Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Pedantic Thinking | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 12:14 am EST 02/21/20 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:13 am EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: Brantley on WEST SIDE STORY - Clancy 08:13 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Or about what I expect from Brantley. Still, I'm a bit surprised he was so lukewarm on the singing. | |
| reply to this message |
| The "power" of the Times? | |
| Posted by: aleck 03:22 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: Pedantic Thinking - Singapore/Fling 12:13 am EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm sure all of us can name many, many shows that the Times panned that became hits (Cats?) and many, many others that were praised and were flops (Honeymoon in Vegas, Groundhog Day, Tootsie, Side Show). The Times is irrelevant and even moreso today than say 20 years ago when the primary audience, especially in the early part of a run, was actual New Yorkers -- who read newspapers. Now, even more than ever, it's word of mouth (which killed Honeymoon, Groundhog, Tootsie and Side Show) and perceptions of tourists-- both domestic and foreign . Personally, I have found Brantley increasingly unreliable and Jesse even more so. Those raves for Honeymoon, etc. were egregious. So was the lukewarm reaction to Light in the Piazza. Still, I'm skipping WSS (unless someone hands me a free ticket) as I did Mockingbird and the second part of Inheritance since the first part was plenty enough. There are other more interesting things going on right now. I would put New York City Ballet at the top. They are dancing better this year than I can remember. Certainly better than five years ago and perhaps matching, if not exceeding, the glory years of the '70s. It's an amazing transformation. Maybe the specter of Peter Martin has been lifted and we're looking at a happier company reaching far beyond what has been seen there for too many years. |
|
| reply to this message |
| I don't think word of mouth killed SIDE SHOW | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 01:36 am EST 02/22/20 | |
| In reply to: The "power" of the Times? - aleck 03:22 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| For some reason, most people had no desire to see a musical about that subject matter. Even when you told them it was good. Especially in the case of the revival. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| That reminds me of a variation of a Yogi Berra quote | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 12:24 am EST 02/23/20 | |
| In reply to: I don't think word of mouth killed SIDE SHOW - KingSpeed 01:36 am EST 02/22/20 | |
|
|
|
| ''If people don't want to come to a show, nobody's gonna stop 'em.'' | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Well, no one went to see because of the words that came from MY mouth | |
| Posted by: aleck 09:21 pm EST 02/22/20 | |
| In reply to: I don't think word of mouth killed SIDE SHOW - KingSpeed 01:36 am EST 02/22/20 | |
|
|
|
| For neither the original nor the revival. The show is a mess. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The "power" of the Times? | |
| Posted by: skier74 11:30 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: The "power" of the Times? - aleck 03:22 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm sure all of us can name many, many shows that the Times panned that became hits (Cats?) and many, many others that were praised and were flops (Honeymoon in Vegas, Groundhog Day, Tootsie, Side Show). The Times is irrelevant Since when is the job of the TImes theatre critic to predict whether a show is going to be commercially successful or not? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I would say that Rich gave Cats a generally favorable review | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 06:59 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:57 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: The "power" of the Times? - aleck 03:22 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| While Frank Rich's review of Cats was certainly not a rave, I'd say it was more favorable than not. It was somewhat mixed, but as with his later review of Kiss of the Spider Woman, it was the kind of mixed review that sends people to the theatre (or nowadays makes them contact the company they have to contact to get tickets). And I'd say that, if anything, his Cats was a bit more positive than his Spider Woman review. I'm linking his review, and I quote the first two paragraphs below. And the first couple of paragraphs are almost always the most important ones in any review. "THERE'S a reason why 'Cats,' the British musical which opened at the Winter Garden last night, is likely to lurk around Broadway for a long time - and it may not be the one you expect. "It's not that this collection of anthropomorphic variety turns is a brilliant musical or that it powerfully stirs the emotions or that it has an idea in its head. Nor is the probable appeal of 'Cats' a function of the publicity that has accompanied the show's every purr since it first stalked London 17 months ago. No, the reason why people will hunger to see 'Cats' is far more simple and primal than that: it's a musical that transports the audience into a complete fantasy world that could only exist in the theater and yet, these days, only rarely does. Whatever the other failings and excesses, even banalities, of 'Cats,' it believes in purely theatrical magic, and on that faith it unquestionably delivers." |
|
| Link | Rich on Cats |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I would say that Rich gave Cats a generally favorable review | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 01:37 am EST 02/22/20 | |
| In reply to: I would say that Rich gave Cats a generally favorable review - AlanScott 06:57 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| Wow. Thanks for sharing. That is a fantastic opening to a review. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| OK. How about "Smokey Joe's Cafe" | |
| Posted by: aleck 08:13 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: I would say that Rich gave Cats a generally favorable review - AlanScott 06:57 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| A money review? | |
| Link | And then it ran over 2000 performances |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: OK. How about "Smokey Joe's Cafe" | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 09:27 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 09:26 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: OK. How about "Smokey Joe's Cafe" - aleck 08:13 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, that's a much better example. And I think by 1995 the influence of the Times had already begun to lessen. Still, if you go back in time, you can find Atkinson raves not leading to even decent runs, and Atkinson negative reviews not killing a show if most of the other reviews were good and people wanted to see it. Goldman in The Season made a big thing out of The Rope Dancers running for six months thanks to Atkinson, but he said nothing about love from Atkinson not persuading enough people to buy tickets for The Grass Harp and Greenwillow. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Your post made my day | |
| Posted by: dczoo 05:25 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: The "power" of the Times? - aleck 03:22 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm taking the train up from DC tomorrow to see WSS matinee for the second time and NYCB "Swan Lake" in the evening (although in this case, it's Martins' production, so I'm guessing his spirit is still hanging out). About Brantley's WSS review, I can't prove it, of course, but I'd bet about half of it was written before he left for the theater. And his analysis of the acting and choreography just feels lazy. Perhaps he's still recovering from jet lag. Peter Marks' in the Washington Post is an unqualified rave. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| And yet... | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 05:07 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: The "power" of the Times? - aleck 03:22 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| ... I'll bet producers of The Inheritance are still bemoaning Brantley's mixed review. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And yet... | |
| Posted by: ryhog 05:28 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: And yet... - MockingbirdGirl 05:07 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| and once again I am forced to say, there are no rules. Here is what we know: 1. Shows people want to see succeed without regard to anyone's review. 2. Shows people do not want to see fail without regard to anyone's review. 3. Shows that are flying under the radar (and this rarely if ever refers to a Broadway show, for obvious reasons) usually benefit from any review, good, bad, or indifferent. 4. Shows that are at the margins are most likely to see an effect (in some direction) from a review. But even these are not rules. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.037809 seconds.