WONDERLAND - Why so negative? — Page 2

"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

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.)

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.

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

I loved Wonderland! It was soooooo good.

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