Perhaps it's just semantics, but I always pay attention to the dialogue regardless of the play's subject or depth. Many a supposedly frivolous comedy often has meaning far beyond its often simple words. There's a old axiom that the motion picture is a director's medium and theater is a writer's medium. I always want to hear what the author has to say!

We have not been to a Broadway musical in at least ten years and that was the behest of a visitor. But I just happened to read the review this morning in the NYT of the Book of Mormon and it might be the first musical we shall see on our own violition in 25 years.

We will probably wait for another visitor so we can fulfill two obligations at once, but it does sound intriguing.

I'll be visiting NYC for the first time in early May and am interested in seeing War Horse. Any thoughts on my chances of scoring discounted tickets at TKTS, or should I shell out the big bucks and reserve full-price tickets now?

It remains to be seen, but I suspect you will have very little to no chance of getting tickets at TKTS. It's been incredibly popular in London, and the only discounts so far were only 20%.off early previews.

Howard, that was rude. What was the point of the duh comment, except to be rude?

Sorry, if you thought I was being rude. That certainly wasn't my intent, as my followup comment certainly pointed out. I was initially responding to a comment that I thought wasn't accurate. No more, no less. (Believe me, you'll know when I'm being rude!)

"Believe me, you'll know when I'm being rude!)"
Sorry, I agree with the other two. That was definitely rude.

The Book of Mormon sounds very interesting.

OK, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said, "Duh."

It doesn't seem Terry Teachout of the WSJ was as taken by The Book of Mormons:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...086713370.html

Centralparkgirl, thanks for posting the review of Priscilla. It was not a very good one, but I will probably see it in June. My travel companion is affiliated with the play, so we can get house seats and will support it for my friend's sake. At least it looks like fun.

Funny mention of it in Modern Family last week.

I was not surprised by the Isherwood review of Priscilla, which pretty much said the same thing Ben Brantley said about it when it opened in London. Neither of them are particularly likely to RAVE about stuff that is pure mindless fluff, and let's face it -- that's all Priscilla is. But I was kind of taken aback by Isherwood's comment that Priscilla lacks the "impish cleverness" of Mama Mia (another piece of just pure fun mindless fluff). So it was indeed impishly clever of Mama Mia to put a chorus in snorkel gear and even swim fins for choreography, but Priscilla has someone step outside see a cake on the ground and say "Oh my God, someone left the cake out in the rain" and immediately we are surrounded by a chorus of dancing cupcakes with tall umbrellas dancing to those lyrics. And when the bus gets "painted" into a million little lights, we have dancing paintbrushes doing the work, while the bus does an entire light show all by itself. I'm sorry, but how can anyone say those things are less "impishly clever" than Mama Mia? They are outrageous and fun, and cleverness (along with total camp) abounds. Sure, no one's going to go home from Priscilla and debate the state of world affairs, it's just some of the lightest and most over the top fun ever.

(I've seen Priscilla twice in London and will see in in NYC in May, and it sounds like the changes for the US production should all make it better than before -- or certainly more fun to the masses.)

Why I frequent Fodors less and less:

This is a far more general response than to just Howard’s posts, but it needs to be said and I need to say it. I find more and more frequently, as I read various threads, that there are posters who just love to pounce on someone whose opinion they don’t agree with. It is a habit of these posters and almost like a hobby to split hairs and dissect the meanings and motives of particular posts. I have never said that anything I post is other than my opinion. Nothing more; nothing less. I try to give my opinions in context so that it may help someone. Nothing more; nothing less. And by context I mean, for example, that I liked a play, but I had a steeply discounted ticket. I might have a different view if I paid $135.

These attacks, and I’m choosing my words carefully, have become sport. No matter what one says, it is RUDE. Saying it is not rude, does not make it so. This type of behavior is RUDE and it is so uncalled for.

