Dear "Theater" Talk,

I don't know if this has ever been previously addressed, but I cannot look at your website or watch your series without my eyes immediately going to the shameless misspelling of the word "Theatre". While there is no dictionary defined difference, it has been a long held tradition that when referring to the art form, the word is to be spelled ending with RE, when referring to a building (such as a movie house), it is spelled ER. This is something held up by several academic institutions and in my experience, while seeming to be a small issue, it does reflect upon the competence and legitimacy of those discussing it. It is very hard for some people to take your program seriously because of this beaming grammatical oversight. I realize that a change would impact a lot of things for you especially because you have so many online connections, but it would certainly count towards your credibility. Please take this into consideration.

PS. You have permission to post this on your sight.

-Don Jackson
Lighting and Scenic Designer
Graduate Student, UCLA

Dear Don:
My Googling tells me that this is an long obsolete distinction. The New York Times, for example, uses theater throughout its "Theater", "Movies", and "Arts & Leisure" sections. We do too, because this "er" spelling is more progressive in both its look and definition, inclusive of all aspects of this ever-changing art form and term.

Also, as Patrick R. Dorn writes on BroadwayWorld.com:
"When Daniel Webster codified American English into his now-famous dictionary, he decided to un-anglicize many words. “Honour” became “honor,” “grey” became “gray,” and “theatre” became “theater.”

That's good enough for us.

Thanks for writing.
Best,
Susan

"KINNEY's Voicemail RANT against Riedel"

Kudos to Terry Kinney for his voicemail to Michael Riedel. I am stunned that "Theater Talk" had the courage to address it.

I completely agree with Kinney's cri de coeur: He said it perfectly: "We're just working on our play, man..It's ridiculous and it's corrosive and it's misleading for a little play and an unknown cast, for you to try to kill it in this way, so quickly..."

I saw reasons to be pretty in preview; many of my friends have seen it since it opened; several of us (but not all) are current or have been theatre professionals. There is consensus that reasons to be pretty is not to be missed. The script is rich with insight into the expectations that 21st-century men and women have of each other, and how those frustrated or misunderstood expectations cause pain. And the performances are extraordinary--we as an audience seem to be watching not performances, but behavior--each moment is fresh, grounded, and real. I'll take this show over Priscilla, Queen of the Desert any day.

Interesting that an alleged theatre professional like Mr. Riedel apparently so completely missed the emotional truth so clearly on display in reasons to be pretty.

Judi Polson

Angela Lansbury Interview

Dear Susan,

I don't really feel qualified to suggest any nominations. However, I must comment on how wonderful the interview w/ Angela Lansbury was!!! It was a conversation and a terrific one. I think this season has been one of the best that TT has ever had. You continue to be my link to what is going on in NY theatre and I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the work that you do. (Oh yes, and Micheal isn't so bad either, but he looks better with glasses.) ;-)

warmest regards,

Joan Vogelle

Question

From: ba2000@yahoo.com
To: theatertlk@aol.com
Sent: Sun, 10 May 2009 10:26 pm
Subject: theater talk

Are Haskins and Riedel married?

From: theatertlk@aol.com
To: ba2000@yahoo.com
Sent: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: theater talk

No.

It's Equus, Not Gossipuus!

Says Timothy Lewis of Brooklyn, NY:

Dear Theater Talk,

I was offended by Michael Riedel's gossipy discussion about Richard Burton's preparations for his run as Dysart in the Broadway production of Equus. I saw both Richard Burton and Anthony Hopkins in the role and they were both excellent. Burton was particularly engaging. He spoke the text so beautifully that the audience leaned forward to take in the pure physical pleasure of the sound of his voice and he underplayed the part right up to the last monologue when he literally blew the roof off the theater. On very rare occasions in the theater have I had my heart taken from me and lifted to the rafters but that evening was just such an occasion. Burton's performance that night was transcendent.

Who cares if he had trouble with the lines (and the booze) while in rehearsal and why should cheap gossip be the focus of Riedel's commentary? The fact is that Burton was one of the greatest actors of our time and that he did a marvelous job in Equus. To suggest that his greatness was only limited to his early successes and that we should chastise his later indulgences in morally superior hindsight is to diminish Burton's many accomplishments and the also craft of acting. Certainly we can compliment the current production without having to take cheap shots at those who are no longer with us to defend themselves.

