I didn't see it last week because of Kelsey Grammar. Not a fan.

Re customer service - I'll admit it, I tried to buy a ticket for Wicked last week. I played around with several searches on ticketmaster and had (what I thought were) two choices. So, I bought a single ticket! A few minutes later I looked again...and the ticket was for the end of April, not the end of March. :-(

I called Ticketmaster as soon as customer service opened and they cancelled the transaction. Whew. What a relief. :-)

<i>Although it still feels strange to be all around the Gerhwin and NOT go in...

...Gershwin...

NeoP - My comment about Lend Me a Tenor being mediocre is just that - it's mediocre. This has nothing to do with my likes about farce - I like good farce, good drrama, good musicals, etc. I just think this was not a very good farce - that was my impression when I first saw it.

And (re Lend Me A Tenor) - (and not that one need attend to the critics opinion) - I just read Isherwood's review in the Times - he just about has the same opinion as I did of this play. Also - the original review years ago in the Times also opined - this is just not a good farce. Back then we saw it as it was part of a series we had - I believe Roundabout.

Oh, well if any critics said it wasn't good then of course they're right. . .

Many critics believe that a play that merely entertains really isn't worth doing -- the viewpoint is expressed over and over again. It's really hard for many critics to say, "this play doesn't solve any problems in the world, it doesn't make anyone think, and it just doesn't make logical sense, but people who like farces will find it one of the most entertaining farces ever.

But jroth, you are now the boldest theatre critic I know. Even Ben Brantley is more likely to say "I THINK it's mediocre", but you say it is mediocre as if since you think it is -- then it is fact. Just for the record, could you name a few really good modern farces? I don't know of any that have been universally praised by all critics. Do you?

Neo - The thing is - all criticism is a matter of taste. I have mine - you have yours - we are each entitled. I merely noted some other critics view of Lend Me a Tenor - generally agreeing with my take. And I certainly grant you there is an audience for all sorts of entertainments. But critics do a play a significant role in the theater and first rate media organizations select them very carefully for their experience, background, etc. BTW - it's just not true that critics will slam a play that "merely entertains" - what would you call their universal reactions to The Producers? Not exactly a play that solved problems of the world.

We've had these discussions before about critics, reviews and individual tastes. All can differ and some can agree and everything in between. The bottom line is what YOUR view is of what you are seeing.

Tonight I saw 'White's Lies' with Betty Buckley. Although this isn't a farce, it might be enjoyed by those who like that style. This comedy depends on timing and much of it was very funny. The young playwright sat behind us and his parents next to us. Had a nice conversation with the dad - what a difficult process to get something produced.

Wow, there's certainly lots of controversy regarding Next to Normal's win in this year's Pulitzer!

I didn't read about the controversy, but I was surprised that it won. I enjoyed it, but the music was not memorable at all, imo. I was equally surprised that 'In the Next Room' was a finalist.

jroth, minor point but The Producers was a musical -- not a "play". How critics accept or react to musicals being "just entertainment" as opposed to plays is like night and day.

The only reason I brought this all up was your very clear statement as if it were a fact that Lend Me a Tenor is "mediocre". Sure some critics also don't like it, just as some critics rave about it. The reason I brought it up is that you can google and time after time there are only TWO examples given of modern award winning farces -- Noises Off and Lend Me a Tenor. My question still stands -- if one or both of those farces are not good -- please list some that are.

You are 100% right that it is all a matter of opinion. I'm just trying to get your opinion of some really great modern American farces. Since Lend Me a Tenor is not worth reviving, what farces are?

Neo - We do agree: Noises Off was a first rate farce. Not fair to ask me to come up with names of farces from yesteryear that I enjoyed - listen - I can't remember my grandchildren's names. But I do remember Lend Me a Tenor since we had some discussion on that with fellow theater goers when we saw the original production. BTW - note an article in today's Times - front page - on Addams Family - recipient of a gazillion panning (and that's an understatement) reviews - yet doing quite well at the box office. Chacun a son gout.

The Times article about The Addams Family is most interesting. I'll be curious to see if its box-office power continues into the fall. Still, there's no guarantee that the show will make a profit. Jekyl & Hyde, one of other musicals that the article cites with a similar history (i.e., poor reviews, but a long run) ran nearly four years, and from what I read at the time, it never earned back its investment.

Apparently "Addams Family" sold almost $900,000 worth of tickets in the few days after Brantley's review appeared. Some people are saying it is "critic proof." "Wicked" also did not receive great reviews initially. I saw "Addams Family" in Chicago. The set and technical devices (puppetry) were top notch. The music is ok. If you loved Nathan Lane in "The Producers," you will enjoy this show, though it is not nearly as funny a script. Lots of nice little moments but it doesn't add up to a brilliant show. But audiences seem to like it.

