Ben Brantley never misses an opportunity to take a swipe (two, actually) at Grease. He seriously pans the new musical, based on the 1990 John Waters movie about a 1950s rock-and-roller. The WOR Radio critic loved it, so go figure.
Cry-Baby was perhaps the most mediocre musical I've ever seen. The book is bland, the score is derivative, the cast (with the exception of Harriet Harris, Allie Mauzey, and to a lesser extent Chester Gregory II) is boring...but the choreography is fantastic and creative (the choreographer is indeed known for his inventive moves).
I didn't enjoy the Grease revival - well known around these parts that I feel the whole production is a vessel of missed opportunities - but it was leagues better than the mess that is Cry-Baby.
The songwriters were interviewed on the radio, and they played a clip of "Baby baby baby (baby baby)"... somebody asks the girl to come up and sing it, and she says "I don't know the words", and the audience laughed. I thought it would be a romp, but apparently not.
I just listened to Matt Windman's rave review of South Pacific..."the best thing on Broadway". He mentions Grease in the context of all the revivals of '50s shows, and says "which I enjoyed, but everybody else hated."
Well, at least it's leagues better than something.
I don't read Windman. He's too long winded. I listen to his audio reviews on his website. They're short and sweet...and enjoyable. He made me want to run to NY to see South Pacific, but I'll resist the urge. He raved about Patti, and so did Ben, so they agree on that one. Most likely, I'll give in to my Patti urge. This is her moment.
Maybe that's why I gave up after a paragraph or so and went to his audio capsules. I have no problem reading Ben Brantley. In fact, I find him fascinating.
But writing talent has nothing to do with one's theatrical judgement, and Matt's opinion could be as valid as Ben's. The "thumbs up" guys are often diametrically opposed, and they're both major newspaper critics.
It's no mystery. They didn't want to nominate Little Mermaid or Young Frankenstein, and totally hated A Catered Affair. Cry-Baby was the only thing left.
Not that I would want to disagree with the "GURU"--(congratulations by the way), but I highly doubt that this billion dollar a year industry chose the "best of the worst". I just can't believe thats how the system works.
Disagree all you like - it's always welcome. But of the shows that got largely negative reviews, they chose CRY-BABY. Doesn't mean it's a good show because it got a nomination. You can put a dress on a dog, but it's still a dog.
Gee Mr. E how do you suppose that Cry-Baby was nominated for Best Musical, Best Book, Best Original Score and Best Choreography? As always, whether a show is perceived as being good or not depends on who is looking. It is a mystery.
Sparkle, are you saying that it is a mystery or that it is a Mr. E?
It's between IN THE HEIGHTS and PASSING STRANGE. Both have their virtues, both are examples of the "new" direction Broadway is taking, both give voices to minority groups which wouldn't necessarily have had a voice on Broadway 20 years ago.
HEIGHTS was written by a 28 year old Hispanic gentleman who has crafted a score made entirely up of rap, salsa, and merengue-flavored tunes while still maintaining a sound that will please traditional theatergoers. It portrays Hispanics not as thieves and crooks, but as upstanding citizens for once.
STRANGE is more of an art piece, developed by a 45 year old African American indie rocker and his longtime caucasian collaborator and former lover. He has said he never set out to write a traditional musical - he just wanted to create a show that he would be proud of and enjoy. The result is a hybrid of performance piece and musical that is thrilling beyond words and my personal favorite of the year.