An Emotional Transition!

Alexander Drago writes:

Dear Mr. Riedel:
My daughter and I are avid fans of Theater Talk. In fact, one of the few times a week when we could spend time together, we spent it watching the show. I say all that in past tense because now she is off to college (Syracuse, BFA, Musical Theater) so I am taping the shows for when she returns. I was never a "theater" person until my daughter started performing and then we took her to everything. I began to appreciate theater more and your show has helped with that. From the title one could get the impression that it is for folks already conversant with "theater" and that recent devotees would be lost. Not at all. Each show stands on its own and you learn not just about theater, but history, business, life lessons, etc. At times it is even irreverent, which is a good thing. The show about Walt Disney's biography was really about the history of an American icon and you never had to see a Broadway show to appreciate it.

The chemistry between you and Susan is also wonderful. Her rantings about feminism during the shows regarding A Catered Affair and the Tony show that discussed Boeing Boeing and your dismissive responses were classic.

I have a question that I have tried to answer on my own, but despite my education, I cannot. During the show when you interviewed Arthur Laurents, he said that he was taught to make transitions by emotion, and not dialogue. Susan agreed as though that concept was generally accepted. What does that mean exactly?

Thank you in advance for your response, and I look forward to more shows.

In response, from Susan Haskins:

Dear Mr. Drago:
Glad you like my feminist rants. I'm only sorry I had to leave the one about Les Liasons Dangereuse on the (mental) cutting room floor.

As for transitions. In the old days, shows went from scene to scene following the script: Lights out on the living room. Lights up on a street in Paris.... or sometimes Eddie Cantor skipped across the stage in front of a curtain while the scenery was changed.

One of the significant innovations of the contemporary musical (best epitomized by Jerome Robbins' work with Arthur Laurents in Gypsy) is things happen between scenes to connect them in meaning. The emotional force of the work is carried along by the nature of the transitions. They are as important as the scenes themselves. (The most famous one in that show is when Baby June and her newsboys finish performing, and then they do this horizontal moving dance before a strobe in which they turn into older versions of themselves). The musical functions as one ongoing unit designed to deliver an emotional wallop (I think of Hal Prince's original production of Follies or - to be more up-to-date, Jersey Boys), not a series of scenes with dips in between, during which the audience's involvement could be undermined and diminish.

A new musical that has this force is FELA, which opens tomorrow Off-Broadway... very powerful.

Out of Touch Much?

Here's an interesting bit of correspondence about what seem to be two worlds of theater: what the audience actually likes, and what the critics think that audiences should like. The letters come our way from viewer Mel Cook and producer Susan Haskins:

Mel Cook:

Always enjoy the show, but amazed at how so many of the critics seem to be out of touch with the theatergoing public. For example, three friends have told me they walked out of Top Girls, yet a critic on the show thought it was great theater. Critics seem to view shows through a different prism.

Susan Haskins:

Top Girls was the most riveting and important play I saw all year. I don't know about being in-touch with the "theatergoing public," but I know my own heart and mind, and your friend missed out by leaving early.

Mel Cook:

I did not see Top Girls so I can't take sides, but I've seen other shows that made me wonder what standards were being used by the critics. One I recall (because I thought it was so awful) was Dying City. The NYT critic gave it a recommendation, but people stayed away in droves, I assume because the "buzz" was so negative. Even though it was in a small theatre in Lincoln Center, TDF tickets were always available up to early Saturday morning for Saturday afternoon and PM performances. What people look for in shows and what theatre critics look for might be a good topic for discussion on a future Theatre Talk. Maybe that will answer the question why critically acclaimed shows sometimes fail at the box office and shows that get panned go on to big box office results.

Susan Haskins:

I totally agree with you on Dying City. I sat there feeling like I'd been duped by the NY Times. In fact, I often feel that way- most recently at the HORRENDOUS Boeing-Boeing. But again, I did love Top Girls.

