Why we're passionate about theater, yet trash almost everything we see.- Page 3

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 11:36pm

Interesting how this thread has devolved into a discussion of a Sondheim show... But, then, doesn't everything, inevitably, end up that way here?

Oh, well. Since this question was originally directed my way in an earlier thread, I guess it behooves me to add my 7 1/2 cents to the discussion.

I fell in love--- head-over-heels in love --- with the theatre at a young age. Once bitten, ever smitten, I guess. And by the theatre, I mean more than just the shows I saw on a stage; it was the whole mystique of it, everything ftom the glamor of opening nights, Sardi's, Shubert Alley, the posters, the marquees, the playbills, the opening night ticket stubs, the automat, Howard Johnson's, the first ads in the Sunday Times, "Last 5 Times!" in the theatre directory, Theatre World, the Best Plays, the Tony Awards, even the watery orangeade in cute little cartons: the whole kit and kaboodle.

Through good times and bad, that love remains.

When I saw shows like My Fair Lady, Milk and Honey, The Happiest Girl in the World, Mary, Mary, and so many others, I felt a euphoria that was beyond words. I felt my heart sink when the curtain fell.

Like I said in that earlier thread, to experience that euphoria again, I would sit through 100 duds, and I have. If I could feel even 1/100 of that euphoria, I would consider myself the happiest person in the world.

And call me a cockeyed optimist, if you will, but each time I enter a theatre, it's with the hope that that show will provide me just that feeling. The lyric in a song from Show Girl is my mantra in this regard:

"Somewhere, I don't know where,
And somehow, I don't know how,
And someday, I don't know when,
I'm gonna find my bluebird of happiness again."

Now, if what I find is a turkey instead, I'm going to say so. That's not being "negative," it's just telling it like it is.

And to those who don't like that, I say stop blaming the messenger, and blame the creators.


Updated On: 3/9/13 at 11:36 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 11:42pm

A Sondheim show was mentioned not because it has a score by Sondheim, but because it's the one show I can think of where its demise was blamed on negative remarks made by theater aficionados. There are probably other examples; I just haven't read about them.

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 11:47pm

^

The reason it was mentioned is because just like the critics, all people care about here is continually shoving his name in front of us and then forcing it down our collective throats.

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 8:46am

I have thought about this question before, and for me, I could think of two reasons why I have, on average, more negative feelings about some shows or some aspects of shows than i remember having in the past.

First, I starting watching theater at a fairly young age, but the only kind I could afford was community and high school productions when I was living with the parental units (and being in most of the high school productions was the cheapest way to experience them), and then student productions after that when I was in school. I rarely saw professional productions until more than a decade later when I started being able to afford them more than once a year and in seats other than the last row of the highest balcony. So my expectations of quality were lower in my teens and twenties than in my thirties. I was moved by moving scenes and shows, but was rarely moved by the singing itself, with only one exception that I can remember in those first 20 years of theatre-going to amateur-only productions.

So when I started seeing shows in my thirties with more impressive singing and performances and experienced even more of a thrill than i used to get from a great script and score, that made me more aware of situations where that was lacking, whereas in my younger days, those kinds of performances were pretty much always lacking so i never missed them.


The other factor is also related to being able to afford to see more theater. When money was a lot more limited, even student productions were something I saw about 10-12 times per year at $5 each or so. Now, I see a lot more theater, maybe 5-8 shows a month on average, so rather than just picking the plots/topics that seem like they would interest me the most, I try to see everything. That sometimes results in my discovery of something great that I would have otherwise skipped since the topic didn't seem interesting (which is why I do it), but many other times it results in the predictable feeling of not being that enthused about the show because I ultimately just couldn't care about the characters/situations/etc.


So in a way, having access to more theater (financially) has caused me to see more things that I don't enjoy than I did before, but has also given me the opportunity to see more things that I enjoy immensely, beyond any of the experiences that I was able to have in my teens and twenties. So now, knowing how great productions can be, I am very elated when seeing a great production but more disappointed when seeing a mediocre one than i would have been 15 years ago. I suspect that those who see theater less often are more like the early versions of an avid theater-goer - having more appreciation for even modest quality since maybe they haven't seen enough theater to experience the pure bliss that comes from the highest-quality of performance/production/script/score.




Updated On: 3/9/13 at 08:46 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 10:50am

The more I think about this, the more I feel I have to say:

WE don't trash everything. Every show that opens, has detractors. NO show will ever win over every person that sees it. And when it comes down to it: what a relatively small group of people here think, we don't make a hill of beans of difference.

My last visit I saw three shows and found them ALL to be outstanding: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Drood, and The Other Place.

In fact, while all were not universally LOVED, I don't remember there being a trashfest on any of them. (But I'm old, and perhaps I have selective memory.)