Other things I've seen recently:

"A Behanding in Spokane." Very weird, and arguably offensive (the "N" word is used constantly). Funny in a perverse, nervous-making way. For those who like edgy theater.

"Red." A classic "smaller" play. It only has two actors, Rothko and his assistant, and the play basically exists to allow Rothko to offer his theories on art and the progression from cubism (before he came along) to abstract expressionism (his style) to Pop art (which he hated). If you aren't a museum goer, I doubt this will grab you. It's about 90 minutes without intermission.

Everyone I know who has seen "Promises, Promises" has enjoyed it. And I've heard mostly positive things about "Sondheim on Sondheim," particularly from devoted fans--they love the documentary stuff and interviews.

In the long run, I don't think that The Addams Family will be as great as hit as Wicked, since, overall, the latter's reviews were much better than the former's.
As for Sondheim on Sondheim, unlike chaucerquest, the comments we've heard have not been that favorable....not so much that it wasn't good, but rather, we expected it to be better!

"...mostly positive things about "Sondheim on Sondheim," particularly from devoted fans--they love the documentary stuff and interviews."

Count me in that group. I REALLY enjoyed it.
I understand the wish for "more" - more songs, more Barbara Cook, etc. But I REALLY enjoyed the format and backstories by Sondheim that some didn't enjoy.

I know HowardR does not agree with me on this one - or Wicked :-)

LOVED Million Dollar Quartet - as did Kathie Lee and Hoda.
<ducking for cover now>
They pointed out it will be popular with male audience members who often don't enjoy musicals.
I hope it has a long run. I enjoyed it more than Promises, Promises - and virtually everything else I saw last week.

starrs, you'll be happy to know that the NY Times critic also loved The Million Dollar Quartet.
As for the Sondheim show, my wife and I were really looking forward to seeing it, and the realization didn't come close to the expectation:
1. Too much talking and not enough singing.
2. Not enough of his best songs.
3. Too much of the songs that were cut out of shows. (Hell, in most instances, we felt it was obvious why they were cut out: They just weren't the best of Sondheim!)

Wow, nice review HR! Thanks for passing the word!
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ollar-quartet/

Chaucer, your comment on Behanding in Spokane has prompted me to write, as it is the 1st comment that has mentioned the language. I was looking forward to seeing Behanding when I went in mid-March. I am not conservative by any means, I consider myself open-minded, but I was so sick of the constant cursing (for what seemed to be no good reason) that I left mid-way through the play. Sam Rockwell's long bizarre rant in particular really turned me off.

I was not the only one. My 20 yr old son and his girlfriend went the night before me, and unbeknownst to me before I saw the play, they also left about half way through. For language in a play to offend my son to the point of leaving- well, that surprised me much more than the fact that it offended me, as my son is as liberal if not more so than I am, and he has acted in several local theater productions and is involved in theater at his university. He said he felt the language served no good purpose that he could understand. He also really likes Sam Rockwell, but Rockwell's diatribe turned him off, and he said what they saw of the play offended him, but also embarrassed him because he had his girlfriend w/him.

emd3 - your comments are so interesting. I saw the play with my two sons (in their 20's). All of us had seen other McDonaugh works before and had some expectations (sort of). I wasn't offended because I felt the language contributed to the 'whole' of the play just like the set, the content of the dialogue and especially the mannerisms of the characters. I don't care for foul language that's misplaced, but I didn't feel that in this play. I certainly believe that's how you felt and your son as well; it's just very interesting how we all have different takes on performances. I'm curious: had you read much about the play before or had you seen other McDonaugh plays?

I'm not sure what you mean, emd3, about the language serving no purpose that your son could understand.

These are not professionals working in an office. They are basically "street" orphans, low class drug dealers, etc. There is simply no way people like that would say, "golly gee, I think that African American hand isn't the specific item I was looking for". The characters talked as THAT kind of characters talk -- it's really that simple.

I understand how the language can offend people, but I suppose that comes back to the idea of having some understanding of the type of play, plot, and characters you are going to see.

What a timely entry by Charles Isherwood in the NYTimes artsblog section:
<b>Theater Talkback: Odd-Man-Out Syndrome
Everyone's laughing. You're not. Charles Isherwood feels your pain. </b>

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-out-syndrome/

<i>“Am I missing something?”