I'll throw my own opinion into the hat, too: I think we all have different opinions, shaped by years of exposure to various forms of theater, from high drama to the offbeat avant-garde. I saw Sunday in the Park with George with two friends: one left at intermission, the other loved the second act, I felt impressed but not emotionally so. Not a single one of us was right: there is no such thing as a correct opinion. Critics seem "out of touch" when they forget that and try to force a blanket statement onto the audience, or onto the show: they would be better served (and better serve the shows) by explaining why they prefer the hard truths of Top Girls more than the easy entertainment of Young Frankenstein, and not chastising the audience for sticking with their guts. Then you'll know what they're looking for in a show (as opposed to what you might be), and can learn to trust or shun their opinion in the future.

Let's Talk TONY! (The 12th Annual Theater Talk Viewer Tony Poll)

In honor of the upcoming TONY specials on Theater Talk, we're turning the Viewer Comments into vote central. Take the The 12th Annual Theater Talk Viewer Tony Poll (see the sidebar to the right) and tell us who you think should win the award for each category. If you'd like to elaborate, please post your thoughts to the comment box below. As you'll know if you watch the Critics' Cavalcade (6/11 @ 12:30 AM on Thirteen), a recap of the season from 16 NY theater critics, I'm in favor of August: Osage County (though I thought The Seafarer was dead on) and Passing Strange, and strongly rooting for Rufus Sewell to pull Best Actor for Rock 'n' Roll and Jenna Russell for Sunday in the Park with George (even though, like Deanna Dunagan, Mark Rylance and Patti LuPone will probably take top honors). I'd also like to see Stew beat out Lin-Manuel Miranda and Paulo Szot--Stew's alternative, but there's no denying the power of that voice. (Again, check out the Cavalcade to see a performance of "Work The Wound.")

You can also check out official TONY Predictions from Jesse Green (NY Magazine), Michael Musto (The Village Voice), and Patrick Pacheco (The Los Angeles Times), not to mention Susan Haskins and Michael Riedel, as they break down the reality of who can actually win, and why. This special episode will air Friday, June 13th at 12:30 AM on Thirteen, and repeat airings can be caught on CUNY TV (see www.cuny.tv for exact times).

You Say You Like Musicals?

This Friday, Sir Tim Rice stops by Theater Talk to talk about some of his successes (Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, and The Lion King) as well as the return of cult-favorite Chess next weekend in a concert version. This week's poll questions how much of a musical theater lover you are, and my question for you all here extends to how you actually feel about musicals today.

Do you feel that musicals need to be spectacles, as with Spamalot and Wicked, or can they focus more on a pure sound, like Jersey Boys? Should the musical tilt more toward the imagination of Disney's high-priced Little Mermaid, or should it tilt more toward windmills, as with the recent low-budget revivals of Man of La Mancha that have spread throughout the off-Broadway community? And when it comes to revivals, are you more in favor of the emphasis on music, like with Lincoln Center's South Pacific, or are you the sort of person who prefers a fresh twist in the production, like the pared-down orchestra and technological advancements of Sunday in the Park with George, or the ensemble-as-orchestra phenomenon of John Doyle's Company and Sweeney Todd?

For that matter, how do you feel about originality on the Broadway stage? Revivals like Gypsy and the upcoming West Side Story feed a desire to latch on to our memories, and movie adaptations like Cry Baby and Hairspray give new life to old pap (and vice-versa, as with the film adaptations of Chicago and The Producers), but do you prefer these established stories, or do you prefer to be wowed by something new, like In the Heights or Passing Strange?

A CATERED AFFAIR'S FIERSTEIN

I watch Theater Talk online here in Denver. Just wanted to say that the Harvey Fierstein interview was wonderful and I actually wished it could have gone on longer. His description of how John Doyle directs was quite interesting.

Greg Rice
Denver, CO

this play has never been about race

Susan--

While I agree that John Lahr's interpretation of the mendacity in "Cat" as specifically that present in a Southern society in denial about it's racial past adds depth to the meaning of the play, I fear that it simultaneously subtracts breadth. To narrow the focus of the play to one specific type of society lessens the universality of the message. One can be disgusted with the superficiality of society without bringing race into it. For me, this play has never been about race, so the casting makes no difference in terms of the impact of the message. Perhaps the thought never occurred to me because I am not a Southerner, but that's precisely my point. Is John saying that I can't apply the message to my own life because the mendacious society I deal with doesn't have racial overtones? That defies the whole purpose of art which John so clearly articulated in the show: externalizing internal absence so that others might recognize the same absence in themselves and feel less alone.

