Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 | |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.012833 seconds.