Between mid March and mid May, I will have seen 14 plays in NY. I am not on vacation; I go to work and have a life, but I love theater and am fortunate to live here and have the wonderful opportunity to see a lot. I’ll say it one more time: the opinions expressed are only my own and nothing more. I don’t agree with everyone’s opinions, but so what? I am still interested in reading them and possibly learning something or seeing something in a different way. I have no expectations that readers will have the same opinions as mine nor does it matter. But I will never be rude to another poster. Unfortunately, IMO, the internet easily permits somewhat anonymous rude behavior that I don’t think would necessarily occur face to face. But, maybe I’m being generous with that view.

Thank you, NeoPatrick. I am glad to hear your impressions of Priscilla. My friend invested in it, so we will go in early June. I do not need to ponder the problems of the world at the theater! Haha. Some mindless fun sounds perfect. Plus, I will be with old friends, so all will be enjoyable.

Totally agree CPG. It was rude....and saying it wasn't doesn't make it so. A person who professes to be a student of words, is a person who knows exactly what is and isn't an unkind response. "Sorry, sorry, sorry"..after the fact, doesn't erase it. Only time will tell if one is truly remorseful and therefore kinder in the future.

cpg, while admittedly there have been rude comments (including my "duh" for which I've already apologized), because someone disagrees with and/or corrects an error made by another poster does not automatically mean that the response was rude. If I happen to disagree with another response, I will continue to say so, hopefully not being rude in doing so....not because I think I'm better than the one I'm disagreeing with, but rather to show that there may be another side to or opinion on whatever the issue or subject is.

To further illustrate that it's not just a case of being right or wrong, I think of past discussions of Wicked. I am in the distinct minority of those who did not like the show. There were several occasions when, as expected, there were threads where poster after poster raved about the show. I would eventually participate, admitting that I was in the definite minority who did not like the show. My point was simply to show that there are two sides. Interestingly, my comments sometimes elicited others from people who were reluctant to express their negative views of the show for fear of being thought of as having no taste or whatever. (To this day, starrs and I continue to bait each other about our opposing views of the show. Are either of us rude? No way....Right, starrs?)

I've never considered any of my "disagreeing" (I'll use that word rather than "critical") comments as "sport." And, in the future, when the occasion arise, I will continue to disagree....and I promise not to be rude!

Howard, apart from the rudeness which I think we're now in agreement about and hopefully can put behind us, it seems to me that you are looking for errors. What I said about 'Arcadia' was not an error to be corrected, but merely my opinion. You fail to see that I didn't make a mistake that needed your correction; I expressed an opinion. And if you see the current production and wish to comment or even disagree with me, I welcome that. The purpose of this thread has always been to create dialogue about theater and perhaps inform others about current productions in NYC. Many of us here, including myself, have strong opinions. But even a correction (if someone cited the wrong playwright or whatever) should be done graciously - don't you think? No one wants to come to Fodor's to be in a battle zone. It should be engaging, informative and above all, respectful.

For NY'ers you guys are overly sensitive. Can you imagine if someone actually said something that was insulting?

You are discussing Broadway, not warfare where someone's son or daughter might die. Get some perspective.

And most of all there should be a sense of fun.

I don't wish to belabor this discussion, but I think you've missed my point. I was not citing an error. I was stating my opinion. Perhaps I said it wrong. Perhaps it is only a case of semantics. In your discussion of Arcadia, you wrote, "The dialogue has so much food for thought that one needs to pay attention to take it all in." I simply meant that a theatergoer should always pay attention to the dialogue to attain the maximum theatrical experience. I probably would not have made any comment had you written (note my added words in capital letters), "The dialogue has so much food for thought that one needs to pay attention MORE THAN ONE USUALLY DOES [or words like that] to take it all in."

I certainly didn't mean to create a cause celebre!

Amen, Aduchamp1!
And, since we have tickets for Priscilla for a week from tomorrow, thanks, Neopatrick for your positive posting about the show!

I guess you said it wrong (to quote you). Anyone else would have understood what I meant, but you now have actually corrected it. Are you a retired teacher? :)