An oft-asked question — do reviewers matter anymore? — was the subject of lunchtime chatter today in theater circles, after the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical Love Never Dies was pummeled by The New York Times reviewer Ben Brantley. Some wondered if the blows were enough to impact plans for a November Broadway bow of the sequel to The Phantom of the Opera, which got mixed reviews in London papers. While Lloyd Webber comes closest to critic proof on Broadway, even his name isn’t always enough in this fragile Broadway climate. He’s hedging his bets, at least when it comes to a revival of the Lloyd Webber/Tim Rice musical Evita that will come to Broadway in 2011-2012. I’ve heard that Ricky Martin has committed for a year-long run as Che Guevara. He’s no stunt casting–Martin has stage experience that includes Les Miserables–but he’s protection for backers who want Elena Rogers to play Eva Peron. She doesn’t have the name recognition here and Evita isn’t as branded as Phantom of the Opera is.
Several said the Love Never Dies review might be enough to sink many shows, especially those that don’t have big stars. Lloyd Webber and his Phantom brand are the draws–not Ramin Karimloo and Sierra Boggess, who play the London leads. The shows doing best right now are the ones with stars. Both the Daniel Craig-Hugh Jackman play A Steady Rain and the Liev Schreiber-Scarlett Johansson play A View from the Bridge announced they’ve recouped, while many other shows have tanked. Upcoming hot tickets like Promises, Promises has Sean Hayes and Kristin Chenoweth, and Fences has Denzel Washington, the latter of whom headlined a profitable Broadway run of Julius Caesar in 2005.
“Before the internet, when [The New York] Times panned an out of town show like it did Love Never Dies, that was usually a death sentence for a Broadway move, while a rave was the impetus for raising money for a Broadway move,” one vet producer told me. “You read about critics having less and less power and clout because of the internet. Love Never Dies is the big test case.”
Another test comes this evening, when Scottsboro Boys opens off-Broadway. It is the final collaboration between John Kander and Fred Ebb, who were part way through the musical when Ebb died, and Kander finished writing both the music and the lyrics. Said one producer: “If it gets creamed, who’ll put up the money to bring it to Broadway?”






Last year, the New York Times lost its power to determine which books are best sellers; this was proven by the fact that, for the first time, conservative book publishers stopped sending books to the Times for review. For years, those publishers had submitted books despite the Times refusing to review them; a Times book review was too powerful to ignore. No longer. As of last year, the Times can no longer make or break a book.
And, if Webber’s new musical succeeds after the Times panned it, the Times will have proven it can’t break the theater either. I find it so fitting that, once again, the Times has hammered its own nail into its own coffin.
Thanks Carolyn. But let’s be fair–the New York Times doesn’t make or break conservative books; the bulk purchasing of those books by conservative organizations is what makes them best sellers.
How any of this counts as the Times’ hammering “nails into its own coffin” is beyond me–it’s a statement that, like most of your post, makes no sense at all.
of course you’re right I mean I don’t even know a single conservative lol!!!!!?!?!!
well known fact that conservative organizations also bulk watch Fox News I mean it isn’t really watched by anyone I know can you believe it??!?!?!??!?!?! lololololol
moron
The future of LOVE NEVER DIES has nothing to do with THE TIMES other than to give everyone pause. (At a minimum, they will “delay” the show as they “rewrite and fix.”) The real test case here is the poisonous word of mouth and internet buzz since the show started previews in London. That has spread faster than anything, and will serve to temper the “why not?” curiousity of the general public seeing a “Phantom” sequel. To a T, the internet and tougher print critics have called the show “dull” and “slow.” Friends who have seen the show have reported the same. That will kill the show faster than anything Brantley has written. People forget that every ALW show since Phantom has flopped, including Sunset Boulevard.
For film at least, I don’t think that professional reviews mean much outside of NY and LA. Reviewers analyze films on the basis of art whereas the majority of viewers just want to be entertained, whether or not the storyline is familiar or fresh.
Saw LND this past weekend. I thought Ben Brantley was being generous in his review of the show (yes, it really was that poorly written, performed, directed and produced). I hope Mr. Brantley’s comments and others like it do carry weight with the creative team as it would be folly for them to bring it into NYC in its current condition.
I haven’t seen the show, but have listened to the soundtrack more than once, and as someone who liked “The Phantom” initially, way back when, I am deeply disappointed by this, let’s call it… mediocrity.
