yk

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

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

“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.

[The readers' comments are just as entertaining.]

jroth

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.

Centralparkgirl

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.

NeoPatrick

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?

yk

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.

NeoPatrick

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."

Centralparkgirl

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.

NeoPatrick

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.

jroth

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".

NeoPatrick

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?"

jroth

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.

Centralparkgirl

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

Centralparkgirl

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.

emd3

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!



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.

Centralparkgirl

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!

HowardR

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?????????

Centralparkgirl

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

starrs

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.

doug_stallings

"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.

starrs

"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...