If you attend the theater with any regularity, chances are good you’ve had the occasion to inwardly ponder that question at least once in the course of your culture-consuming adult life. You may also have found yourself asking it aloud, of a companion, as you hurtle toward the bar at intermission, or even hissed it, sotto voce, during the show itself. The query, usually arising with a prickly feeling of insecurity or mystification or angst, is a byproduct of a common but little-discussed cultural phenomenon: the odd-man-out syndrome.</i>

[The readers' comments are just as entertaining.]

The Isherwood article is very interesting considering the recent thread herein where I also noted a similar reaction as Isherwood's to Lend Me a Tenor (although I was referring to the original which I saw a number of years ago). Isherwood's comments re taste, etc - similar to mine.

The Isherwood article is interesting. My complaint recently about the audience at 'Behanding' was that they initially laughed when NOTHING happened; it was annoying and distracting for me. I think Ben Brantley mentioned the audience liking the 'Addams Family' in his review even though he didn't. A friend of mine saw it and said the same thing: they were howling and applauding as soon as they heard the TV show theme song.

I think the most interesting thing about this article by Isherwood is his rampant backing off of his original comments.
He originally said, "But the heady ether of prime farce never materializes in this labor-intensive but laugh-deficient evening."

Now he says "But a fair portion of the audience was howling consistently at the antics onstage."

So what is it? If the prime object of farce is to make the audience laugh, and now he says they were howling consistently, how on earth could he originally have called it a "laugh deficient evening"? I can only guess after the many rave reviews came out he is trying to backpedal his original comments. Clearly the audiences are loving it and howling, so how can anyone say it "doesn't work" as a farce?

Patrick, my understanding of Isherwood's blog entry is that:

"But the heady ether of prime farce never materializes in this labor-intensive but laugh-deficient evening." - He wrote this in his original review dated April 5th. That was how HE felt when he saw the show. The farce did not work for HIM.

"But a fair portion of the audience was howling consistently at the antics onstage." - So he's saying that the farce worked for some of the audience.

That's why he felt like the "odd man out" during that show.

I'll let you all know what I THINK after I see this show in a couple of weeks. :)

yk, but how can anyone sitting among a whole theatre of howling people call the show "laugh deficient"? Maybe he was the only one not laughing, but it's just wrong to call it that when the whole audience was howling. And that's the only goal of farce, to make people laugh. So if they were -- it seems wrong for him to say "the whole audience was laughing their heads off but I personally didn't find it funny, therefore it didn't work."

What does a 'fair portion' mean? To me, it means some, not an entire theater or entire audience.

NP - Would you consider emailing Isherwood with your thoughts? It might be interesting to hear his response. I'm not suggesting that you do, but it would be interesting.

Sure "fair portion" is open to interpretation, but I believe being the "odd man out" were HIS words and that really suggested he was in a very slim minority of non laughers.

There is quite a discussion about this article on BroadwayWorld.com.

I'm 99% sure that an email to a New York Times critic does not get a response.

Neo - Once again - a critic's job is to attend a production and then give his opinion on it. The opinion is about the production - not necessarily the audience's reaction - although sometimews critics wil include that in their review. But comedy can be funny - i.e. what's funny to me is not to you and visa versa. Re - Lend Me ... Isherwood gives his opinion - that's his job. I happen to agree with him on that opinion. The fact that there are those in the audience who are laughing and enjoying - the critic still uses his taste and judgement. And: maybe those audience members who are laughing very hard - had paid $100 and more for seats for a comedy - at those prices they figure - this is funny. BTW - Frank Rich - for the original production - was disappointed noting " L M A T is all things farcical except hilarious. The lines are almost never witty".

Well, you can say that all you want -- and of course it boils down to his opinion -- no argument there. But calling an entire production "laugh deficient" and then admitting later that the audience was howling with laughter to the point of distraction for him just somehow doesn't make sense.

His second article when he admits he was the odd man out "not liking the production" and "not howling with laughter" seems to say a lot about HIS sense of humor and gives the reader more of a chance to decide if he might like it himself. I honestly think it was WRONG of any critic to give the impression that no one was laughing (as his first review clearly did) when later he admits that wasn't the case.

Excuse me, but going to the idea that people pay $100 a seat and therefore FORCE themselves to laugh just doesn't make sense. Do you honestly think people don't like shows just because they paid a lot of money? If anything people are more likely to be more critical because they feel they want to get their money's worth.

