WONDERLAND - Why so negative?- Page 2

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 4:45am

Since when did Matt Stone and Trey Parker (of the Book of Mormon) have a "cachet" with the critics?

Since " South Park" made them the enfants terribles du jour. (more like terrible infants who've yet to grow up.) The critics couldn't bow at their feet fast enough.

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 5:01am

"If Frank WIldhorn wrote "Sweeney Todd", it would get raves."

Not the kind of raves Sondheim gets/got. Wildhorn would probably get at best begrudging praise.

"The critics aren't anti/Wildhorn. They're pro/ quality


They're anti Wildhorn, and Sondheim has them in his pocket. Passion and Road Show did not get nearly as slammed as they should have been, and it's only because Sondheim wrote them. If Wildhorn had penned those two, the reviews would have been much worse.

Updated On: 4/20/11 at 05:01 AM

[trentsketch]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 8:12am

The problem is the book. The critics wanted a clearer plot when Alice in Wonderland is never about the plot. When conflict--not even a real plot, but a little something extra to justify an intermission--is added at the end of Act I, a lot of critics took that as the musical not having a story until then.

I read the reviews at this point and I really think the New York Times nails the show. There are some problems, but the impetus is going on the journey of self-discovery through Wonderland. That means it's a character show with a big ensemble cast. Janet Dacal's Alice grows stronger and stronger as each scene goes by, and she learns lessons that will help pull her real life back together with each character she meets. The Mad Hatter business is just a lesson that takes a little longer to learn. Had Alice appeared in every scene, the show would have been very clear on this approach.

It's not a bad show. It honestly just needed a more aggressive editing hand to clarify the focus for a wider audience. If it's a character piece, why make Act II about everyone but Alice? That's only a slight exaggeration. The Mad Hatter opens the Act, then Alice gets a nice scene that clarifies the intent of the show. Then it jumps to everyone else in the show before you see Alice again, which is a little too late in the running time to jump back to the actual reason for the show. That's the big sticking point that was never ironed out.

[Patash]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 8:44am

I can't believe it when people (who claim to love theatre) leave at intermission then go off and talk about what's wrong with the show that they didn't see. No musical should be judged only by its first act.

I had a friend who did that with Grey Gardens. Talk about a person who had no right to talk about a show!

[phantom8019]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 9:02am

Patash, I agree 150% about walking out. It is wrong for so many reasons. 1) Do your homework about a show before you see it... understand that there may be a chance you don't like it, and decide if you want to take that chance. 2) You're going to shell out $100+ for a show and not even stay for the whole thing? There are people who don't even have $100 to spend on food. 3) It is incredibly rude to the performers, as is leaving before they get a chance to take their bows. I see people do that all the time. Believe it or not, the stage is not a TV, folks, and the people on it cannot be turned off and on. They have put much time into their performances and deserve to be respected. 4) What could be so terrible that you really can't spend the hour you had already planned on spending for the second act? Unless they are killing babies on stage, I really don't see why people can't just grow a pair and endure it.
I can understand walking out of a movie, maybe, but even that is lame. Again, know what you are seeing. I love families who leave R-rated movies in the middle because they are so violent. Gee, you think? I have never walked out of anything and I've seen hundreds of shows. The only time I ever came close to walking out of a show was a recent production of Batboy. And it had nothing to do with the show. Fact is my tail bone was killing me for some reason, and sitting in those seats was really hurting my butt. I actually loved the show but really wanted it to be over. I was like, "This is great but I hope it ends soon." LOL

[newintown]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 9:40am

trentsketch has called it - Rule # 1 - you can't judge a show by it's cast recording or B roll. A book survives or fails because of THE BOOK.

And Wonderland has one of the worst books ever written for a Broadway show. Simple.

[JMPlayer6]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 10:04am

I saw it last Saturday, matinee performance. That was the second-to-last preview performance. I left the show shaking my head, as I found it to be a jumbled mess. I thought maybe I just wasn't getting it, until the reviews hit.

As long as I'm at it --- POTENTIAL SPOLIERS AHEAD

What exactly was going on? OK, Alice had this dream. She makes it back home eventually (aka she wakes up [maybe]). But, within the dream, why was she taken to Wonderland? Who wanted her for what exactly? And why was her daughter later kidnapped? What was that supposed to be for?

I still don't get it.

Posted: 4/20/11 at 10:11am

The show was amazing! The music was really good. A few songs were okay. You have to see this show!

[newintown]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 10:14am

Ahhhh, the first shill of the day!

[trentsketch]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 10:21am

jmplayer6, there's some line about how Alice was supposed to have gone to Wonderland many years before but life got in the way. The conceit of this show is that any child could be Alice because any child can reach the point where they're not sure who they are and what they should do in life. It's self-discovery and nothing more.

As for the kidnapping, I don't know. The Victorian Gentleman scenes offer an interesting possibility, but the show doesn't stick to that.


