What is going on with Passing Strange? — Page 3

One of the most unfounded reasons on this board for not having interest in seeing PASSING STRANGE is "I don't know what it's about. The marketing tells me nothing."

Is a complete show synopsis and full track list needed before seeing a new Broadway musical? Does everything have to be based on a pre-existing film or play so one can walk into the theatre with the warm security of knowing the story?

Any true fan and follower of the Broadway musical would go see a new show regardless of familiarity. (There are tons of discounts if price is an issue.) In fact, going into a show that’s a clean slate, without any identifiers, should be a welcome and enticing challenge. The show will be a truly fresh experience, without a jot of pre-judgment.

AFTER someone’s seen the show, they can judge if they like it or not. But to dismiss it outright on the basis of lack of subject knowledge is hardly the right attitude of a serious theatergoer.

Updated On: 2/28/08 at 12:33 PM

BK -- I have to agree with you, too, especially about leaving at intermission. Nothing should be judged without seeing the full work.

I wanted to pull a Moritz on myself at the intermission of SPRING AWAKENING. I seriously loathed what I had seen. But as a fervent aficionado of musical theatre, it was important for me to stay through the 2nd Act to grasp the piece as a whole. It didn’t change my feelings on the show, but I’d have no right to comment on it having seen only half the work.

One of the most unfounded reasons on this board for not having interest in seeing PASSING STRANGE is "I don't know what it's about. The marketing tells me nothing."

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly didn't say that. Yes, the marketing is not very good and tells us nothing, BUT I did visit the website and listen to audio clips and watched video clips and THEN decided that it doesn't interest me very much. How many people post on this board about shows like Legally Blonde or Xanadu and decide they instantly have no interest because they are familiar with the subject? There are all kinds of valid reasons for not being interested in seeing a show and not being familiar with it is one of many.

Is a complete show synopsis and full track list needed before seeing a new Broadway musical?

Nope. Never said it was.

Does everything have to be based on a pre-existing film or play so one can walk into the theatre with the warm security of knowing the story?

Nope. I certainly never claimed anything of the sort.

Any true fan and follower of the Broadway musical would go see a new show regardless of familiarity. (There are tons of discounts if price is an issue.)

In fact, going into a show that’s a clean slate, without any identifiers, should be a welcome and enticing challenge. The show will be a truly fresh experience, without a jot of pre-judgment.

HAHAHAHA!!!! Yeah, I heard the same thing about Spring Awakening, which I found rather dreadful and is mostly responsible for my resignation in simply not wasting time and money (both of which will be less each year due to rising NYC tourist costs) on a show that I attended in lieu of something else I may be more familiar with and probably enjoy more than something that intentionally refuses to give me any information. Honestly, my boyfriend and I were disappointed we decided to take the risk to pass over some other wonderful shows to see Spring Awakening even though we weren't too familiar with it. Since it is OUR MONEY and OUR TIME, it is our choice and investment to make as we see fit and those choices will be made on over 20 years of trips to NYC to see Broadway shows. If you think that's unreasonable, then I will gladly allow you to pay for my tickets, airfare, hotel and expenses.

AFTER someone’s seen the show, they can judge if they like it or not. But to dismiss it outright on the basis of lack of subject knowledge is hardly the right attitude of a serious theatergoer.

I hope you're not talking about me. If so, you obviously have misunderstood what I said. I didn't judge the show at all. I just said there are other shows I consider a higher priority.

I have to agree with you, too, especially about leaving at intermission. Nothing should be judged without seeing the full work.

Glad to know you have never seen anything as painfully bad as some of the productions I have. I'm not sitting through anything I cannot stand to watch. And I can most certainly judge the act I did see. And I have seen a few shows that deserved to be left before intermission. I didn't like Spring Awakening either, but I did stay for both acts. It just means it wasn't as torturous as other shows I've seen. But saying anyone has no right to comment on what they witnessed is completely absurd. Whether they saw the whole show, ony the first act, or only five minutes, EVERYONE has the right to comment on what they saw and why they left. Period.

I wanted to pull a Moritz on myself at the intermission of SPRING AWAKENING. I seriously loathed what I had seen. But as a fervent aficionado of musical theatre, it was important for me to stay through the 2nd Act to grasp the piece as a whole. It didn’t change my feelings on the show, but I’d have no right to comment on it having seen only half the work.

Well, you sort of proved my point. You knew by the end of the first act you loathed the show. You decided to stay because you wanted to. Either you want to stay or you don't. That's all it boils down to. You can say it is due to some moral obligation and responsibility as a theatregoer and bibbidy-bobbidy-boo, but all that is merely self-righteousness. You chose to stay. I did, too. Not because I am such an awesome person and a righteous responsible theatre elistist, but because it was not as bad as other shows I've seen. You can choose to leave for any reason because in the end, it is your money, your time, and your investment. And no one else can dictate the value of those things other than yourself.

They couldn't understand it (Do you need Hooked on Phonics?)

Elitist prejudist statement. Not to mention offensive.

It was too Loud (Go home and watch Murder, She Wrote)

Ageist prejudist statement. Do you honestly think everyone is the same? At the ripe old age of 24, I went to a tour of Jesus Christ Superstar that was amplified to the point of distortion and literally caused pain in my inner ear. And this was after I had already suffered a 10% hearing loss by the time I was 20. Seriously, are you just a bigot or what?

It just wasn't my thing, so I left at intermission: (Did you even give it a chance? I don't think so.)

Obviously, if they sat through the first act, they gave it a chance and decided they didn't enjoy it. Unless by "give it a chance" you mean "sit through the entire show no matter how much you want to leave, even when given the opportunity to do so", which is not the same thing.

---

Updated On: 2/28/08 at 01:36 PM

Acting self-righteous doesn't make one any less bourgeois.

Acting self-righteous doesn't make one any less bourgeois.

Using the term "bourgeois" doesn't make one any more respectable. Or less bourgeois, for that matter.

---

I certainly didn’t mention anyone by name. It was directed generally based on a very common reason I’ve heard why people aren’t bothering to see the show, especially by New York theatergoing locals, on and off the board.

I also concede that folks traveling in from out of town on a limited schedule naturally have to be more selective of shows, based on interest. But for New York based avid theatergoers and followers of the Broadway musical, I maintain lack of subject knowledge is no reason to avoid a show.

WITHOUTaTRACE, for instance, seems like he is very interested in seeing new shows, regardless of subject. He obviously went in with an open mind unsure what the experience would be, but excited to see Broadway’s latest musical. He saw the whole show, sat through the second act (because shows can hold many redeeming surprises in the second act), and did not find the complete show very good. But he’s able to more correctly comment on the piece.

Certainly one can form an opinion off of seeing half a show, and feel free to share it. If they don’t wish to waste any more of their time, so be it. But obviously that assessment is going to boil down to “It was awful,” rather than a more nuanced opinion based off the whole work. I hardly think it’s self-righteous to say that someone who’s experienced the complete work of something is better able to fully assess its merits and shortcomings.

After the notices that PS got this morning, I guess all previous doubts and fears are pretty much moot. They'd REALLY have to f--- up not to make hay out of those reviews. I'm certainly putting it on my list.

---