Feel free to post these comments. Thanks for asking!

Carol Hampton,
Theater Devotee and Loyal Viewer

CAT Show: "Gutsy and Informative "

I thought it was gutsy and informative. Ms. Ashley was downright passionate and instructive about her southern knowlege. When she shed light on how very close families down south were, Lahr's quiet response also took on more meaning. Ashley must have been a devine Maggie the Cat !

However, James Earl Jones was a brillant big daddy! And he was almost going to become a Broadway supreme court justice ! His performance in Othello decades ago was another show stopper !

Theater Talk 's discussion on Cat on a Hot Tin Roof was just that. Hot ! It is fun to watch both guests walk down the aisle in our imaginations and go to one of Williams very best ! The heat was up a little bit as it was more intimate with Michael's eyes wide open to the guests too !

- Catherine Gropper, playwright

Do Not Resuscitate? Or, What Brings a Revival to Life?

This week on Theater Talk, actress Elizabeth Ashley (nominated for a Tony for her performance as Maggie in the '74 revival) and The New Yorker critic John Lahr discuss playwright Tennessee Williams and what led him to create the classic American drama, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. They also debate the relevance of doing this fifties southern-family drama with an all-Black cast (including James Earl Jones, Terrence Howard and Phylica Rashad).

You can see a preview here. Additionally, on CUNY TV (4/19 @ 8:30, 4/20 @ 12:30, and 4/21 @ 7:30, 1:30, and 7:30), you can see Harvey Fierstein discussing his new musical, A Catered Affair, which just opened on Broadway.

Let's focus, for a moment then, on a revivals. For instance, what specifically do you look for in a revival? Do you want to see modernizations, like the current Macbeth, or are you drawn to shows with star power, like Gypsy's Patti LuPone, or sold by classic archival revivals, like Lincoln Center's South Pacific? And how much is too much in a revival -- that is, at what point does a stylistic choice, as with Cat on a Hot Tin Roof's all-Black cast, run the risk of altering the message of the play? And who should be making that call? Some playwrights, like Beckett or Albee, have fiercely guarded the direction of their work, but how much leeway should a director have? (For instance, Jenny Schwartz of God's Ear, writes: "While I am incredibly exacting and precise with regard to the sounds of the words, I leave the play's physical world entirely up to the director and designers. So, ironically, because I was trained as a director, I am extremely hands-off. I enjoy my role as the playwright and want the director to bring as much of herself to the production as I have."

Remember: this is not a one-man show; we welcome your thoughts in the comment box below and your votes on the poll to the right. (Results from last week: "What's the most you've ever paid for a theater ticket?" The majority of voters, 12, have never spent over $100 on a show [five have spent at least $400, and one has spent over $1000), but only one voter has gone with $20 tickets only.)

Sillerman Sounds Off on What Some Call "Silly" Prices

If you tune in to Theater Talk this weekend (you can still catch the episode on CUNY TV, Channel 75, Sat. @ 8:30 PM, Sun. @ 12:30 PM, Mon. @ 7:30 AM, 1:30 PM, and 7:30 PM), then you'll have the chance to hear ROBERT F.X. SILLERMAN, the Executive Producer of Mel Brooks's YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, discussing the new musical and the controversial ticket pricing (which has since been abolished, with all ticket prices now below $120).

There's a new poll up on the right side of the page that asks "What's the most you've ever spent on tickets to the theater?" but we'd love to have some comments in the box below -- the question we're asking is "How do you feel about the current cost of tickets?"

Consider also, in a recent issue of American Theater magazine, that critic Eric Bentley asked whether or not (for some shows) critics should operate economically instead of critically: that is, "What the Broadway theater needs is a consumer guide. That's what the so-called critics should provide. Tickets, as everyone knows, are very expensive. Before you spend that money, even though you're rich, you want a little guidance as to whether it's going to be well spent."

Is that what the audience really wants, however? Or what it needs?

