| re: As it turns out, Brantley is wrong about that |
|
| Posted by: |
AlanScott 10:02 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: |
re: As it turns out, Brantley is wrong about that - enoch10 09:21 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
That's an interesting point. You certainly do see it in shows like some of those I mentioned above. Atkinson was the only major critic to go in big way for Greenwillow, and I think also for The Grass Harp, and his lonely enthusiasm could not counteract the lack of enthusiasm from the other major critics.
And his lack of enthusiasm for Birdie did not hurt it much when all the other major reviews were favorable to raves.
And Atkinson is often felt to have been the most influential of all the Times critics.
On the other hand, in the 1960s and 1970s there were at least two examples of producers pulling the plug immediately — literally immediately, one performance — on two shows that got good reviews from other major sources. Those shows were Johnny No-Trump and Father's Day. Where Richard Barr seems to have felt he did make the right choice with the former (despite a rave from Kerr in the Sunday Times after the closing), Joe Kipness later said that he had probably made a mistake by closing Father's Day immediately, especially since (as the Times pointed out) he was the producer of Applause, still playing to packed houses at the time.
So there was such a perception of the power of the Times that producers sometimes just gave up in the face of a negative Times review.
I don't think there's any question that if the power of the Times is lower than ever in the past (or at least at any point in the last 80 years or so), it's a reflection of the lessening power of theatre critics generally.
|
|
|
reply |
|
|
| Previous: |
re: As it turns out, Brantley is wrong about that - enoch10 09:21 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| Next: |
re: They do have a deep bench, - dottie20 04:54 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| Thread: |
|