Come'on now, jroth, let's just admit it. You don't like farce, you don't appreciate it, and no amount of any talk is going to make you understand or believe that many people do. To try to find reasons why people would laugh at Lend Me a Tenor other than that they find it hysterically funny is just pointless. And just because you agree with one particular critic, which is fine, don't deny that there many other critics who are RAVING about Lend Me a Tenor. You are right, it's all a matter of taste and opinion. But it appears that more critics are weighing in on the positive side of this production than on the negative side -- not that that means anything either. With farce, the bottom line is simply "does the audience find it entertaining?"

Neo - fact is - one of my favorite forms of entertainment is comedy - including farce. And as I noted I thought Noises Off was first rate farce. Re LMAT - that's just my opinion about it - regardless if it's a farce or not. I have disagreed with Isaherwood - and Frank Rich, too. But there are times when I do agree with them. this is one.

Today's review of 'La Cage aux Folles' makes me look forward to seeing it next month.

http://theater.nytimes.com/2010/04/1...%20cage&st=cse

Interesting article about veteran London actor, Douglas Hodge, who is making his B'way debut in this production.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/theater/18hodge.html

I saw 'Enron' this afternoon - I'm not sure how I ended up doing this. Good cast, engaging story, weak production. That's all I can say. Save your money.

CPG, I had enough of Enron when it was a real catastrophe. I can't imagine paying to see it again on Bway.

Changing the subject.

I was at Barnes and Noble today and I checked out the NYC 2010 Fodors book. There they were, our famous ones- centralparkgirl, neopatrick, howard, mclaurie (and auduchamp), all quoted at the start of the chapters!

=-o =-o =-o =-o =-o =-o =-o =-o =-o =-o

I remember that neopatrick's quote had to to with the theater, how the front row mezzanine is generally the best seat at most Bway venues. I recall that mclaurie's quote had to do with a cool place for drinks in NYC. I think Howard's or centralpark's had to do with theater also. Auduchamp's was on a restaurant.

It was really exciting to see my cyber-Broadway fodors friends in print. Then I looked at the fodors Mexico 2010 guide and I was quoted. It was a fun discovery. The editor used to email you from fodors and tell you that you were quoted and send you a free guidebook of your choice. But alas, I guess that doesn't happen anymore. We will just have to enjoy the 15 min. of fame on our own.

emd3 - that is so funny. A few months ago, I got an email from Fodors telling me that I was quoted in the Pennsylvania book and I could choose a guide book. I did and thanked them. Now after reading your post, my attorney advises me that I should be offered another guide. Only fair and the right thing to do. Fodor editors, what do you say? And for my colleagues mentioned above as well!

emd3, thanks for the info on being included in Fodor's 2010 NYC book. In the past, they've notified us when we were included in a guidebook....but not this time. What do you say, Fodor's?????????

Seeing 'Sondheim on Sondheim' on Sunday and encouraged by this review. But, after all, it's only a review - wink, wink!

http://theater.nytimes.com/2010/04/2...ondheim&st=cse

Can't wait to hear your thoughts on it, cpg. I really enjoyed it.
There was a flurry of activity from Barbara Cook's FB page last night. Excerpts of many positive reviews. I'm so glad I had the chance to see her on Broadway. :-)

"Sondheim on Sondheim" got somewhat mixed reviews (just ok from Entertainment Weekly, for example), but some fairly positive like the review in the Times this morning. I'm seeing it tonight, so I'll also chime in over the weekend and will add my two cents. Barbara Cook can do nothing wrong in my eyes, so I'm not surprised that there's nothing but praise for her.

"NEW YORK — There are a lot of wonderful moments, some intensely personal, in "Sondheim on Sondheim," the Roundabout Theatre Company's revelatory revue celebrating Stephen Sondheim's theatrical career.

But nothing quite tops other cast members sitting quietly on stage and listening to Barbara Cook sing "Send in the Clowns." Cook's exquisite rendition of Sondheim's best-known song demonstrates the essence of musical theater: an expert performer capturing the emotional truth found in a perfect blending of words and music.

And "Sondheim on Sondheim," which opened Thursday at Broadway's Studio 54, reiterates what true Sondheim buffs already know about his work. His songs, while always intellectually nimble, are also straight from the heart, rich in emotion and feeling."

...One of the most moving sections of the show is Sondheim's salute to Oscar Hammerstein II. Hammerstein, the father of a boarding-school chum, became a surrogate dad and mentor during Sondheim's teenage years. "That's essentially how I became songwriter," Sondheim says. "Because, I wanted to do what Oscar did."

At one point during the show, Sondheim refers with evident emotion to Hammerstein, the lyricist for such classics as "Carousel," "Oklahoma!" and "South Pacific," as "a remarkable fellow." The same could be said about the man at center stage in "Sondheim on Sondheim," too.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...OiHnQD9F8DIL00

I agree...