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