Edgy aren't my favorites despite reviews. I think of Passing Strange, Next to Normal or even Spring Awakening. Give me a South Pacific any day!

karens:

Read an article in the NY Post last week about "Mother*****"

"But "Motherf**ker" is in trouble. Last week, the show took in just $239,000 in a theater with a gross potential of $867,000. The advance is well under $1 million, and Saturday night, as rival shows played to packed houses, "Motherf**ker" went up before just 600 people."


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainmen...#ixzz1JE6WgGwC


Neo: "the RAVE of this week in reviews was Anything Goes,which is even way less edgy than Catch Me if You Can."

Anything Goes is one of the classics with a Cole Porter score, the raves were predictable.

We saw the Patti Lupone revival back in the 80's and enjoyed it, but probably won't see it again. In general I'm not a big fan of pre 1960's musicals.

Frank - this is a whole other topic, but I'm wondering if in Motherf**er's case, the audience that they're trying to attract can't afford $131 plus tickets. The prices are out of sight and this isn't even a musical. If they are trying to attract young adults (using Chris Rock as the draw), that audience does not plan ahead with discount tix and can't afford full price - at least all the ones I know - even the ones who grew up in NYC and were 'raised' on theater. Just my rambling thoughts...........

And that show, btw, has gotten tons of press.

CPG: I think in general Broadway audiences are older and I'm sure the title will be a major turn-off, I know it is for me.

Chris Rock is funny, but I'm not sure most people want to see him in a serious role.

Also even at a discount, the price of a ticket is still around $90 for an orchestra and mezz. seat.

Unless it gets rave reviews, I think it will have a very short run. We'll see the reviews tomorrow.

That show is only scheduled to run until June anyway, not a long run, but it remains to be seen if it will run even that long. That's an amazingly bad showing in the previews gross sales department!

The issue of price combined with older and younger audiences is interesting. It seems there's seldom difficulty selling $200 or higher seats for major rock concerts to younger people. Not that the same people would go to a Broadway show. But I do recall how many younger people paid full price a few years ago to see Sean Combs (or whatever name he was using that year) in A Raisin in the Sun, a show where the play itself was certainly NOT the attraction to younger people. And let's be honest, the price isn't stopping tons of very young audience goers from buyng tickets to go see Harry Potter on Broadway -- the vast majority of those could care less what the show itself is.

Hasn't Chris Rock lost his momentum as a big draw? I have no idea, just asking.

I paid $35 for orchestra seats and I went with a girlfriend on a whim because we both wanted a laugh. With a higher price, I never would have considered it. I am no Chris Rock fan and he doesn't have the lead although they're hoping his name will bring them in. I recommended it to a friend who's an avid theater goer who had no interest. Her comment after seeing it was that it was so well written. Having said all that, it seems like the show is in serious trouble. I'm curious about the review.

As far as younger audiences, the ones I know (post college, but under 30) fall into two categories. A few can afford the $200 rock concert tix and do go. The others, enjoy theater, but don't go because the tix are too expensive for them; they don't go to rock concerts either and wouldn't dream of blowing $200 for a ticket. As far as the Harry Potter fans, I'll bet their parents are paying for those tix.

I agree with all you say, but when I said "very young" to see Harry Potter, I really didn't mean high school kids and younger (very young to me is probably older than very young to a lot of people) -- a friend told me last week when she saw How To Succeed, over half the audience seemed to be in their 20s to 30s. Those are the ones I was referring to -- and presumably the same people who would be going to see Chris Rock -- if he had the same kind of popularity with the Yuppie set (is that still a viable classification or am I showing my age further?) as Daniel Radcliffe.

By the way, my friend, who is about my age, also saw Book of Mormon last week. The age discussion came about because she was so thrilled to see TWO shows where the average age seemed to be under about 40 -- a rare sighting on Broadway these days. Perhaps there IS hope for the future of Broadway after all.

Throwing this statistic into this interesting discussion of Broadway audiences: Studies show that 2/3 of those attending Broadway shows are tourists. This tourist facor does, in part, helps explain in a general sense why certain shows play longer than others. It certainly helps explain why shows like Phantom of the Opera, Chicago, The Lion King and Mamma Mia, Wicked and Jersey Boys continue to draw substantial audiences after years and years of performances.

When we saw 'People in the Picture' this past Sat afternoon, my husband commented that this was one of the few times that he did not raise the average age of the audience. Many reasons for that including preview matinee with lots of TDFers and the subject matter. This play, if it's a success, will not compete with Wicked, Jersey Boys, Mamma Mia, etc.

This may help ticket sales! It's all about the words.

Motherf**ker's review:

http://theater.nytimes.com/2011/04/1...ml?ref=theater

Good review, but I'm glad I saw it when I knew almost nothing about it. Sometimes no expectations adds to the enjoyment.

"Hat" got a good (not rave)review in the NY Times, but marginal in the NY Post and NY Daily News. Everyone liked the show but most hated Chris Rock, they say he is out of his league.

I can believe that, since every time he opens his mouth with his high pitched voice you want to laugh and I guess that's not what the play is about.

Not a good sign for a star vechicle.

"Hat" got a good (not rave)review in the NY Times. . ."