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 11:42am

People like to share their opinions, especially about things they're passionate about, and I imagine folks have been trashing theater since Aristophanes. In the old days, you could dish a show by calling up your friends, but the Internet has made it much easier to disseminate our opinions to tons more readers. And as miraculous as the Internet can be, what bothers me is the anonymity, which encourages backmouthing others because most folks use madeup names. There is no accountability. Let's see how many people would trash shows so harshly if they actually had to sign their real names to their opinions and stand behind them. I'm not saying that folks shouldn't be able to intelligently criticize what they don't like, but I suspect the level of discourse might be more civil and less mean.

[ARTc]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 12:03pm

Which is why I have chosen to use my real name. Dangerous, I have been told, but I figure that if I want the Internet and the forums that it has created to be more civil then perhaps I should be willing to put my true self out there.

Having typed this, I want to be fully upfront and say that I too have trashed a show or two on this board.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 12:47pm

But I ask: If you truly disliked a show, what is wrong with stating that opinion???

I enjoy the honesty with which most people here approach their reviews. I want to know WHY someone hated (or loved) a show -- that tells me waaaay more than just the overall opinion.

The reveiws that simply gush over/spit on "everything" don't give me any information, and I find them useless.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 3:03pm

"
The reason it was mentioned is because just like the critics, all people care about here is continually shoving his name in front of us and then forcing it down our collective throats. "

Within the span of two posts you go from writing a genuinely lovely post about why you love theatre (and it's clear that you do), to sounding again like the unhappy misanthrope you seem to think Sondheim and his fans are.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 4:16pm

"Now, if what I find is a turkey instead, I'm going to say so. That's not being "negative," it's just telling it like it is. "

Calling something a "turkey" isn't descriptive or helpful. It's as useful as saying something sucks. So much is subjective. I may love a costume you despise. You don't like it, tell me what you didn't like, and why (as others have said here).

"But I ask: If you truly disliked a show, what is wrong with stating that opinion??? "

Nothing. It's just that the manner in which many people do it here is either useless "It sucks", or is unkind/mean and not helpful to others trying to decide whether or not to attend. I also absolutely agree with whoever said that some posters respond negatively to shows b/c they think it makes them look smart.

I think, as someone else said, we should be using "I" instead of "we" - and eliminate the use of "trashed" altogether. It's a childish word to be using in a intellectual discussion of theater. I can be passionately transported by a performance, but I don't allow a performance that I don't particularly care for to make me angry or upset. That doesn't make me any less passionate than those of you who do.

Just as a btw - I can't stand Sondheim. Never could. He's too clever by half for me, but I don't think he's bad, and I don't think people who like him are idiots or unsophisticated. I have a lot of problems with this board, but having Sondheim's name shoved in my face has never been one of them.



Updated On: 3/9/13 at 04:16 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 5:02pm

Some people are just passionate about trashing shows. And those who don't agree with them.

[boywonder12]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 7:15pm

I think it's important that people are being critical, especially in recent years. There's no denying that the crop of shows popping up on Broadway has taken a serious decline, and I'm not blaming that on the economy. Yes, times are tough and the money is tight, but that doesn't mean the stuff being turned out has to be as bad and uninspired as it is. We need to be critical now to let the higher ups know that some of this terrible material just isn't going to cut it. That's just my opinion.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 7:30pm

There is a huge difference between being critical (I am very critical myself) and trashing shows. I see more trashing on this board than I see criticism.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 7:49pm

The reason it was mentioned is because just like the critics, all people care about here is continually shoving his name in front of us and then forcing it down our collective throats.

No, After Eight. It was I who brought it up and I know why. Jeeze!

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 7:54pm

I want to applaud dramamama's point: although there are detractors here for every show, no show is trashed by ALL of us. There are just a lot of people on this board.

And I want to again second the motion of those who have said "Tell us WHY a show is good or bad." I don't care how strongly you criticize a production if you will at least tell me why you feel the way you do.

[ARTc]

Posted: 3/10/13 at 12:21am

All of this makes me question another aspect of the negativity... I agree with those who wrote that offering some insight or detail as to why you liked or didn't like a show is helpful. I guess what I am also curious about and perhaps don't appreciate is the direct attacks to those who have offered a differing opinion.

I have often been accused of being a shill for shows that I enjoyed and weren't deemed "worthy" here. I assure you I am not. Having typed this, I now again have to own that I too have dismissed posters who's experience was so radically different than mine.

I guess I am curious to whether or not people think theater folks are just more critical than most?

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/10/13 at 12:42am

ARTc,

It was good you raised the subject of this thread.

Now, instead of trying to analyze people's motives to death, why not just go to shows and tell us if you liked them or not, and not worry about anything else.