It’s not Ben Brantley’s fault that the plot has holes and that the lyrics are atrocious at times. Plus the fact that ALW repeats himself quite a lot in the musical phrasing of the songs.
Nikki, you understand romance like Jeffrey Dahmer understands women. These movies are made for people who still have optimism in their life.
The average critic is out of touch with the average viewer and viewers make or break a film/play not the critic. Word or mouth makes or breaks anything these days. Ten years from now I can’t imagine there will be more than a handful of staffed paid critics. People are more likely to see a movie or play based on something they read on Twitter.
I saw it. The music was wonderful, the story was not. It definitely needs some major changes in that sense. As far as the Times – who cares. A left wing nut propaganda machine, not better than Fox News, a right wing nut machine. Time to pull the plug on all these extremists, who don’t represent the common sense center majority (over 60% in all polls).
I very rarely listen to critics when choosing a movie to go see, i usually check out user reviews on the web. I don’t go to broadway plays generally, But I would do the same thing for plays.
Interesting how negative blogs are these days. The UK Telegraph review: The show is Webber’s best since POTO. The Guardian’s was positive too. Ramin Karimloo, LND’s Phantom, had renergized the London POTO with his young sensual take of the Phantom. Like or not, he has a following among fans that even Lloyd Webber acknowledges by casting him. His Till I Hear You Sing is a terrific number. The show has a 15 million advance, which is pretty darn good for very little publicity. Remember what all those nasty blogs about Avatar? Didn’t they trash the film too? I don’t care if it comes to New York, I’d rather see it in London, the gay Disneyland for grown-ups. BTW, when POTO opened in 1986 CHESS was the big show and with great reviews. What theater is that one playing in?
CHESS is vastly superior to POTO in every way.
CHESS is not the point. I was working in London when POTO opened in ’86 and folks forget that the original was way out of fashion with its operatic melodies and baroque sets. The thing that made POTO critic proof was it was sold out for months ahead, and the fire drill at Her Majesty’s during previews where I think Michael Crawford injured his foot and went back on and performed injured. It was the first time I walked by a theater and saw a hit show with no rave review bites posted outside. The point being made ALW and POTO fans live in their own unique universe and they will decide on their own whether the show is a success or not.
Broadway reviews are still held in high regard, yet Lloyd Webber is teflon – so let’s see who wins!
The inverse is true, too. Great reviews, even from the Times, don’t make a show. Ragtime and The Neil Simon Plays this season both got out and out raves from most news outlets, Times included, yet struggled to build word of mouth and audiences.
As for Andrew Lloyd Webber re-writing…he’s never been one to do much tinkering with his shows, whether they get good or bad reviews. He and his producing organization rely on the “event” like atmosphere that surrounds his shows to sell tickets. Will LOVE NEVER DIES run 22+ years? Unlikely. But when it opens in NYC, will it have a huge advance? — Yes, and don’t look to Lord LW to hand out the discount tix, either. He DOES know how to put on a theatrical spectacle. Maybe this show, they can keep their running costs manageable (no major stars helps), coast off the PHANTOM brand, and succeed where Sunset Boulevard and Woman in White(most recently) have failed. He’s virtually critic-proof, as he’s shown in the past, and he’s got to rely on that for this one.
Frankly, I’m disappointed with the (needs a dramaturg) story, leaden book, and many of the show’s lyrics. But, I enjoyed much of LND’s score. Will it change much?…that all depends on whether or not ALW and his collaborators can agree, or agree to disagree. I’d be curious to see IF there are major tweaks, will it make this silly story more bearable?
Well said, theaterguy.
Let’s also keep in mind that ALW hasn’t had a Broadway hit since, well, since Phantom of the Opera.
He is hardly an audience favorite anymore.
Times changes. And that can’t be blamed on “The Times.”
Lou Harry
http://www.ibj.com/arts.
I’m curious to see how “The Addams Family” goes over. Paid $95 top price for its preBroadway run in Chicago because of Nathan Lane and the cartoon connection. The shock of how BAD the story, musical numbers and total lack of chemistry between Lane and Bebe Neuwirth was, took precedence over the ticket cost. I know out of town runs are for shakedowns, but this project seemed DOA.
Maybe a few bad reviews can spare American Idiot the agony of absolute failure…
The New York Times is like a bloated old turd. It still floats, but stinks to high heaven. Plus, it’s about to be flushed.