Parrotheads are fans of the singer-songwriter Jimmy Buffett and I am the co-chief theater critic for The New York Times. Normally our flight paths would not cross.
But with the Broadway opening on March 15 of “Escape to Margaritaville,” a jukebox musical of tunes Mr. Buffett composed or made famous, it became my responsibility to deliver bad news.
5 comments:
This comment made me laugh out loud. A Jimmy Buffet musical is a testament as to how broadway musicals have officially run out of ideas when it comes to putting shows on stage. The critic that wrote this article seems like he really had no choice but be harsh and ironic when writing this review. I have a problem with this because I don't think Jimmy Buffet's music is even that good, and I don't know how that type of music can make it on stage. The only beach musical that works on stage is Mamma Mia, so when I see a musical with a bunch of floral shirts and mediocre music, all I think about is the potential for it to be a great show, but sadly it was not. I predict that this shows time on broadway will be short as Doctor Zhivago, my only question is, how do these musicals make it past many trials and still make it to a broadway stage, as the critical path teaches us, problems should be solved in the planning stages.
Reviews in general are naturally subjective, so I really do not understand attacking a critic for their opinion and observations of a show. Should they not have more knowledge and experience watching shows and reviewing them than the average theatre goer anyways? Negative reviews are of course going to be more tricky and angering, but I think they are way more valuable than the run of the mill "Best show of the century" review. A couple of years ago I gave an AriBnB host a pretty negative review because the apartment was just disgusting, but it caused him to come back and try to charge me two hundred dollars. So yeah, negative reviews can have repercussions, but that is why you make them. No one likes to hear that what they are doing is bad, but if you lie to them and tell them it was good, who is that helping?
I love how Green show both sides of writing bad reviews. On one hand he does not want to hurt anyone's’ feeling, but at the same time stating an opinion is part of the job. Though I’m not surprised that on social media people shared their opinions, discretizing another’s opinion by saying loosen up or relax will not changed their opinion. Something I found really interesting in this article is that Green questions if they would still send people to the show. Despite not enjoying the show, Green thought about the people who would want to see it and why. Another thing I found interesting is how Green wondered how seeing the show with a different socio-political context would have changed his opinion on the show. I wonder what context Green would feel best serves the show. I enjoyed this article and the insight that Green shares about his process of writing a bad review.
I agree with the previous comments in that negative reviews of shows are not only necessary but often more important than the positive ones. While I found just the fact that a highly-trained art critic had to review a musical that contained both Jimmy Buffet music and the word “Margaritaville” in the title hilarious, I do think it’s important that reviews that absolutely slam an awful piece of theatre exist. I agree with the author in that a higher bar needs to be set for theater as a whole at times. This doesn’t mean theatre that’s purely for entertainment cannot exist, but these shows shouldn’t override ones of more importance and thus undermine them (although this often happens anyway). Without negative reviews, this would occur so much more often. I understand that it almost feels like a "moral duty" to slam something that is so unabashedly bad, because without this criticism there would be no opportunity to grow and change from it at all.
Discussing plays, books, and movies is a lot of fun for me. I love to hear other people’s perspectives and share why I thought something worked or didn’t work. The thing that struck me the most about this article was the way the author said that it was his responsibility to pan the play. I’ve heard critics use the term “their responsibility” and I’ve always assumed they meant it was their responsibility to warn the public to avoid this. But the way this author said it I can see now that it is more of a responsibility to themselves rather than others. They have to share their thoughts in a true and honest fashion, otherwise they won’t be able to stand themselves. And I understand that a lot more than a responsibility to warn others. This article takes a look behind the curtain and shows the human side to what a lot of people think is a very far removed job that is barely even human.
Post a Comment