- Aaron Riccio
Associate Producer, THEATER TALK
Editor, Theater Talk's New Theater Corps

Theater TALK -- Not Theater Listen

For those of you who are long-time viewers, or even those of you just tuning in through this mailbag of reader responses to the show, part of the fun of Theater Talk is in the live discussion that gets behind creative choices, artistic decisions, and the behind-the-scenes reality of the theater. For that reason, our goal is to improve this mail blog, opening up as much as we can to you, the reader and viewer, who wants to talk back.

Every Friday, at midnight, we'll be posting a new poll and 'discussion' topic -- and check back throughout the week for new letters, which you can submit by e-mailing newtheatercorps@gmail.com. You can also talk back directly through the comments so as to keep the discussion going; you can even do so anonymously -- whatever it takes to keep Theater Talking. We hope, in the coming weeks and months, to become a focused center for hot topic issues, where the community can respond to artists, the industry, and critics alike. Additionally, you can also check out Theater Talk's New Theater Corps, our growing site of young critics, who are at this minute probably scouring the downtown scene for new and exciting theater.

Have other ideas, suggestions, comments, or complaints? Feel free to write us: we're interested in what you have to say.

Mad as a Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

I am writing to express my outrage at what I heard Elizabeth Ashley say on your show concerning how she prepared to play Maggie the Cat in Cat On a Hot Tin Roof. She explained that she starved three cats for two weeks to observe their behavior.

At first I thought she was kidding, but apparently not. The two moderators of the show thought this was funny. I was appalled. Need I even explain why? What other living, sentient beings would Ms. Ashley condone torturing to prepare for a role--children, old people?

No one could possibly sanction animal cruelty for art's sake, be it film, painting, or acting. As a singer and some time actor myself, I believe her comments are insulting to the traditions of the theater.

Even more upsetting than Ms Ashley's stupid and heartless behavior is the apparent acquiescence of the hosts of your show. I urge you to somehow address this huge mistake. I leave it up to you to figure out how.

- Burton A. Borovetz

Roundabout with Roundabout

[1/12] Dear Susan and Michael,

I became a Roundabout subscriber the year it produced 1776, one of my all-time favorite shows, and have never been sorry I did. I have several other theatre subscriptions (as well as opera and Philharmonic series), see as many other shows on Broadway, off and off-off Broadway (as far off as the Flea) as I can afford - and don't regard my taste as especially "middling." But I am still learning. And the Roundabout is part of my theatre education.

One of the pleasures of my subscription has been the Roundabout's Pels Theatre productions over the years. Those plays are almost always new, carefully produced and performed and worth seeing. Have I loved every one? No. Am I glad I saw them? You bet. One learns to listen to each playwright for what he or she is saying, even if one may not like the play much. Next, I'll be seeing Speech and Debate in the new black box theatre below the present Pels Theatre. Looking forward to that.

My principal regret is that Assassins didn't have a longer run. It was brilliant.

And I have welcomed the chance to see classics, some that I'd never seen and some that it is a pleasure to revisit. The quality of the casts has usually been superior. Perhaps one of the reasons why so many extraordinary actors come to Roundabout productions is that they can commit for their limited runs. Seeing the Redgrave sisters together was worth that year's subscription. Furthermore, Susan, I got some good laughs at Old Acquaintance, light fare though it was.

Some comments on your interview of Todd Haims on January 12, 2008:

1) The Roundabout was established to present classics - look at its name!

2) It's OK even for a "nonprofit" to have successful productions. How inane to think otherwise.

3) Haimes used your "attack" opening and Michael's snarky questioning effectively as a kickoff to describe the range of Roundabout theatrical and educational activities, I thought.

4) Why do you tend to fawn over Brits and attack Americans? I've always wondered ...
But I'll continue to watch your show. It's usually interesting.

Sincerely,
Sarah S.

---------------------------------------
[1/12] Susan Haskins responds:

Thank you for writing.

I though Todd was very articulate and dealt with our criticism beautifully. I only pride us for having edited the show to make that abundantly clear.

