"DATED CURIOSITY" OR "GLITTERING REVIVAL"?
by Jason Loewith on 3/04/2008 11:45:00 AM 

Unfortunately in my job, I have to read reviews - to figure out marketing strategies, estimate box office take, and get a sense of how the audience will be feeling coming into a show. I say "unfortunately" because some of our "critics" in the weeklies are pretty incompetent at their jobs.

The reviews for AMERICAN DREAM SONGBOOK, while all great in the dailies (the Tribune, Sun-Times, and Daily Herald), have been crazily mixed in the weeklies. That's rarely a surprise because, as I say, so many of those writers aren't too good at what they do. And while I'm happy to be spanked from time to time by the good ones (Time Out's Kris Vire, for example, rightly points out that our failure to find composers of color is a minus for the show), it bugs the shit out of me when a truly brainless boob splatters our show in print.

Of the particular review I'm frothing over today (and I won't name names, or papers), at least an interesting question for this blog came of it. We have heard from some folks - and this particular review - that the first act, Leonard Bernstein's TROUBLE IN TAHITI, felt "dated", or was a "curiosity" best left uncovered.

Um... yes, it IS dated. It was written in 1952. That's exactly why we decided to pair it with a second act... to help us understand how dated that view of the American Dream is, and provoke the audience to wonder what makes up the American Dream today. So, shame on the reviewer who didn't figure that out.

But I'm more interested in the question these comments beg: what makes one revival "dated" and another "glittering"? After all, every revival - especially those that aren't directorially manipulated - is dated. I'm thinking of some of the finest and faithful revivals I've seen around town in the past few years: Frank Gilroy's 1964 THE SUBJECT WAS ROSES or William Inge's 1956 BUS STOP at Writers; Timeline's 1959 FIORELLO! What made them "revelatory" to many? Why do some critics call our TAHITI "dated" and others call it "a shining revival"?

If I've learned anything about audience response to our SONGBOOK, it varies generationally. Those that were married - as Sam and Dinah were - in the 50s tend to fall in the "shining" camp. Those who came of age in the 60s and 70s - especially women - fall into the "dated" camp. That's not a hard-and-fast rule, of course.

In any case, the reviewer I'm thinking about was for some reason enraged by Bernstein's portrayal of 1952 American, and our decision to produce it. This reviewer clearly had expectations about the evening that weren't met... which leads me, yet again, to plead for audiences to know what they're seeing before walking in the door. Especially at a place like Next Theatre Company, where we aim to get you thinking as we entertain you. If you don't know anything about what you're in for, there's a chance you'll turn off your brain and not be open to the possibilities of what we present.

Labels: American Dream

Post a Comment

Subscribe to
Comments [Atom]