SPOILERS

If Chloe was actually Alice's inner-child held hostage by the Mad Hatter as Alice's dark side, the show would make a lot more sense. That's not what they did, though. Chloe is only Alice's inner-child in the Victorian Gentleman scene. The rest of the time she's Chloe pulled into the dreamworld. Which is stupid. It all boils down to Alice's story is no longer Alice's story by Act II, but the show pretends that all those not-Alice scenes are crucial to Alice finding her own private Wonderland.

[Moneyspider]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 10:50am

I would say it's more of a panto or Tarazuka show. It's not for everyone but I think it was mostly a satire on literalism. When I saw in high school, there was this video game called American McGee's Alice I knew of in passing ( never into video games much since I didn't have them as a child) where Alice had been sent to an institution and then wound up back in Wonderland as a young adult where it was no longer perplexing but deadly- with all the old characters brandishing butcher knives to hunt down Alice. I think it did well because I recall there being action figures. Yeah, Wonderland was better than that and it was nice to see a show that wasn't so emo.

[N2Theater]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 11:32am

I don't agree with the person who explained away Wildhorn's music by saying it is simply the pop music of today written for the people and that's why the critics don't like it. That's pure hogwash. First it's not the pop music of today, it's kind of like imitation pop music from 20 years ago meets Lloyd Weber. Now that's not to say some of it is not very nice. But to say Wildhorn writes for the people and that's why the critics don't like him and he is a throw back to when theater music was the pop music of the day is wrong. Back in the day those theater songs meant something to their shows, Old Man River from Showboat, the entire score of Porgy and Bess, all of the Rodgers and Hamerstein catalog. Yes they were popular hits, but that was an added benefit of the song because they weren't conceived as hits. In a Wildhorn show it seems the songs are written as a "popular favorite" first, and then they see how they can make it work in the show. It's all about the songs first. The proof of that to me was they recorded the album during previews when the knew the show wasn't anywhere near ready and would still have changes. Rather then be concerned about a final historic record of the show and be open to complete new songs,extensive music re-writes, etc, Wildhorn opted to record his musical vision over the collaborative end product no matter what that end product would ultimately turn out to be. If I were a composer of a show I'd be more concerned about wanting a complete final historical recording and not what the show was in previews, but what it is on opening night. To an outsider looking in, the whole thought process behind his shows doesn't appear to be organic.
Updated On: 4/20/11 at 11:32 AM

[gypsy71]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 11:37am

The costumes caught my eye too...when they were done the first time...in WICKED! I mean do people not see the use of Shiz University blue uniforms or black and white ozdust reruns on the queen of hearts and the Nessa Rose black and white tights all over the place. Hilferty = a one trick pony.

[JMPlayer6]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 12:25pm

trentsketch, thanks for the reply.

To be honest, I'm still not getting it! I did catch the line about how Alice was supposed to go to Wonderland years ago, and didn't. And I understand the whole self-discovery thing. So was she brought to Wonderland simply because she had passed on going there previously? And the kidnapping of her daughter: what I inferred when I saw it was that that was done by the Hatter to keep her in Wonderland. But why? How was that supposed to help the Hatter in her conquest of the Queen? What was the Hatter trying to achieve?

[philly03]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 1:01pm

The reason the script is so jumbled is because it's a mixture of old subplots that bits & pieces of them have somehow stayed in there through the rewrites. Or the old bits became lazy subplots.

The Lewis Carroll bit makes no sense because she is not related to him anymore, nor is she even an accomplished writer even (In previous scripts she was related, then she was at "The Lewis Carroll Awards"). He's just a lazy plot device...

Also this is the only version of the script where Chloe wasn't the first person in Wonderland. She ran away the first go around (Alice chasing her), and last time was kidnapped as a means to get Alice to Wonderland. Chloe WAS her inner child in this version, where the Hatter got a hold of her at the end of Act 1 in Wonderland (NOT Ny) and wiped her memory in Looking-Glass world.

The biggest mess of the Tampa '11 version was that it was incredibly sloppy (Introduced characters that never returned - ie Mrs. Everheart), lazy (though not as lazy as this version), and was not logically thought out for some events on the stage (The Chess Game, which has finally been scraped!).

[Anakela]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 1:28pm

The chess game!! I'd almost forgotten about that.

Minor quibble but I don't think she was ever related to Carroll? She used to be a descendant of Alice Liddell.

And the kidnapping of her daughter: what I inferred when I saw it was that that was done by the Hatter to keep her in Wonderland. But why? How was that supposed to help the Hatter in her conquest of the Queen? What was the Hatter trying to achieve?

Because every time 'something bad' (to oversimplify it) happens to Alice, the Hatter grows stronger and more powerful; kidnapping Chloe = another something bad happening to Alice = more power for the Hatter = more power with which to attempt to overthrow the Queen. (Or at least that's what I've always gotten from it.)

[JRybka]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 3:31pm

I still want to see it. I know I know. But then again I dont get to see 80% of what i wish i could see....

[trentsketch]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 5:42pm

I thought it was simply that Alice didn't get to go to Wonderland any earlier at this point. It's a combination of "save your daughter from your fate" and "find yourself" that almost works. Maybe.

