Abie's Irish Rose was a play, not a musical. Did Brantley say it was a musical?
In any case, I just looked up the Times review, which I had looked up once in the past. The truth is that while there's a legend that it did not get good reviews, the review in the Times was actually rather favorable, if in a sort of odd way. The anonymous critic mostly describes the play and to some degree seems to just assume it's going to be a hit. He says it has its dullish spots, but that the "highly sophisticated Summer audience" clearly took the play to its heart. And he concludes by predicting a long run, suggesting that an exceptionally long run is quite possible. Rather prescient.
If anything, the critic seems to go out of his way to suggest that even though the show might be thought of as a middle-brow and essentially mediocre, hackneyed crowdpleaser, even a sophisticated audience responded to it very positively.
The play was perhaps considered already almost critic-proof as it had been successfully produced in Los Angeles and San Francisco. And it had gotten publicity as the playwright, Anne Nichols, put together the New York production on her own, even directing it, despite the fact that a producer had an option on her script. But he kept not producing it in New York, so she went ahead on her own, he tried to stop her, and then they came to a truce. The Times critic discusses this.
I think it's in Brantley's own interest for him to suggest that there had always been real limits to the power of the Times. That way it does not so much seem like the power of the Times's lead critic has reached its lowest point while he is in the position.
But I do think it's true that there have always been limits to the power of the Times, although it did (and still does, if to a lesser degree) have power.
|