Yes and no. Many shows thrive without a Times rave, many shows shutter with one.
I really don't think the Times review being a rave is "free publicity", or that it develops into that. And I don't think it would have done all that much to get a rave unless it was "this is an unmissable theatrical event that is both thrilling and moving/important/unique" ... maybe that would have helped sell a lot of tickets to theater people who were on the fence... but the truth is that the word of mouth about it has been reflecting generally what a Times reviewer would say (and did) for a month now... so if it were that, we'd have heard it by now, and instead I heard the opposite echoed many times. But if the Times had said "it was a rocky preview period, but the butterfly has emerged from it and you don't want to miss it", then the tide might have changed. It isn't the Times fault that the show isn't better than it is. Had this been the off-broadway production he saw, it sounds like he'd have written a glowing and encouraging review. And the further truth is the show just A) didn't have the appeal it needed to, and/or B) the marketing campaign just did not effectively reach the right people and make them want to buy tickets, or the amount of people it needed to.
For a lot of shows a Times rave can really change the tide, and a Times pan can too. But I don't think this was one of those shows, for several reasons. |
