"This is a war!" In My Life in the NY TIMES

Well, gross was up 13% last week, though it's still pretty abysmal. But, good for him for being aggressive about saving his show. It's an uphill battle (and it may never break even), but if he can overcome the reviews and get a bit of a run out of it, good for him and the hardworking cast.

---

::keeps show alive::

well while I'm in agreement that 1 critic shouldn't destroy a show (i.e Ben Brantley), if 8 critics all said the same things, ya gotta start to wonder. Now the "8,000" people Brooks mentions are the same people who you see on those commercials saying " It was better than Cats." Not saying that they're not entitled to their opinion, but just because an audience likes something, doesn't mean it's great. Look at the television programs around. Look at Mamma Mia! Besides the general buzz around the city isn't very good and I don't think is ALL based on critics. My personal belief is, if it's crappy theatre close it and put something there that could be good. No use taking up a theatre.

Search for my review. I liked it.

---

Updated On: 11/7/05 at 10:11 PM

Yes. It is probably the most original show we will see ever...and with the way original shows are panned....

As with all shows, go see it for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

---

First of all, original only works if it's good. It's great that there's a new Broadway musical. I don't think people are refuting that, but if it's bad, then it's bad. People can work hard on a bad show. Believe me, I've been there. Just because people worked hard at it doesn't make it good or enjoyable. It's a shame that people worked so hard on it and it's bad, but there shouldn't be a pass for hard work. NO ONE on broadway is doing a half-assed performance. Even the bad performers give it there all. It has nothing to do with original vs Disney or anything else. If Disney put out a great show that wasn't based on a film and it was original and it sucked. Guess What? people would complain.

PS It is not the most original show on broadway in recent years. There's been plenty of original work that is groundbreaking and actually good. If you wanna skip the Wickeds and the Rents of Broadway, I say don't go to In My Life, go to Off-Broadway. Thats where edgy, original, daring, and GOOD work is being presented.

There was so really bad aritcle on BWW earlier today about "bring back susan summers..." about how IN MY LIFE sucked. I believe the opening line was "I've never wanted to boo more in theater than this show."

Wait...who is Brooks thinking about suing? I'm confused...

Everyone I know who has seen it have all said the same thing. Not one of them mentioned liking it. They never seem to be able to describe it. I'm going to try and see it this week. How are the Rush seats?

I just read that article - OUCH. It makes me want to see the show sooooo bad. If only I could make it to NYC for Christmas. Anyone wanna put me up for a night, so i can see this show? haa. It sounds god-awful - yet amazing.

It is not because In My Life is an original musical. It is not that the critics wrote bad reviews. That's their job--to give their opinion of the performance they saw.

It is because the show is ghastly, and the word of mouth is worse. Memorable, but for all the wrong reasons. In My Life cannot even be called an artistic success, a 'success d'estime', with a by-the-book love story, a silly, sometimes offensive conceptual framing device and songs that are not memorable.

I don't like to throw around words like brilliant, awesome, great, terrible or awful because they have become generic. When these terms really apply, these words which ought to have specific meaning, now do not. So when I call a show 'ghastly', pay attention.

I cannot believe the angel will let another 1.6 mil be thrown at this debacle. That's bad producing. Save money and save face and pack it in. Can you imagine what is being said in the Edison Coffee Shop as we write?

Julia Roberts needs a theatre and the Music Box will do very nicely.

---