HOME ALL THAT CHAT ATC WEST COAST SHOPPIN' RUSH BOARD FAQS

LOGIN REGISTER SEARCH THREADED MODE

not logged in

Threaded Order | Chronological Order

yeah...and he calls it a flop

Posted by: actor103 01:54 am EDT 08/16/14
In reply to: Not a pan and not a review - jesse21 07:45 am EDT 08/15/14

So, he sees it as bad theater that may make a lot of money. Not understanding the issue here? He clearly does not like the show but thinks it will make money. Done. Out. Thank you for your thoughts. Is the focus here about how to classify the review in terms of box office or art?
Are we talking about marketing or theater? As a product, it is a favorable review. As theater it is a pan. Oh...yuck, how disgusting.

Fear: Are theatre critics now going to start reviewing a shows marketability instead of, or inclusive of, their artistry. Oh my God, please tell me no. Though they have been suckered by slick products for years,are we now going to see critics trending towards a focus on whether something is successful as a product when dealing with Broadway? Could this be a tactic for the security of their job? Oh...going to stop now. Truly repulsed spending anymore time thinking about your need to clarify his reveiw.But if you, Jesse 21, do not see this review as a pan for the artistry, then I think you may be more at home on a board focusing on the market value of soup can labels. I mean seriously, why the spilt focus.he hates the show. Done.it can make money. So what? That splits the review. Yuck...in a big way.


reply to this message |
Anyone with home delivery thinks that's a review.

Posted by: Delvino 08:32 am EDT 08/16/14
In reply to: yeah...and he calls it a flop - actor103 01:54 am EDT 08/16/14

People who've only read it on-line, segregated from the rest of the paper, are missing the point: it's on the first page of the Friday Arts and Leisure section, with a carry-over on page 2, a huge photo, and the full cast and credits listing, per any Brantley review. The only major theater report in the Friday paper. John and Jane Q. Public reading this discussion of the production will clearly parse the opinions expressed as a review. We can split hairs here, reading it on-line out of context with the Times, but if you see it in print, or even as a part of your daily cyber edition (I've examined both) the distinction is ultimately pointless; it appears an early Times evaluation of a B'way bound production, one that certainly failed to earn their first tier critic's full imprimatur. I think in the rarefied world of theater boards these carefully shaded differences are rather more pronounced than elsewhere.


reply to this message |
Reviewing the situation

Posted by: WaymanWong 10:39 am EDT 08/16/14
In reply to: Anyone with home delivery thinks that's a review. - Delvino 08:32 am EDT 08/16/14

It's a review. With a skeptical and kinda snarky tone. But it's a review nevertheless. He offers value judgments.

Maybe I missed it, but why is Brantley reviewing ''Neverland'' now? Usually, when a show announces that it's heading for Broadway (as this one has), the Times lays off and treats it as an out-of-town tryout (like ''The Last Ship'').

Isherwood, on the other hand, likes to see shows out of town; if he raves about them (i.e., ''American Idiot,'' ''Come Fly Away''), THEN they are announced for Broadway. And when they arrive in NYC, he re-reviews them and amps up his praise.


reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Reviewing the situation

Posted by: davei2000 05:50 pm EDT 08/16/14
In reply to: Reviewing the situation - WaymanWong 10:39 am EDT 08/16/14

The "Critic's Notebook" label, Harvey Weinstein's little talk and the reporting of it, as well as the ambivalent tone of the piece all indicate that it's outside the standard policy of the Times. I guess they decided to go ahead for its newsworthiness.
Surely the paper was invited? Perhaps there was some conflict/miscommunication on the production team...


reply to this message | reply to first message
re: yeah...and he calls it a flop

Posted by: ukpaul 07:55 am EDT 08/16/14
In reply to: yeah...and he calls it a flop - actor103 01:54 am EDT 08/16/14

What I do think would be welcome is critics not relating solely their opinion but understanding how the show is aimed at an audience and whether they are that audience. First stringers here tend to be (in the words of one of them) 'male, pale and stale', and reading them shows that they have a tendency to like certain things because of that.

Anyway, it reads to me that he doesn't like the idea and provenance of the show but has held back from giving his opinion on the actual show itself. That, I presume would come later, or would Isherwood now review this on Broadway?


reply to this message | reply to first message


All That Chat is intended for the discussion of theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)

Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.

[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]

Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]

Time to render: 0.031793 seconds.