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

What was your old screen name?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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

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.