Tonight, after dinner, Walt said he was glad I had been ble to make a
visit to Davis. I told him I thought it was a nice little town and I hoped I would
be able to spend more time here.
Yes, tomorrow I'm on the road again, to take my mother back to Kaiser
to have her TB test read a second time. Fortunately I have two things to do
in San Rafael. I never got my I.D. faxed to the medical secretaries and, as my
mother's appointment tomorrow is 12:30, they will be there and I can prove that I am who I
say I am at that time.
Then it will be over. I hope.
Last night we went to the world premiere of a new musical, The
Little Princess, based on the book of the same name by Frances Hodgson Burnett, who
also wrote The Secret Garden.
I've
been following Hollywood and Broadway and all things concerned with both places for it
seems most of my life. I think my love of celebrities and movies and stage shows was
fostered by both my mother, who loved listening to radio soap operas and reading movie
magazines, and my grandmother, who had been a chorus girl in Vaudeville and periodically
took my mother to a stage show in downtown San Francisco.
Because I read a lot of stuff about things going on around Broadway,
I know that occasionally you'll read about this fabulous new play or musical that is in
out of town tryouts. You get all excited because it has a stellar cast of big name
talent involved and you're sure that it's going to be a big hit.
But then you don't hear much about it and then you find out that it
closed out of town.
Or it might open in New York and close after a day or a week.
I've always wondered how that can be, when you have top production
values, big name stars who have proven themselves able to do well on the stage. What
goes wrong?
Well, I kind of had a taste of that with The Little Princess
last night. We were several scenes into the show before I realized that we really
didn't have a plot going yet. A thin plot eventually developed, but I was
sitting there through the first act wondering why, with good music, a great cast, and
everything else going for it, I couldn't get into this show.
At intermission, one of the other critics came and sat with me and we
compared notes. He had the person he had brought to the show had been saying the same
thing. There seemed to be no "there, there."
I had hope that the second act which, according to the program,
seemed to be much shorter than the first, would kind of begin to take all the disparate
elements we saw in the first act and bring them all together.
However, it was the fourth (of seven) songs before we got a
song that actually fit into the thin plot developed in the first act. The show
eventually reached its conclusion and had me weeping because I'm a weeper and it was a
tender ending, but I still felt that the show was missing something big that I couldn't
define.
The critics got together in the courtyard after we left the theater
and I was happy to see that everybody shared my feelings, and we all agreed that whether
the writers intended it to or not, they had borrowed heavily from other musicals.
In fact, one number in Act 2 was so like "Be Our Guest" from Beauty
and the Beast that I found those lyrics running through my head.
When I encounter a show like this, I like to check out the internet
and find out what critics in other towns thought, but though there have been several
musical version of the Burnett book written for children's theater, this particular
version is brand new.
I checked Amazon and found that the original book is so old you can
get it free for the Kindle, so I ordered it and have been reading it this afternoon.
Surprisingly, the musical follows the book faithfully, but what is
missing in the musical is Burnett's descriptions of what is going on with Sara (who is 7
in the book and 13 in the musical), her thought process and a lot of the descriptions of
the interactions with other girls at the school in which she has been enrolled.
I could see, reading this, how the authors tried to do good by the
book, but, as one of my fellow critics said when we were doing our recap together (which
we almost never do, by the way), was "Well, I guess there is a reason why
they have been shopping this show around for 20 years. You don't usually open a big
new musical in a town like Sacramento."
I'll be very curious to see what the other critics have to say about
this show.
4 comments:
Wasn't there a Shirley Temple movie loosely based on that story? I remember watching it and being annoyed at some things...
I am deeply disturbed by your comments. Not because you didn't like a show, or had problems getting into it, or even for some gratuitous backhand stabs. It is because you admitted to something a critic, a true critic, must never, ever do. You discussed your reactions to the work with other critics BEFORE you wrote a review of it. Before you committed your own beliefs to "paper", you allowed yourself to be influenced (or reciprocally influenced others.) At this point, nothing you could write in a review can be taken as wholely your own, nothing you can say at this point is not tainted with the subjectivism of others. It would be perfectly fine if, after all reviews were published, you got together as a group to discuss them. But to do so before the fact is a complete failure of honesty, responsibility, credibility and integrity. You have also tainted every other review that may come out about this piece. As you did not name the other critics, ALL critical reviews of this piece are now suspect. Criticism, whether positive or negative, is valuable only when it is the sole product of the author. That you and your fellows 'critics' may collude is dishonest enough, that you admit it and then try to shrug it off by saying you rarely do it is disingenuous. I understand this BLOG is a statement of your 'personal' and not your 'professional' opinion. I read in your profile that you have been called a 'bitter hack'. I know nothing about the 'bitter' part, but if you ever publish an actual review of this piece having made this admission of collusion, the second term will go a long way to being established.
Since we were all in agreement, and all puzzled by our feelings about this show, nobody can really have influenced anybody else.
I appreciate your responese. However, how could you possibly know you 'were all in agreement' unless you began speaking to each other about the show, a big no-no. Additionally, you cannot know what goes on in the mind of others, how people can be pulled into 'group think' for 'peer acceptance.' Influences come from many sources, and we are not always aware what effect we have on others, or what they have on us. The opinion of 'professional critics' is held to a different standard from the opinions of others. The time to talk together is after publication. Enough said on the subject, I believe you understand the underlying principle.
Post a Comment