "preview" means.
I'm still of the opinion that if you're ready to charge money for it, you're ready to be reviewed on it.
#5The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 11:23am
Loudly proclaiming a show is awful in the lobby is obnoxious and tacky. Period.
It has nothing to do with it being a preview. That being said, if someone is paying money for a show, they have every right to express their opinion about it, positive or negative. I just find it a bit rude to do so loudly, publicly, and in the theatre.
#6The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 11:24amAbsolutely. But that's nothing new. That's happened since Shakespeare's day.
Dollypop
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
#7The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 11:30am
Oh, please!!! At a preview of IN MY LIFE the audience was also proclaiming how dreadful the show was. In fact, so many of us came to see the show because we'd heard it was blood-sucking bad.
At the BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S musical (with Mary Tyler Moore) the audience was talking back to the actors.
#8The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 11:41am
I'm so glad that people were lambasting IN MY LIFE when it came out. I don't get to New York to see shows very often so when I do get there I need to pick my shows carefully, but based on those reviews I decided to see it since it had so much potential to be legendary.
The show was awful, but it was one of the most entertaining nights at the theatre I've ever had.
#9The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 12:03pm
I'm on the fence about critiquing a show which is still "not finished." I don't care if you paid to see it or not.
I"m drawing an analogy with a person seeing a painting which is not quite finished, and passing judgment on it. So much can change in another day. A little bit of tweaking can bring a whole new creation.
#10The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 12:06pmThe difference is, works-in-progress aren't put in a gallery.
#11The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 12:14pm
The difference is that nobody is charging you 126.50 to see a work of art that isn't finished. "Rehearsals" in my opinion are the "unfinished painting" period. Shows do previews to see what works and what doesn't. Reviews and audience response can be very helpful to the creative team in their tweaking.
Heck, I've seen shows that hand out surveys after preview performances asking for feedback. If the team isn't prepared to hear opinions, then they shouldn't perform the show for the public to view it.
#12The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 12:26pm
I don't care how much you agreed to pay to see it. You knew it was in previews.
p.s. there's a reason why so many people prefer to see theater once it's frozen. I don't know how many posts I've read here proclaiming how good a piece was once it was tweaked.
#13The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 12:28pm
Preview performance or 5 years into the run and whether you paid for your ticket or not is irrelevant to the point.
I think we can all agree that it's rude for some ass hat to stand in the lobby talking loudly about how terrible something is and how he'd do it better. Maybe he would do it better if only he didn't have to be up at 4:30 the next morning to make sure the McMuffins get flipped on time so he can earn just enough to pay the fees for his blog where after months of self important drivel he's actually convinced himself that his opinion is more important than any of the other patrons in the theatre.
#14The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 12:30pm^ love it, Patronus!
#15The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 12:37pm
Just my own unimportant drivel, Jane.
Signed,
Asshat. 
#16The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 12:48pm
"The difference is, works-in-progress aren't put in a gallery."
I understand that Kad, but my point was not to judge something before it's really completed, and that it can change drastically.
#17The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 12:51pm
"I don't care how much you agreed to pay to see it. You knew it was in previews."
Yeah. And I'll review the preview performance I paid to see if I'd like to. Because that is my right.
I just would not do so in the lobby of a theatre during the performance. Also, are we just going to ignore that creative teams WANT feedback during a preview period typically? If the point was just to work on the show in an echo chamber, why sell tickets at all? Having worked on the creative side of a show during a preview period, I can assure you that feedback is essential to the process.
#18The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 12:58pmWhen you're reviewing, I hope you're keeping in mind that it may change to the point that you change your review.
#19The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 1:05pmWhy would I change my review unless I saw the altered show? I would imagine it'd be pretty clear that my review would only be applicable to the performance/version that I saw.
#21The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 1:17pm
So your objection isn't to shows being reviewed during previews unfavorably, but rather to peoples' ability to comprehend that a review is relevant only to the performance that person saw?
That's always true. What if someone went to a show the night the lead lost their voice and was off-key the entire time? I doubt they'd leave with a great impression, even if on any other day they'd have a different experience.
#22The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 1:24pm
I guess what I'm trying to say isn't coming across. I find that I have a lot of trouble articulating my point of view in a typed message, but I'll try.
When people harshly criticize a show in previews, I'm afraid it sways others to avoid it, whereas in reality, it can turn out to be much better.
I know if I see a show in previews and I talk about it, I feel I have to keep apologizing for any negatives since it hasn't frozen yet, and chances are those negatives aren't even there the next performance.
dramamama611
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/4/07
#23The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 1:41pm
Jane, I hear what you are saying -- but bad worth of mouth is no different from good word of mouth.
Just as many people will buy tickets because a friend was raving about it as will NOT buy tickets when someone trashes it.
Of course, they are HOPING to get positive word out there during previews, but that is the gamble they take.
You can't have it both ways.
FishermanBob
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/9/12
#24The Nance was ....
Posted: 3/23/13 at 1:51pmYou paid to see the show preview or not so you are entitled to your opinion. And you are entitled to share that opinion in the lobby at intermission with the person(s) with whom you are attending the show. If people overhear you, so be it. However, doing it so loudly to make sure EVERYONE hears you and to purposely draw attention to yourself is in fact, being an asshat.
Videos