Frank, did you read a different NYTimes review than I did -- the one by Ben Brantley? I'd consider that review a RAVE, but after your post I just went back to reread it to see if somehow I missed something. I'd sure call it a rave filled with things like referring to "The characters portrayed by a marvelous, intensely focused five-member ensemble" and saying it was directed with "fire and tenderness". He even describes the set as "contrasting gems of self-portraiture".

He raved about every actor INCLUDING Chris Rock whom he referred to as making his "solid Broadway debut" and then added "Mr. Rock fits the part effortlessly. (You can easily imagine Ralph as a spellbinder when he testifies at support group meetings.) And Ralph’s straightforward confidence makes his logic-twisting all the more disarming."

In fact, try as I might I could not find one negative or even semi-negative thing in his review, other than what I'd consider the tongue in cheek "complaint" that it's hard to advertise the title. The comments about the characters being contradictory or hard to pin down in emotions were all things he was saying MADE the play effective, and surely should not be construed as negatives -- as he sums it up in his final paragraph which really makes the review a RAVE in my book: "Ms. Rodriguez’s Veronica is a sleekly feral amalgam of domesticity and destructiveness. And Mr. Cannavale, in his best work to date, exudes the magnified emotional presence you associate with verismo opera. That Jackie’s emotions, like those of everyone in “Hat,” are a muddle doesn’t mean that they don’t burn clear, or bright enough to scorch." Most actors would kill to get reviews like that!

I don't read the Post or the News so I am not familiar with the reviewers in those publications. And I think most people would agree that even a rave review doesn't guarantee that any one theater goer will feel the same way as the reviewer. (I usually don't.) But, I think if one reads Brantley's reviews often, they will realize that in context of all his reviews, this was a very strong review. And btw, some plays with very strong reviews just don't make it and others with tepid reviews survive for years.

I am not one who hated Chris Rock. I thought he was good, but not as good as the rest of the cast. He has an extremely distinct voice and it was hard for me to forget that he was Chris Rock. I have seen him in several tv interviews recently discussing his Broadway debut. I am not a Chris Rock fan, but he's been nothing but humble about learning the Broadway craft.

I guess I didn't read Brantley's review close enough. I have to admit I don't give the New York Times review much more credence than the News, Post or New York Magazine. I read at least 5 different reviews if I'm considering seeing a show and try to find a consensus. Of course some shows I'll see regardless of reviews, just because I want to see it.

Below is an article summarizing Chris Rock's performance.


http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf...-debut_1212201

Very excited Hair just announced a limited run this summer.

http://www.playbill.com/news/article...un-on-Broadway

I actually have something to contribute!

I just saw Driving Miss Daisy on Saturday night with some friends. About two months ago I was watching "A Month by the Lake" and got to thinking about how I'd never seen Vanessa Redgrave on stage. I googled her, and found out that she was on Broadway right now, and bonus: she was opposite James Earl Jones.

I called my theater/foodie friends, cajoled them with a weekend of fine dining and the show, and we made the plans.

We saw the very last performance. Vanessa was spot on with her accent but for a few minor slips (kind of a British/Southern accent... but only for a moment). I had never seen the movie, if you can believe it. James Earl Jones was fantastic, of course, and Boyd Gaines too. I hadn't heard of Boyd Gaines before this I don't believe.

I found out over lunch the next day that my friend who joined us (native NYer) could have gotten us backstage. I will NEVER let him live that one down. "Oh, I didn't know you were going to see Driving Miss Daisy! My brother works in wardrobe - he was tweeting about the last show last night". Oh, grr. Just grrr. (He knew, he just forgot - I told him back when I got the tickets).

Glad you enjoyed it flygirl. I saw VR in another play and her accent was off the entire time, so I know what you mean. What a shame that you didn't get to go backstage!

cpg, I'm curious...What was the Vanessa Redgrave show you are talking about?
flygirl, I'm surprised you haven't heard of Boyd Gaines. He's has won at least two Tonys for previous performances. He excels in both musicals and straight plays.

In 'The Year of Magical Thinking,' she had the strangest accent - not American and I found it to be distracting. When I saw her in 'Long Day's Journey' years ago, her accent was fine.

'Jerusalem' - I don't know where to begin on this one. I went to see Mark Rylance who I had seen in 'Boeing Boeing' and 'La Bete.' He gives a remarkable 3 hour performance in a play that is difficult to fully comprehend.

'How to Succeed' - maybe it's because I sat thru 'Jerusalem' yesterday, but I enjoyed this. The theater was packed with adoring Radcliffe fans - 20 something year olds who grew up on the Potter books. His dancing was the weakest part of his performance, but I think I enjoyed this more than the revival with Matthew Broderick.

Brantley's review of 'War Horse:'

http://theater.nytimes.com/2011/04/1...r&pagewanted=1

Not a rave. Is he always cynical about sentimentality? I can't wait to see it.

I have no idea what an "American accent" is (there are hundreds of various ones), but I found her absolute perfection in A Year of Magical Thinking as did every critic I read. She did use an "affected" voice. Have you ever heard Joan Didon speak? It is a bit disarming, but when I finally heard and saw Joan Didon on the Today show, I was stunned that Vanessa Redgrave totally caught her essence in every way.