"The character in question is Ermengarde (played in this Broadway national tour by Morgan Kirner), a whining flibbertigibbet who exists only to annoy her rich, stodgy uncle on the way to fulfilling her only ambition in life, which is to marry a starving artist. She’s 17 going on 7, infantilized...."
FWIW, I do agree with this. I've always disliked the character of Ermengarde, especially when her weeping and wailing are overplayed. BUT...................
"No question, the show has been an enduring favorite on the strength of Jerry Herman’s peppy melodies and plenty of old-school choreographic elegance. But the gender dynamics in the book (by Michael Stewart) are condescending and cringe-worthy, and the story is all fluff."
In order to feel this way, one would have to pay no attention to the lines and lyrics, and have no understanding of historical context. Not great qualities in a theater critic. Also:
"It’s a predictable farce filled with stock characters and 50-year-old stereotypes about New Yorkers from 130 years ago — stereotypes that are all but opaque to contemporary audiences, unless they remember enough high-school history to know what the Gilded Age was."
I'm a little confused by this sentence, but if the stereotypes are indeed opaque to contemporary audiences, then wouldn't that mean they're no longer stereotypes?