The New York Times: “Praise the lord for ‘Tammy Faye,’” Matt Wolf cheered in The New York Times when the Elton John musical opened in London in 2022. The show, Wolf added, “has a heart as big as the title character’s bouffant hairdo.”
Two years later, reviewing the Broadway transfer, Elisabeth Vincentelli begged to differ. “Disjointed, strangely bland,” she wrote, also in The Times. Trying to go “behind the mask of this complicated, outsize woman,” she argued, had made her “smaller than life.”
3 comments:
I think that people forget how culturally different tastes are in the US and England. Even though we share a language, our values, senses of humor, and standards for theatre are completely different. It’s fascinating how the same show can receive such polarizing reviews from different audiences. Even more interesting is how the reviews seem to be consistently more positive in London than it is in New York. A few years ago, I went to London on a class trip. We saw eight shows in seven days, and I noticed a few things I wish we had in the US. Firstly, theatre seemed to be more culturally accepted—not that it isn’t here, but locals of all ages went to see plays a lot more regularly than we do here. Secondly, tickets were a lot cheaper. I think that this combination lends itself to a more accepting audience. When you’re not paying an absurd amount to see a play, and when you’ve been exposed to more theatre, you’re probably more open to each new piece than we are here. It’s a really interesting culture.
Different audiences can have different effects on people, these can lead to higher or lower ratings in different cities or countries. We can see this in both theater and movies. One example of this is the film Speak No Evil released in 2024, a remake of the 2022 Danish-Dutch film of the same name, changing the ending to a ‘happier’ one to avoid the same underlying message of people avoiding inconveniencing others to their demise. It was changed to better fit the audience in America that tends to not like social commentaries. Sometimes these shows that try to move to a different audience without thinking about how their messages and views will be received dont do well.
This article reminds me of the differences in semiotic relationships among different audiences and contexts. Naturalistic or realistic isn’t always (and shouldn’t always) be the ‘right answer’ for production design and performance techniques - neither are pictorial takes, but rather, a consideration of the meaning behind such choices as would be associated by the audience should be considered. This sort of reminded me of McCloud’s triangle. I find it to be unfortunate that many critics are so negative about more histrionic performances done by English actors or shows. I understand if the performance itself is dissonant with design, or if it is dissonant with itself, then that would be a negative thing- but if it’s a conscious choice, then isn’t that part of the joy of theatre? Suspension of disbelief, and/or simply active belief. With “Cinderella” and many of the other shows mentioned in the article, the critics are bashing the shows for what they aren’t, rather than what they are.
Post a Comment