Do I - Susan - fawn over Brits v Americans? I try not to (despite that inherent disposition in almost anyone of my generation). Actually, I just saw The 39 Steps tonight. I liked it very very much, but at the same time I found myself regretting that many idigenous NYC companies, probably doing equally innovative work, can't get as easily "discovered' here sometimes, as those from London.

Thanks so much for watching our program and taking the time to write.
All the best,
Susan Haskins

PS. As for Old Aquaintance, I suppose it had humorous moments. It just struck me as such a waste of money on a second-rate, pedestrian exercise in playwriting. I thought van Druten had really "phoned" that one in, way back when.

-------------------------
1/13 Sarah S. replies

Dear Ms. Haskins:

Yes, the program was well edited well to make Todd Haimes' responses the focus. I just felt that some of Michael's questions were unnecessary put-downs. (But that's often true - I do shout at him fairly often because he interrupts speakers in the middle of thoughts.)

And no, Susan, you don't fawn over Brits! Sorry for the lack of clarity. In fact, your questions tend to bring out the most in guests that we non-theatre-insiders are interested to hear. And thank you for that.

Your point about the Roundabout's importing two British shows this season is well taken. It surprised me, too, because that has not been the custom. The London production of [Sunday in the Park with George] did get great reviews from friends who saw it there and, I suppose, if Steve Sondheim wanted it done at the Roundabout, that was the deciding vote. They do well by his shows - and where else would we have seen Pacific Overtures reprised?

I just like seeing Margaret Colin onstage - that's probably why I enjoyed Old Acquaintance. It wasn't a great play, I agree.

Keep up the good work. Your show is set for automatic series recording and "keep" - I always look forward to seeing it.

Thanks,
Sarah S.

Praising November, Panning August?

[Feb. 24]

Susan, in the span of minutes you praised November as a great comedy (almost no one agrees with this) and then criticized August: Osage County for being "like a soap opera everyone can see at home for free."

Are you sure you saw these shows? You are way, way off base here. There are times I feel you serve a purpose on the show to give the "everyman" viewpoint, but this is really ridiculous.

Gary Jaffe
New York, NY

-----------------------------------------
[Feb. 25] Susan Haskins responds:

I did see both shows, and while I don't believe I called November a "great" comedy (I said I enjoyed it - which is not quite the same thing - and loved Nathan Lane), I did perceive August/Osage pretty much as you say.

Am I on the show to be everywoman? I do like to think my perceptions are more astute than that ... but whatever, there I am (and I produce Theater Talk, which is not unrelated),

I did not see August/Osage as a superior play-- though I wasn't bored and appreciated the acting. Also, I didn't so much see it as a soap opera. It was more like a "Lifetime" movie (which is a very influential populist form of the last decade or so . . . that everywoman is aware of, so maybe you are right about me).

Thank you so much for writing. We are delighted to hear your views!

Best,
Susan

---------------------------
[Feb. 25] Gary writes:

Dear Susan,

Upon further reflection -- and I'm not in any way trying to be rude . . . But, I find that the problem with Theater Talk is that you and Michael tend to engage in what I'd call "personal opinion and taste" rather than intellectual theater critique. So, your audience is often left with lots of giggling and snide comments from the two of you, but very little actual theatrical criticism. I feel that ON STAGE on NY1 does a much better job of getting the information to the NY theater audience.

This is what bothered me about your "takes" on NOVEMBER and AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY -- it was just your "personal reaction" to these pieces, and did not seem founded in any deep knowledge of theater history.

Best,
Gary Jaffe

Theater Talk Preempted Tonight on Thirteen

Theater Talk Preempted Tonight on Thirteen. What else is new? Thirteen seems to take pleasure in preempting Theater Talk as it does so frequently. The uninteresting program replacement this evening is baffling as to why they are even doing this. I guess it never occurs to those in charge of Thirteen that they might be able to fundraise around Theater Talk and that the program has loyal viewers. They never seem interested in promoting it either. They'd rather repeat stale, boring shows instead of appreciating what they have in Theater Talk and how important it is to the culture of this community.

-- Michael Carlin

Butley

Butley is one of my favorite plays. Thank you for the interview with its author. However, next time you show a scene from a show, please don't talk over the dialogue. I couldn't listen to Susan, Nathan & the other actor at the same time. Thank you and keep up the good work.

