The New Yorker's Capitalist Broadway

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 6:43pm

In John Lahr's negatively-neutral PACIFIC OVERTURES review in this week's issue of 'The New Yorker' he states:

"To be lectured on the corruption of capitalism from the Broadway stage is rather like being taught the virtues of chastity from a whore."

Thoughts? Do you agree? Disagree?

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 9:18pm

Bueller?
Bueller?

Well, I should have known this thread would have a quick and painless death.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 9:16pm

He said that in a review of Pacific Overtures? That obvious money-making vehicle? Yeah-huh.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 9:23pm

That's exactly what I thought.

Then he goes on to say:

"On the way out of the theatre, I noticed that for twenty-three dollars you could buy a "Pacific Overtures" T-shirt in English or Japanese. It's appropriate. I think, for a musical that wants to have it both ways."

I usually find Mr. Lahr to be a relatively smart critic.

But those are some odd comments.

Updated On: 12/13/04 at 09:23 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 9:25pm

Well, my problem with Lahr (whom, generally speaking, is somebody I respect) here is that his criticism seems a bit misplaced concerning this particular show and this particular theatre company. While, yes, "Pacific Overtures" is technically playing on a Broadway stage, it is, however, a non-money-making limited engagement and a production of the not-for-profit Roundabout Theatre Company.

Roundabout's ability to produce theatre is the result of an almost socialist model -- their operating budget consists of money that is donated to them by the federal, state and local governments, as well as corporations and private individuals (who get tax deductions for any money donated) and subscribers who get to see a series of plays for a substantial discount. That money is used to produce seven plays at two Broadway and one off-Broadway space. If ticket sales and donations exceed costs for a given year, then that money goes back in the kitty and goes towards producing seven more shows for next season -- no "profits" are doled out to "investors" (because there are no investors and no profits to be had); if they have a bad season at the box office and there's a shortfall, oh well, that's paid either out of their endowment or else they just have to raise more money for next year.

Last I checked, if an entity doesn't at least have the possibility of profit, then it cannot be described as being "capitalist." While, to be sure, lots of money exchanges hands and has to be spent, by the company and by ticket buyers (of which Lahr, as a reviewer, is not one), as far as Roundabout and the rest of the not-for-profit theatre world is concerned, THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF PROFIT and hence the show can hardly be deemed to be a product of capitalism. Add to that, the one earlier Broadway incarnation of "Pacific Overtures" which did come out of a commercial setting, flopped terribly and lost its entire investment.

Lahr's argument here is utterly specious.

Updated On: 12/13/04 at 09:25 PM

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 9:34pm

Exactly, Margo.

His review is quite positive to begin with.

But is almost as if he came wanting to dislike the show, ended up liking it, and tried to think of a way to make his review negative.

You can blame many shows (The Lion King) and producers (Weisslers) for being all about commerical appeal and profit.

But PO and Roundabout?

Please.

It'll be hard for me to take him seriously after this.

Updated On: 12/13/04 at 09:34 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 9:52pm

Lahr used to be a very bright and eloquent writer on theatre at one point, but in the last couple of years (notwithstanding his stellar work on the book of Elaine Stritch At Liberty and the occasional perceptive review) he, like several of his colleagues, seems to have lost his passion for criticism. Embarassingly, his reviews these days more often than not consist almost entirely of long overly detailed plot summaries (he has been known to give away important plot twists and even the ending of many plays). Add him to the long list -- Brantley, Barnes, Kissel, Le Sourd, Simon, of course -- in desperate need of forced retirement.

Updated On: 12/13/04 at 09:52 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 9:57pm

Ooh, I remember now. I think there's an ongoing bitchfest about how he gives away endings on ATC.

Posted: 12/13/04 at 10:27pm

My mom, who only really knows about Sondheim or Broadway thru me and her experiences thru me, subscribes to the New Yorker and called me after reading that review and said "I get the impression Lahr dislikes Sondheim..."

I thought it was a horrible review--he hardly actually reviews the *current production*, rather he reviews the show itself, and he blames everything on Prince and Sondheim living Weidman in the clear (he only mentions Weidman in one sentence where he says he writes a tight book or something)

Piss poor

E

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 10:40pm

Some of Lahr's stupid statements:

"'Pacific Overtures' shouldered the burden of history"

"Here, just because they could, Sondheim and Prince--the big guns of the art form--tried to muscle the insular American musical away from its populist roots to their esoteric way of doing business"

"With "Company" (1970)--a plotless musical about blighted relationships--Sondheim emerged as both lyricist and composer"

John, Buddy, ever heard of, among others, FORUM and ANYONE CAN WHISTLE?

[Plum]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 10:38pm

Well, it's true that Company was Sondheim's big emergence. He was considered talented before that, but not huge.

Posted: 12/13/04 at 10:45pm

There was another quote I hated... I don't have the article here but it was something about the Prince/Sondheim collaborations superficially covering seemingly deep subjects. BOOOO I dunno I find things like that almost perosnally insulting considering how much insight to life and myself I've honestly gotten from these shows.


I gotta say I do think Sondheim did emerge with Company. When he did Evening Primrose in the late 60s there's a reason tv critics largely ignored it, and paid more attention to the Bacharach/David (bizarre) musical On the Flip Side and the Bock/Harnick Canterville Ghost musical which were aired as part of the same series. Both of those scores got commercial LP releases too, unlike Evening Primrose. It's cuz Sondheim jsut wasn't much of a name--people respected his lyrics, and he had some following due to Forum ( a score that wasn't even nominated for a Tony, maddeningly) and Whistle thanks tot he cast album. But I think to many he did sorta come out of nowhere with Company.

It's always been interesting to me how Hal Prince (with Boris Aronson) created and refined their concept musical with Cabaret and then the way udnerated Zorba, both with Kander and ebb but then seemed to replace K/E completely with Sondheim--but there's definetly as much of a procession from those two shows to the Sondheim concept musicals, if not more, than there is from Sondheim's earlier work. (actually I feel Sondheim's first real modern score in many ways was Evening Primrose)

E

E

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 10:51pm

His association with that Stritch woman is the reason he has lost all his sanity. Anyone who has worked with her has never been the same afterwards (including me).

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 10:52pm

Yes, but the way it is phrased, and the context it is in, makes it seem as if COMPANY was Sondheim's first attempt at doing both.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 10:57pm

I really didn't read it that way- emergence is different than debut.

There's plenty of silliness in that review without that particular sentence, though.