Why we're passionate about theater, yet trash almost everything we see.- Page 2

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 3:58pm

People here "trash" theater because we care about it. If we see something that's disappointing, we want to share it. I think the vast majority of people want the theater they see to be good, and when it's not, they share.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 4:11pm

What was your old screen name?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 4:14pm

I think it is because of our passion that our ire get riled so easily.

When I walk into a theater (regardless of what I may have heard) I WANT to fall in love, to be brought to the place that makes theater so important to me. When that isn't met the the difference between reality and possibilities are often larger than, perhaps the average theater goer.

Are there a few posters that seem to be negative (or overly positive) about everything they see? Yes, as in life.

But as others have said, more of the issues truly come from those that get offended by someone disliking something they love. THAT is usually where the name-calling often starts.

[ARTc]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 4:17pm

Not sure why my old username is important, but for full disclosure: Scott Briefer.

[tazber]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 5:25pm

How weird. As soon as you said what your old screen name was, that's what it's listed as when you posted.

[ARTc]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 5:40pm

Not really sure what's going on regarding my membership. It says that I'm logged in as ARTc and Scott Briefer. I used to also have the username, Maharajah, too.

Anyway, I've been around here for many years. Used to post quite frequently, but did move away for awhile because of a general discomfort with the tone. I was tired of being accused of being a shill (I was not), and a host of other not so nice adjectives.

Theater is a passion and I found myself from time-to-time, coming back to just read the posts or gather information about what was current. I don't remember what convinced me to re-sign up, but I did a few months ago and have been just far more cautious, but present as I do love reading about the theater scene.

[peachesr82]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 6:00pm

Personally I have no problem with people 'trashing' something or raving about it for that matter, if it's well expressed. I don't have much time for "I saw it last night, it was crap, end of" kind of reviews.

I'm not sure it happens with people here so often but my pet peev is people who leave at intermission/walk out, and then proceed to critique a show they didn't see through to the end. I don't know about anyone else but I pay a fortune in theatre tickets and I'm not about to walk out of anything(I never have)that I've paid a lot of my hard earned cash for, no matter how bad. I want to see it through to the end so I can form my opinion fully.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 6:02pm

I think we have all fell in love with great cathartic theatre moments. We are addicted and expect those cathartic moments and when something doesn't measure up to our first loves, we are disappointed.

And it hard to recapture those. I felt that for The original production of House of Blue Leaves (when I was a teen) Sweet Charity with Gwen Verdon, Dustin Hoffman in Lenny, The Great White Hope and even the original Annie. In these times, most theatre simply doesn't measure up and we are disappointed on a deep level.

I see younger people fall in love with things like Sister Act , Legally Blonde , the newest substandard production of Annieand I roll my eyes and say "you are kidding me." But those younger people have had their cathartic moments with these shows which I considered substandard.

In recent times, I felt that wonderment with Book of Mormon, God of Carnage, August Osage County, The Lyons, Other Desert Cities, Wicked, Vanya, Masha
and Spike. I was expecting to feel it with Once, Cinderella, Breakfast at Tiffany's but I felt profoundly disappointed.

And because we feel theatre love deeply; we also feel disappointment deeply.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 6:06pm

I have a proposal for the rest of the thread that sort of flies in the face of the way the title was constructed and it's a risky proposal: How about we post using "I" statements instead of "we" statements...? I have seen many "we" statements in this thread that do not resonate with me at all. I think it might be more interesting, even if it makes posters more vulnerable.

Updated On: 3/8/13 at 06:06 PM

[ARTc]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 6:45pm

goldenboy... loved your post. Wanted to correct you regarding who you saw in Lenny. Dustin Hoffman was in the film. Cliff Gorman played Lenny on Broadway.

I too have had similar experiences where I find myself having to hold my tongue regarding more recent versions of shows I adored in their original production.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:00pm

I think henrikegerman and dramamama sum it up well, so I'll merely second their thoughts.

A truly great evening of theater is like lightning: it only occurs once in awhile at any given place.

But when I go to the theater, I go with the hope that my life and thinking will be profoundly changed. Even though that only happens about once per decade.