P.S. - I caught the trailer for The History Boys & it looks pretty good.

A Question about Clive Barnes

Dear Theatertalkers:
I missed the first six minutes of your broadcast this week, so I don't know if you discussed "The Drowsy Chaperone" or not -- but I did see you mentioned at the end of the broadcast how it was the favorite of most of your panel, but not Clive's.

I am a big fan of the show -- have recommended it to many people who have thanked me because they loved it, too.  I was stunned when I read Mr. Barnes' review, where I remember he included the word 'horrifying.'  Because I haven't seen Mr. Barnes in recent years, when I read that review I decided that sadly he must have lost his mind.  Even if a particular show it's a critic's cup of tea, as a reporter he must have at least noticed how hard people were laughing all around him, and how much fun the audience was having.  If it was truly a horrifying show, that could never have happened. 

Was his review discussed at the top of the show?  Will this program be broadcast again (can you tell me when?).  If it's not going to be re-broadcast, can you tell me if he had a reasonable explanation for his review?

I am a folksinger/songwriter -- not a theater person -- but I've been going to more and more theater shows (esp since I joined TDF).  I find it baffling when reviewers ignore the effect the play or musical is having on the audience, and write as if theirs is the only opinion that counts.  I respect a reviewer who will admit things like "though everyone around me laughed themselves silly I found it dull" -- at least it acknowledges the response the production is getting from others at the same performance. 

One show that took a horrible drubbing at the hands of the Times was back in 2001 called "Blast."  It was unusual in that it was a stage show fashioned out of a halftime drum and bugle corps performance (by the world champion drum and bugle corps, so it had the best from that world onstage).  I don't even care for drum and bugle corps' performances, but I found that show  absorbing.  I admired the moxie of all the kids (there were 60 in the cast, ranging in age from 18-30).  I went to see it three times, and brought different people each time, who all loved it (even one who is a member of the Metropolitan Opera Club, pretty much a music snob).  At one performance I sat next to people from Portugal who spoke no English, but we were able to communicate enough to find out they loved the performance.  At another I sat next to a black couple from New Jersey who had never been to a Broadway play in their lives, and they loved it.

When the Times' review came out, I remember the reviewer said he was bored to tears, they were so perfect in their execution that he was hoping someone would screw up onstage to make it interesting.  Knowing how much rehearsal went into what they did, my heart broke for those kids who found themselves being penalized for doing their jobs too well.

I wrote to that reviewer telling him how this show was bringing in new audiences to Broadway, audiences that had a great time and would probably come back for another show, but audiences who, if they read his review, would feel embarrassed for liking something he thought was so pedestrian.

That reviewer actually wrote back to me and apologized -- he said that he hates anything repetitive done in unison -- he mentioned "42nd Street" and "Riverdance" as two productions he particularly loathed -- and that because of the repetitive nature of the work in "Blast" it was something he hated instantly, and maybe he was the wrong one to send to see it.  He said he would go back and look at it again with fresh eyes -- instead of thinking the perfect unison of the dancers, rifle twirlers et. al. as a drawback,he would try to see it as the result of hours and hours of dedication.

I made a copy of his letter and sent it to the cast of "Blast" thinking it might soften the sting of his cruel review.  But then 9/11 happened and the show closed prematurely as everything went bad there for awhile.  At least the Tony organization had the sense to bestow a special award to the show (like they did for Dame Edna) -- to acknowledge what they were doing was outside of mainstream Broadway, but worthwhile on its own terms.

Speaking of Dame Edna (then I'll stop -- I must get to bed -- it's almost 6 am) -- I wrote to Barry Humphries (we are email pals) that whenever he gets tired of running his own show, he should think about playing Mrs. Tottendale in "Drowsy Chaperone."  Think about that.  Wouldn't that be the best?

It would be Barry Humphries playing Dame Edna playing Ukelele Lil playing Mrs. Tottendale.  I think the layers of artifice would appeal to Bob Martin and company.  And Barry is already friends with Edward Hibbert.  I can only imagine the spit-take scene with those two boys.

Of course, Georgia Engel is perfect, so it'll have to wait til she's ready to move on.

Love your show,
Christine Lavin