Thursday, August 03, 2006

Review from the Metro: History vs. Musical Theatre

So, the reviewer from the Metro thinks that knowing too much of the real history behind a frothy musical theatre production creates "cognitive dissonance."

What do you think? Read it and weigh in...

Honestly, the more I think about this review the more it bugs me. I think the job of the critic is to review what's happening on stage. Everything else the critic experiences is superfluous. The background material on the characters is fascinating - I've enjoyed reading it (and kudos to Reggie Reynolds for pulling it all together), but it really has no bearing on the show we're presenting (or the show written by Herbert & Dorothy Fields, revised by Peter Stone).

Ms. Messina made the review all about her. Someone reading this review (or any review) should come away with an idea of whether or not it's worth plunking down their hard-earned cash for a ticket. I don't think the Metro reader would be any closer to making that decision after reading it.

I've read this "review" three or four times now, and every time I've been left with the same question: "Yeah, but is the show any good?"

Fortunately, I happen to know that the answer is yes, emphatically so! But other readers not so closely connected with the show might not be aware of that yet. ;-)
I have to agree with Mike. It almost appears that this reviewer was set to pan the show, and to her dismay discovered that it was too good to pan, so instead she had to show her superiority by dissing the publicity material. Come on, when have Broadway musicals (or the movies made from them) ever reflected real life? Makes me worry that she thinks that "The Sound of Music" is the entire story of the Trapp Family Singers! Bottom line- if you read between her comments about the background material, she does say that she likes the show. Unfortunately, most readers skim over these reviews, so that is probably lost on them!
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?