But now I'm more confused about the show. Did the Hatter know about her relationship to Alice the whole time? Which would mean Wonderland is real? Which means she isn't really connected to Alice in the way the show explains?

I don't understand why the chess game is even mentioned in the final version of the script when the "same square" has no impact on the story. And why was it a chess game at all? The whole conceit of Through the Looking Glass is that Alice has to catch the White Queen at the eighth square of the chessboard but Wonderland stretches further and further until she figures out the rules of the game. There's never a chess match, just a board and a new trick of perception.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 6:06pm

To Newintown

Why must someone who likes a show panned by the critics & those on BWW be considered a shill? I would take 1 Wonderland over 10 Wickeds anyday. Wicked is one of the most overrated messes I have seen in a long time.

I remember when people on the board were calling Memphis a big pile of steaming dog dung. The rest as they said is history. Not everything has to be as deadly serious as Sweeney Todd or Passion.

To those of you who criticize his music try writing 1 song & than come back to me. Europe audiences loves him . I guess that they are all wrong & those in the know in NY are all right.

Updated On: 4/20/11 at 06:06 PM

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 4/20/11 at 7:50pm

Europeans also fueled the pop careers of David Hasselhoff and John Tesh.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/21/11 at 9:41am

Oh dear, Mr. Roxy... you're post is so self-righteously incoherent, it should be dealt with item by item:

1) I called the poster a shill because they joined just to post a silly "you must see this show!" marketing-intern-style comment. It wasn't an opinion, it was a pull-quote manqué.

2) Who is hyping Wicked? Not me.

3) Memphis, although perhaps not quite a "big pile of steaming dog dung," is a formulaic, stupid piece of commerce without a shred of originality. Just because it's still running doesn't make it good. Never equate ticket sales with quality. The herd often make trash successful.

4) "Not everything has to be as deadly serious as Sweeney Todd or Passion." I'm not sure who you're talking to or what you mean. Are you saying there's nothing in between Memphis and Sweeney? A show doesn't have to be serious to be good. But it does have to be good.

5) I don't think anyone here is blaming Wildhorn alone for the awfulness of Wonderland; but whether or not "Europe" (or perhaps European) audiences love him, he's still a pretty generic composer (and yes, I have written music - it's something a lot of musicians do; just because you can't do it doesn't make it impossible. You can write a sentence, can't you? Think of music the same way, just using a language you haven't yet mastered).

Posted: 4/21/11 at 10:00am

I loved Wonderland! It was soooooo good.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/21/11 at 10:06am

See what I mean?

[billyboyA]

Posted: 4/21/11 at 10:56am

I, myself, just feel sorry and sad for people who see something as poorly written as Wonderland and think it's good. It's just another clear indication of the dumbing down of this country in the arts and how the critical masses have been let down in terms of educating them on what makes something good - and what constitutes talent. But then again, we also live in times where people think someone like Justin Timberlake is a great singer, and that screaming on American Idol infers talent.

Certainly there are personal tastes, and that counts for something. But Rule 1 of storytelling SHOULD be to create a character the audience cares about. This Alice is set up to fail right away. She's breaking up with her husband. Why? Because poor Alice can't find a way to be happy. But to ME as I sat there in the theater, I was annoyed with her from the GET GO. Her husband sounded like a pretty great guy. They guy spent the whole day carrying up his daughter's furniture into an apartment he was being excluded from? Um, WHY are you leaving him? Because nobody wants to read your book? Because you hate your teaching job? Because you think it's still the 1970's and some post feminist movement is saying you shouldn't settle for happiness if it comes in the form of a man. I mean, come on. Grow up, shut up, and realize what you do have.

Oh yeah, that's what she does realize by the end, after we are forced to listen to boring songs and groan inducing jokes that you can see coming before the actor even took a breath to speak.

My point is that THIS Alice hasn't given us SOMETHING compelling to really hang on to, so that we CARE about her journey. Look at the most successful of musical theatre characters - they all have something huge that makes us care and WANT to take this journey.

I would venture to guess that those who really liked this show, did so because they either really really WANTED to (and that want is clouding their good taste), or that they just haven't been exposed to enough good theater and had it explained to them WHY it's good theater.

And lastly, I will say that there IS a place for fluff theater. Anything Goes, The Boyfriend, How To Succeed, No No Nannette, 42nd Street. Those are fun shows that don't set out to move you or change your life. They are nothing more than pure entertainment taking you on a journey that let's you forget the serious issues of life. And those shows succeed best when the journey is big, fun and filled with talent and creativity from every department. If Wonderland had set out to be a fun fluff piece, then perhaps more of these songs and the bad jokes might have worked a touch better (might, I said!). But at it's core, Alice has always been about a disagreeable little girl who's world is turned upside down and she learns a LOT from the experience. This Alice isn't a little girl, isn't as much disagreeable as just whiney and clueless, and all she really learns is that she should have opened her eyes in the first damned place and stopped being such a self centered biatch...

Updated On: 4/21/11 at 10:56 AM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/21/11 at 5:56pm

The masses & Memphis?

Does that explain why it won Tonys for Score & Musical?