So the rest of the time I wrestle with varying degrees of disappointment. When I was younger, I expected theater to be great most of the time, so I was often bitter. Nowadays i try harder to find individual elements I DO admire rather than surrendering to despair.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:05pm

You are correct. It was Cliff Gorman in Lenny and he was magical. My mistake. And he was better than Dustin Hoffman in the role.

[MusicalTheatreNerd]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:09pm

well, the way I look at it is:
The internet is where we moan and complain, but the theatre is where our passion comes alive xD

[ARTc]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:11pm

Cliff Gorman was great in Lenny.

I have a very different take. I am often deeply moved by the shows I see. Not every one, but easily many times a year. I wonder if I'd continue to be as passionate about the theater if it only rocked my world once every 10 years or so? Hmmm?

[MusicalTheatreNerd]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:17pm

Personally, it has never lead me to disappointment, however-it may lead YOU to disappointment. But what I said earlier is my own, personal take. Yours may be totally different and I have no problem with you expressing that.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:26pm

Goldenboy said: "
And it hard to recapture those. I felt that for The original production of House of Blue Leaves (when I was a teen) Sweet Charity with Gwen Verdon, Dustin Hoffman in Lenny, The Great White Hope and even the original Annie. In these times, most theatre simply doesn't measure up and we are disappointed on a deep level. "

Well said--and of course, even back in 1967 with Charity, people were lamenting the death of Broadway. (Can I just say how deeply jealous I am of all of those experiences with shows you had.)

I think the "trashing" thing just comes from being on a forum with people who are passionate about anything. Certain posters seem to have a chip on their shoulders and hate a lot of things on principle--=but by and large, I think this site does a good job of showing an honest opinion about shows--and I appreciate that getting to know various posters opinions, I can use that as my own gauge about what I might like.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:36pm

I have a very different take. I am often deeply moved by the shows I see. Not every one, but easily many times a year. I wonder if I'd continue to be as passionate about the theater if it only rocked my world once every 10 years or so? Hmmm?

I'm probably jaded. (I also no longer live in a large city with lots of good theater.)

I'm very glad that you find so much theater you enjoy.

***

In reference to the implication above that "familiarity may breed contempt", I should add that I go to the opera and most of the time I just sit there awestruck. But then my knowledge of opera is more limited.

Updated On: 3/8/13 at 07:36 PM

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 8:30pm

It has been around since long before BWW and other message boards. Budding show queens would fight to get into the first preview of any new show so they could call all their friends and tell how awful it was. (This is why first previews are usually so hard to get tickets for.) If the show flops they gloat and say "See I told ya..." and if it comes out as a hit the loudly proclaim what a disaster it was until changes were done.

If I don't like something I say so. And usually why.

If I like something I also say so.

The key here is the WHY.

Lots of twits love to provoke responses by writing lame comments such as "it sucked." "It was boring" is another easy out. Anyone who uses the non-word "meh" should be avoided like people in ball caps.

I know the people here are not professional reviews but if you take the time to write your own review of a show it is crucial that you back up your comments and articulate what exactly was wrong and why you did not enjoy the show. It is harder to do and even professional critics often have a hard time identifying where a show gos off the track, but any critic who falls back on facile, general comments won't last any longer than those who write gushing reviews and liking everything they see.

If you read the reviews regularly you soon learn which reviewers you can trust.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 8:59pm

THANK YOU, frontrowcentre2!

I accept that everyone is free to post as he or she pleases, but a thread full of:

"It sucked!"
"No, it didn't."
"It was the best show since ROSALIE!"
"No, it sucked!"

etc. and so forth is very disappointing. I don't expect everyone to have perfect self-knowledge, but I am very interested in WHY posters hold the opinions they hold.

***

One historical qualification: Prince and Sondheim have long blamed the failure of MERRILY on those nasty, first-preview queens frontrow mentions. But having been at that first preview, I think the creators were victims of their own success.

With five (six if you count the revival of CANDIDE) astonishing shows in a row, they had taught us to EXPECT not just brilliance but an expansion of the capacities of the musical theater genre. MERRILY did not live up to its older brothers and sisters. What Prince prefers to see as pettiness was actually profound disappointment.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 9:24pm

Gaveston, we should trade comments on MERRILY. I was there for what was supposed to be one week before opening but read in the newspaper when we arrived that the opening had been postponed 2 weeks. "Oh boy!" said my companion "they're in trouble."

