To all those who Bash Ghost...

Finally saw Ghost last night. I really don't understand all the hatred for this show from both the critics and theater snobs on this board. While it most definitely isn't a Sondheim masterpiece it happens ro be very good for what it's meant to be. The staging was extreemely creative and effective. The score was adequate, the performances were all efficient and the story was told quite effectively. All in all I had an enjoyable evening. Infact, in my humble opinion it was the most enjoyable of the new shows that opened this Spring. The fact that this show is being compared to and categorized with Leap is very sad. Leap was generally one big mess, while Ghost is chock full of creativity and works as a whole. I guess what everyone should be griping about is not the quality of the production but why Ghost was even transformed into a Broaday musical to begin with???

It's my guilty pleasure, too. Hell, I even enjoy the score people take a number to trash (especially the 15 minutes that start the 2nd act; stirring pop!) I don't apologize for it, but I think like AIDA, it'll be one of those shows some people speak about in hushed tones. I think the show has a shot, because it has (what AIDA had, actually) a helluva satisfying story, and the musical tells it well enough. And it's a good time. Last weekend I suggested someone see it, and I was accused of being out of my mind, and having lost what taste I had. I have pretty eclectic tastes, and feel strongly Broadway will always find room for the GHOSTS, if people genuinely enjoy them. All of the snippy shtus about "how dare they dump this on us!" as if it's taking up a spot (or a theater) that would've been filled by SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE (another show I like, while were confessing eclecticism.) The black and white critical thinking -- everything must be artistically groundbreaking or it's an exploitative creative nosedive -- still wears me down. I'm happy I saw GHOST, and for what it's worth cannot get "Here Right Now" outta my head as I type this.

---

Updated On: 5/12/12 at 01:23 PM

I saw this show because Jessie J said she saw it in London (she should have wrote some of the score). I didn't connect with any of the songs except "Rain/Hold On" which was at the top of Act 2. They killed the momentum of it by cutting in at a minute and a half with that scene with Carl. The song showcases the leads wonderfully and should have been allowed to flow.

I find it a guilty pleasure as well, the staging would bring me back. Like Vegas/Times Square on stage.

Updated On: 5/12/12 at 01:28 PM

Most fun and enjoyable night of theater I've had in a long time, and I'm not ashamed to admit it! I enjoyed it more than most of the "critically acclaimed" shows I've seen in the past several seasons. And the audience I saw it with seemed to love it, as well. It's not a masterpiece and it's not classic theater, but it's an imaginative, creative and well-performed piece of pop culture. It made me laugh, and even moved me to tears, which isn't a common occurrence. The entire show was a pleasant and happy surprise. And, I don't care what anyone says, it should have received a Best Musical Tony nod. Critics and naysayers be damned. Pay them no mind. See it and decide for yourself. I hope it has a long run. I'm already planning my return visit.

---

But it is probable they are a little more right.

---

Well, of course.

---

"it happens ro be very good for what it's meant to be."

This really does sound like an excuse for mediocrity.

Liked it very much and hope to go again.

---

"Rain/Hold On," which is my favorite Act II opener of any show of the last few years."

I agree. They wisely take what could a lugubrious turn in the story and energize the show and the heroine with a song sequence that feels in part like a Celine Dion number in Vegas. It's visually arresting -- the Magritte nod with the umbrellas is very effective -- and Levy takes the roof off. It's musically startling, after the show seemed headed toward slow, grief-laden ballads. Worked for me.

I don't think those of us who've admitted enjoying it here are damning it with faint praise so much as keeping expectations appropriately low, perhaps. It's hard to admit you enjoyed a show that was treated like, well, CARRIE, by many critics. And posters.

---

Auggie, some posters thing their opinion is THE opinion. Screw them. Go ahead and sing Ghost's praises if ya want.

It ain't great art, but Spider-Man diverted my attention for 2 hours.

There. I said it.

---

dramamama611 - I loved "Spring Awakening" also. Don't know if this is a good or bad thing but I believe Brantley gave it a pretty darn good review - lol.

Things can defintely be an audience pleaser and be a critical failure -- no doubt about that. And I have to admit, I haven't seen too much bashinng about it -- just that few love it -- no crime in that, either.

---

The movie Ghost is a classic. It touches almost everyone who sees it. The story is told more than effectively in the movie..It is engrossing and captivating. We are in up close with Sam and Molly and we experience their love. The performances in the movie are endearing and engrossing and real.


The movie Ghost touches our heart. That is what makes a great movie or theatre for that matter. The song used in the movie (forgive me I don't know the title) adds to the romantic sentiment that is the theme of the movie.


Now for the musical Ghost.
To use your terms:
performances: efficient.
music: adequate
the story: effective
but
the specatacle: so over the top that the producers hope and pray that no one will notice what is lacking from the efficient material. Good music, total involvement and engrossing performances.

Those with discerning eyes (critics, regualr theatregoers) can decipher between "show biz razzle dazzle" and "bad writing and bad music."

When you adapt on iconic movie.. it needs to be as good as and preferably better than its source material. This has been done with The Producers, Hairspray,
Applause (although some would fight me on that) and others.

This had not been done with Shogun the Musical, Ari (based on Exodus), and others.
Nor has it been done in my opinion with Sister Act or Legally Blonde. The latter two got by on their name recognition. I would put those two in the same category as Ghost. They too were adequate to awful depending on whose opinion you have.

Take away the video spectacle of Ghost and you have generic characters,adequate music (and I maintain adequate music is kind) an effective story that was much more so on screen, some lackluster dancing sequences.

Please oh theatre God's please, keep the pop composers from writing Broadway Musicals. They can't do it. Re: Spiderman, Ghost etc.

But Ghost, the musical, with every video effect is trying to say.. we know. We were a movie with great special effects. Try to forget that and like us anyway. We will try to be the movie. Really we will. Even though we are adequate and efficient enough.

If you are going for an entertaining night out and looking for specatacle---- Ghost will do. It's not awful. It's adequate. To be fair.... D'vine Joy Randolph is terrific!

But to make a brilliant movie an adequate stage musical is theatrical heresy.

Updated On: 5/13/12 at 02:22 PM