I am not centralparkkid, but I will answer your question anyway (I am beginning to have an identity problem in this thread). There was a graveyard scene last night. The odd part about the scene was that the gravedigger's wife goes looking for him. Now that I think of it, it just didn't seem to fit right. Her part seemed like filler where none was needed.

It took me a while to figure out what that "kid" reference was. I think it was a California Pizza Kitchen reference I made by mistake. :D

But yes, you just said what others have said about that scene and the guy who posted saying it was gone tonight says it is much better without it. I guess you have the privilege of being in the last audience to see that scene.

Thanks for the review, CPG. I like to get preview tickets just before opening night, by which time they will have ironed out all the wrinkles - maybe.

Sounds like it might be worthwhile at the discount price.

BTW, discount tickets are still available for "Gypsy". I get emails from Theatermania all the time. The only one not discounted is South Pacific, for which I'd gladly shell out $125 to see a second time.

panecott - I'm with you on South Pacific. I may get tix again because dh didn't see it. But I paid $50 the first time because I'm a member of Lincoln Center Theatre. It's a great deal. I don't normally do memberships or subscriptions (except the ballet), but with LCT, if you go to one event you've broken even with the membership fee. And you get to buy tix before they go on sale to the public ($40 for previews, $50 afterward). I just got in today's mail the first offer of the season - 'Dividing the Estate' with Eliz Ashley. It's not at LC because South Pacific is still playing, but it's from LCT.

Just wanted to piggyback CentralParkGirl's review, since we saw the show last night. I'm in agreement that it wasn't great, but good and entertaining, and there are some wonderful performances (especially James Barbour as Sydney, Natalie Toro as Madame Defarge, and also liked Mackenzie Mauzy as the Seamstress).
The first act was too long (1-1/2 hours) and to us, seemed very choppy since they were trying to cover a long time period and a lot of activity. As one example, in about 2 minutes, Lucie and Darnay get engaged, married, have a baby, who then becomes a little girl! The second act was very strong (and shorter).
The theater was packed with a very appreciative crowd. We had nosebleed seats, but they were just $59 and since they were in the center, were excellent for viewing the play.
Monday afternoon/evening was a great time to be in the city since it wasn't very crowded and we easily got street parking and had plenty of time for dinner at Uncle Nicks (and the ride home to NJ was a breeze).
Overall....while it will be interesting to see what the critics say and how this impacts the show, we thought it was an entertaining evening out!

Thank you for the report CP

Where have you been, andrew8?

We were out in Beverly Hills and Malibu Beach. It was a bad idea as I should have waited until I was done with this treatment. I didn't want to let my wife down as I knew how much she was looking forward to it.
Hope you're doing well !

Hey Andrew and sg,
Been thinking of you too.

andrew8 - what a way to spend a vacation - I hope you finish soon with the results that you want!!!

I pretty much agree with the reports on "Tale of Two Cities." I thought the tender songs were the best moments. Personally, I'm a bit surprised that this show was produced, because you spend about half the show comparing it to Les Miz. Impossible not to, given the time period and even the story lines bear some similarities.

Also agree about "South Pacific." I saw ALOT of shows this summer, and this stands out as one of the two I would turn right around and go back to see. (The other one was "Passing Strange" -- I was really sorry that closed.)

btw, both my mother and my MIL were with me at "South Pacific" and they felt the whole cast measured up to their memories of the original production, but they preferred Ezio Pinza as Emil and felt there was more chemistry between him and Nelly. I was perfectly happy with the current production and then some!!!

Thank you Starrs !!

Looking forward to hearing about your trip to Italy it Oct.

CP,
My wife just told me that she thinks her father wouldn't enjoy A Tale of Tow Cities. In the meantime I'm going to get tickets for Gypsy for his birthday. What's the legroom like at the St. James theater? Can you slide your feet under the seat in front of you?

the leg room at South Pacific was horrible. and i am not tall. Patrick is right about that theater. we were in the orchestra.

I don't remember any problems with legroom for Gypsy. We were in the orchestra.

The only other theater I remember legroom problems is the mezzanine wherever Grey Gardens was playing.

"What's the legroom like at the St. James theater? Can you slide your feet under the seat in front of you?"

Yes. It's an older theatre and while there may not be a lot of "knee room", there you can always slide your feet under the seat in front -- it's pretty level in the orchestra.

My wife and I saw the preview last night (Thursday). We were in the 3rd row of the mezzanine. Almost the entire mezzanine behind us was empty.

We were both very disappointed with the show. We have seen at least half of all shows playing on Broadway, so we do have points of reference. This show is no Les Mis, that's for sure. While there were some very good individual performances, they made the best of pretty lousy material. The music is entirely forgettable. I hope that they realize that and are rehearsing one or two new numbers that have catchy tunes. Half an hour after the show neither of us could recall even one tune.

My prediction is that this show will be roundly panned by the critics, and rightly so.

Patrick,
Any gossip on West Side Story? Preview performances start Feb. 23rd. I'm hoping it will be a memorable performance like South Pacific and Gypsy.

As I previously posted somewhere on Fodors, this upcoming revival of West Side Story will definitely be a change from the past. In a move towards realism, the Sharks' dialog will be delivered in Spanish, and perhaps the songs as well, but I'm not 100% sure of the latter. Similar to what is done at the opera, subtitles will be provided.
I also understand that some of the dialogue will be updated.
As for as "gossip" about the show, that's a bit premature (unless, of course, you consider the above-mentioned comments to be gossip!).
Anyway, my wife and I look forward to this latest production of one of our all-time favorite shows.

That's great to hear Howard that some of the songs/dialog will be presented in Spanish as both my wife and father in law are Spanish.