And doctoral-dissertation-length threads, so beloved by some, aren't necessary either. In fact, I find them most unwelcome, and, really, huge ego-trips. Just cut to the chase and tell us whether it was good or bad. You needn't be obliged, as some would dictatorially have it here, to give any other explanations whatsoever.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/10/13 at 12:46am

The reason it was mentioned is because just like the critics, all people care about here is continually shoving his name in front of us and then forcing it down our collective throats.

Well, After Eight, you do seem to take a delight in snaking into any Sondheim-related thread to express you particular disgust and force that down our collective throats. We ALL know where you stand. We don't need to be reminded. I do wonder what Mr S has done to you personally that can engender such hostility. It's not enough for you that you don't like any of his shows...you seem to go out of your way to infiltrate any thread of legitimate discussion. Look at how you tried to dominate the discussions about the current PASSION revival. So much hatred for the show it made me wonder why you bother even reading that thread. Maybe you are a just get some sort of twisted kick out of pushing people's buttons.

Gaveston legitimately brought MERRILY into the discussion in a valid way - not stretching the topic at all to mention the show title. It merely illustrated a point about negative preview reactions. Nothing wrong with that at all.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/10/13 at 3:30am

And then there are just certain posters that you learn to ignore.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 3/10/13 at 8:16am

Theatre is subjective by nature.

Just because you LOVE the art form and it's traditions and the act of going to the theatre does not mean you will (or have to) like every show you see.

Realistically, there are/will be things in every show that need work. Except LES MIZ I *ADORE* PHANTOM, but accept the fact that there are holes in the plot one can drive an 18 wheeler or two through.

I tell it like it is. I say if I like it and say if I don't. I don't care if others do not like a show I like or like a show I do not. Again, that is the nature of the theatre. Some will LOVE a show, some will not.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion... whether it is the same as yours or not.

Updated On: 3/10/13 at 08:16 AM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/10/13 at 8:43am

Just cut to the chase and tell us whether it was good or bad.

The judgments "good" and "bad" are meaningless unless they are defined when they are used.

If a post is too long, everyone has a scroll bar.

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/10/13 at 9:08am

"Well, After Eight, you do seem to take a delight in snaking into any Sondheim-related thread to express you particular disgust and force that down our collective throats."

I don't "snake" into anything. If the thread is about Sondheim, then it is open to all. Including me.


"We ALL know where you stand."

And we ALL know where you and all the others who constantly cheer for him----far more than I do the reverse ---- stand. That doesn't stop you or them from doing it over and over again, often in a snarky and snidely dimissive way towards those who disagree (cf. ALW vs. Sondheim thread), now does it? And you don't get highly and mightily indignant about them, or try to silence them, now do you?

" We don't need to be reminded."

Nor do I --- we --- need to be reminded of your (or their) opinions, either. That doesn't stop you or they from repeating them endlessly, now does it?

"It's not enough for you that you don't like any of his shows...you seem to go out of your way to infiltrate any thread of legitimate discussion."

Love your choice of vocabulary. " Snaking," " infiltrate." You turn out to be the same defensive, name-calling crybaby as the others. And as big a hypocrite.

" Look at how you tried to dominate the discussions about the current PASSION revival. "

Bull.

I didn't/don't try to dominate anything. In that thread, all I did was was raise the perfectly legitimate elephant in the room that everyone else was studiously avoiding. In fact, mine was the one "legitimate" comment there. As for "dominating," you've got it backwards, inside out, and upside down. I was the one who was "dominated," bullied, and pilloried by the "wolf pack." Because of them, I, not the show, became the focus of the thread. Blame them, not me.

And here, you can blame yourself for being the same kind of intolerant whiner as they.

"So much hatred for the show it made me wonder why you bother even reading that thread. Maybe you are a just get some sort of twisted kick out of pushing people's buttons."

I explained perfectly well my reasons for hating the show. And lest you forget, plenty of people felt the same degree of hatred and revulsion that I did, and expressed it loud and clear in the theatre.

As for this thread, it had nothing to do with Sondheim. But somehow, the threadjacker managed to bring him into it, and you perpetuated it.

So don't point fingers at me.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/10/13 at 8:59pm

So now I'm "The Threadjacker", like some sort of arch-villain? You keep insisting the mention of MERRILY was random no matter how many times I point out that it has long been held to be The Show That Was Killed By Vicious New York Gossip! If you have another example, pray tell us and we'll discuss that instead.

[ARTc]

Posted: 3/10/13 at 9:52pm

Inevitably, many of these threads turn ugly. Is this forums in general, or does BroadwayWorld just breed a meaner spirit?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 3/10/13 at 10:30pm

I'm not involved in a lot of forums, but I find this one often mean-spirited and cliquish. Certain posters will attack other posters consistently, essentially thread jacking to do so. Personal attacks are not uncommon and are rarely dealt with unless reported, and sometimes not even then.