I had read the original play back when the show was first announced....and was curious how it woudl work as a musical. I agree thet coming on the heels of SWEENEY set expectations too high. In an interview I did with Hal Prince he blamed himself saying he could never come up with a visual concept of what the show should look like. That may have been part of it. The young and really inexperienced cast didn't help matters... they sound considerably more polished on the cast album because album producer Tom Sheppard wanted the record to have a more professional sound. But the score grabbed me right from the first notes of the Overture. After intermission there wer mass walk-outs (Were people making a statement I wondered? Because the second half contained some of the best songs and leaving halfway through denied these people the chance to hear "our Time.")

IF BWW world had existed then I would not have rushed to log on and state how bad the show was..I had a mixed reaction liking some of it but I bet a lot of those who left early woudl have been online before the final curtain had fallen posting about what a disaster it had been. But I do remember people around the theater district were talking about the show...a lot. Not always favorably.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 9:50pm

frontrowcentre,

Did you ever live in New York? Honestly I think it's a loss that you don't now because your thoughts on scores and cast recordings are so thoughtful that I would love to hear more comments from you about new productions.

The "why" is so important because without it there can be no discussion. I feel like I've learned so much here over the years listening to people give their "whys" and that's what keeps me coming back.

"If you read the reviews regularly you soon learn which reviewers you can trust."

I think in addition to this, at least for me personally, I've met so many posters here in real life and have become good friends with several of them. It makes a difference because it's not just a bunch of anonymous avatars posting reviews, but friends, acquaintances, etc.

[ARTc]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 10:36pm

Funny that Merrily We Roll Along was brought up. I had the good fortune to see just about every performance of Merrily. I was fascinated by it and would sneak into the theater to watch it through its previews and development process. After awhile Harold Prince and Stephen Sondheim got wind that there was this kid at pretty much every performance. They asked to talk with me, which was an amazing experience for me at the time. Afterwards, I was allowed to stand in the back and grab a seat when available. Its true, after intermission there was always seats.

This was a really cool time in my life. I lived on 51 Street between Broadway and Eighth, directly across from what was the Uris - to be renamed the Gershwin - theater. In those days you could second act just about everything. And, that was just the easy way to see some of a show. I had all sorts of techniques to sneak into the theater, even to see the whole performance. I saw everything, often more than once. Somethings over and over again.

Today, I still see just about everything. I just have to pay for it.
Updated On: 3/8/13 at 10:36 PM

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 10:57pm

No, I never did live in New York but have spent a lot of time there, visiting as often as I can to see shows and record interviews with performers for my radio program. Personal matters have kept me away from the city for the past year but I'll be back...and soon.

Thank you for your kind words.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 11:01pm

Sorry to have taken the thread OT, but MERRILY has so often been held by its creators to have been "destroyed" by pre-opening criticism that is has a certain relevance in this thread.

Had there been a board like this, I would have written after the first preview that there were simply too many concepts:

going backward in narrative time
using kids to play grown-ups
modeling the sets and costumes after a high school production.

(The sets were very confusing and unless you got the concept, simply made the show look cheap. They were cut during previews, of course, along with the costumes.)

I also saw the last preview and would have reported that the show was greatly cleaned up and the score was magnificent, that, in fact, they had done everything that could be done to improve it.

And it still didn't work.

Going backwards in time eliminates suspense and substitutes dramatic irony. A little of the latter goes a long way for most audiences, which is why, I think, the show has done a little better in smaller theaters that can be filled by Sondheim fans and those who appreciate structural experimentation.

[hyperbole_and_a_half]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 11:10pm

Aren't most of us involved with the theatre on some level, whether in New York or beyond, professionally or not? Could it be the "negativity" you think you see around here is actually just passionate criticism from theatre folk who gather here to talk shop? We know when a performance is cheap, when staging is chintzy, or when production design is derivative, and we're not afraid to call an emperor naked. Yet, we also bubble over with praise for things that are new, or visionary, or revelatory, or successful.

Regardless, if you think the ratio of positive to negative comments on this board is skewed, I think that's more of an indictment of the modern state of theatre on Broadway than of the posters on Broadwayworld.com.