The only other "gossip" I'm aware of is that the original choreography will remain pretty much intact. No point in fooling around with perfection!

And they are supposedly casting it "age appropriate" so we can expect young and fresh talent.

A Tale of Two Cities was not treated too kindly by the critics this morning.

I read the TImes review, and didn't think it was as bad as they made it sound by any means!! I enjoyed it, even while recognizing that it would not be a show for the ages.... No memorable songs, but it had some very endearing moments, the Dickens story itself is of course gripping, and contrary to the reviewer, I loved the performers. I think this play will inevitably be compared to Les Miz, and on that score, it definitely does not stack up.

Considering the price of Broadway shows these days, I've become more selective in my choices. A Tale of Two Cities will not be on my "have to see" list.
Incidently, the Times reviewer was not the only one critical of the show; in fact, far from it!

I was somewhat surprised to read the NYTimes review yesterday -- as well as half a dozen others. Yesterday is when I learned that reviewers no longer critique the opening night show (which was last night). They review previews. Many of the reviews were available online yesterday before the opening night show even took place. Just thought I'd mention that, as I honestly thought the old habit of reviewers waiting for the official opening night was sacred.

True, that MOST of the reviewers were quite negative. Most did seem to praise the leading actor, James Barbour, except Brantley of the NYTimes who actually said, "With a voice that combines the boom of thunder with the breathlessness of Marilyn Monroe and a leaning posture that appears to be in eternal search of a lamppost. . ."
Ouch. Did he really compare his voice to Marilyn Monroe's? That hurts!

I stand by my review.

My take on Brantley's comment about the lamppost wasn't negative. The character was supposed to be intoxicated much of the time during at least the first half of the play.

As far as the NY Times review a day early: the Times posts evolving headlines and articles on their website 24 hours a day. NP - did you read it late last night after the opening performance?

I paid $36 for my ticket - I got my money's worth.

My prediction: Despite the reviews, audiences will come and many will love it.

CPG,
Thanks for the info on LCT. For some reason I wasn't aware of it, but it sounds like a good deal.

So many people I know saw South Pacific in previews at discount prices, but not so great as your price.

I never did get around to getting tkts for TOTC. But judging from the reviews it looks like discount tkts will probably be available for a while so I guess it can wait.

Just as I predicted on Sept. 5, this show has indeed been panned by the critics and that's because, as they all agree, its a stinker. As Ben Brantley so aptly put it in the Times, "To say it could have been worse — i.e., gloriously, hilariously bad — is not a cause for rejoicing."

I disagree with Centralparkgirl's prediction that audiences will come. This show will be closed within a couple months. They'll struggle to find a positive quote to display on the marquee. Let's see if I'm two for two with my predictions.

CPK, I too read Ben Brantley's reviews with a huge grain of salt, but trust me, despite the character being drunk, I do NOT think Mr. Brantley meant anything remotely positive about his looking for a lampost to lean on! This is made pretty clear in the full context:
". . .with a leaning posture that appears to be in eternal search of a lamppost, Mr. Barbour invests every minute he’s onstage with heavy-lidded, overripe languor."

But even he comes out better off than this poor gal:
"Even the fearsome Madame Defarge, the revolutionary firebrand who (literally) knits the destiny of others, lacks distinctive menace. As played by a mop-haired Natalie Toro, she seems like a generally amiable arts-and-crafts type, temporarily in a bad mood because she lost her Carole King CDs."

Now that's FUNNY!

I'm with you upupaway in your prediction on the life of the show! It definitely will not last long.
Some shows, like Mamma Mia, are critic proof. Alas, A Tale of Two Cities is not!

Has any play in recent years been a huge success after Ben Brantley giving it a bad review?

Hi andrew8. That's a very good question - one that I don't want to research, but I'm sure someone else will.

About TOTC, I don't think it will be a huge hit, but I think many people will enjoy it. The audience that was there the night I was, acted like they were seeing a huge hit. I've noticed a change in audiences over the last many years. Besides how people dress to the theater, reactions, imo, seem to be different too. It's just my opinion that the bar is lower today in audience enjoyment. What do the rest of you think about that?

centralparkgirl, you have hit a nerve with me. Not just theater, but our entire society has dumbed down. Just think about what's popular on television these days!
As for whether any show has survived a Brantley criticism. I can't name any specific for sure, but I am positive they have. For one, I don't think he liked Mamma Mia too much.

Do you think Brantley tries to create more of a shock value with his reviews to create more of a buzz for himself?

It sounds like it from reading some his reviews since I've been on Fodors. Then again I'm hardly an expert on theater.

I do recall Ben Brantley's review of Wicked being nothing but an ode to Kristin Cheoweth. Basically he hated the show but said he waited for her reappearance as she was magic. While I agree she WAS magic, (I've never understood Ida Menzel getting the Tony instead of Kristin), but it's hard to explain why the show has been such a sold out success with no Kristin Cheoweth!

And I also remember his panning Spamalot -- saying something like it was the best of the season only because the season was so bad.

IDINA! :-)
She got the Tony for Rent too.

Ida? Who the hell said that? :D

I loved her in Rent. Not so much in Wicked which I thought BELONGED to Kristin.

I don't believe that she did, Starrs.

That's right, Howard. I was so thrown by my writing Ida instead of Idina, I missed that point. She WAS nominated for Rent, but didn't win.

You are right, Howard. I am wrong.
She was just a nominee.

andrew8,I'll have to disagree with your theory about Brantley. I think he's a very intelligent and sophisticated reviewer. Of course, maybe I feel that way because I usually agree with him! (And, yes, I'm in that minority who didn't like Wicked!)

However good or bad the show, it took guts to put on one that is guaranteed a review starting with:

"It was the best of shows. It was the worst of shows ..."