In a flap over 'Spider-Man,' previews, reviews and critics gone wild
A sign for "Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark" towers over 42nd Street in New York. (Getty)
When the Supreme Court of the United States decided the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush, the justices were very careful in their language. Once you cut through the legalese, the essence of the delicately worded pronouncement was that these were extraordinary circumstances, and that the ruling should not construed as setting any kind of precedent.
That applies, I think, to the decision this week by a number of theater critics, including myself, to review the Broadway production of “Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark,” even though the production was still officially in previews.
This was a one-off situation. The tradition of honoring previews will otherwise stand, in New York and Chicago.
“Critics gone wild,” said a headline in the Associated Press story about the unauthorized “Spider-Man” reviews this week. Actually, the species is hardly known for its wild behavior and this was probably enough of a party to send critics back into their holes for a good long time.
“Spider-Man” was an extraordinary case because — among other things — of the unprecedented number of postponements of opening night, the excessive number of full-price previews and, of course, the enormous public interest in a show that cost upwards of $65 million and made the kinds of headlines of which most court justices can only dream.
In Chicago, preview periods at non-profit theaters are very short. And critics take no pleasure in reviewing a show before it is ready; we recognize that shows need time to work out their kinks in front of live human beings.
But as my colleague Nina Metz reported in a recent Tribune story, theaters sometimes gloss over the fact that you’re seeing a preview and fail to offer you a discount. And we critics sometimes run across shows that want to delay openings past what seems reasonable — and that need some coaxing to stand up to the light of day.
Take the recent case of “John Leguizamo Warms Up,” a show you can see this weekend at the Royal George Theatre (and I recommend you do, if you like seeing talented people working out their kinks).
Even the Better Business Bureau could hardly fault the level of disclosure: the show didn’t use its Broadway title (“Ghetto Klown”), even though this was the same material and the show is moving directly to New York after it closes here on Sunday. What was taking place was made pretty explicit: Leguizamo is warming up. And, most significant of all, you can see Leguizamo this weekend in Chicago for less than $50 in a decent seat, which is less than half of what you’ll pay in New York. For much the same show. Sounds like a deal to me.
Tryouts are a crucial and frequently exciting part of Chicago’s cultural identity. They are hardly unfamiliar beasts to the audiences here. And like most Chicagoans, I’d rather see a show that still needs work than a tired retread.
But even with all that made clear, the Leguizamo producers were leery about being reviewed before the end of the first week of a two-week run — which was problematic, since we felt that readers would be looking for a review. That left us having rather surreal conversations that went along the lines of:
“John wants it to be ready.”
“But he’s warming up. We know this. He says this.”
“He just wants it to be ready.”
And so on. It was all a tad Pythonesque.
In the end, compromises were struck and the blizzard — which stopped almost every show in town except the unstoppable Leguizamo — made much of the mishegoss moot. All in all, Leguizamo and his producers handled the whole thing far, far better than most.
But the “Spider-Man” issue is a reminder that theaters can’t treat their preview audiences like chopped liver. I got reader complaints, for example, about sound issues at Thursday night’s performance of the touring production of “Les Miserables,” currently up in a fresh and mostly impressive touring production from producer Cameron Mackintosh at the Cadillac Palace Theatre. Such problems were nowhere in evidence when I reviewed the show Friday, at its opening night. And that is why the show does not “open” on the first night — the desire to have the sound, perennially tricky on tours, worked out before the show gets reviewed.
And while I was not there Thursday to hear — or not hear — for myself, and the storm made this a weird theatrical week, I trust my readers. Such sound problems that the show was spoiled for some should not have been there, either, on the first Thursday, when the good people of Chicagoland were paying their good money. The same good money, I might add, that people were paying a week later.
The moral of this story for the consumer is avoid the very first night of tours of big musicals. And the moral for producers of this whole thing is that while most people accept that previews are part of the process, the real place for rehearsals, technical or otherwise, is when you’re either cutting the ticket price or still in rehearsal.
The moral of this story is not to go to musicals at all. They suck.
Posted by: Archie Donald | February 10, 2011 at 01:17 PM
Chris- I'm trying really hard to imagine what "Critics Gone Wild" looks like. And will I see ads for this on late night TV?
And I appreciate any reference to the Pythons.
Posted by: Chris G. | February 10, 2011 at 02:43 PM
Wow, Archie, I admire your willingness to broadcast your closed-mindedness in public like this. Your brave choice to write off every single musical ever written will inspire me in the future to make such blanket statements as "I hate movies," "I hate books," and "I hate all forms of matter."
Posted by: Rob Kozlowski | February 10, 2011 at 04:47 PM
I wish you could email this directly to the Sun Times. You are a better critic than people give you credit for, Mr. Jones.
Posted by: Anderson Lawfer | February 10, 2011 at 05:31 PM
No, the moral to this story is that you need to stop writing comments that glaringly display your boorish upbringing.
Posted by: Andreas | February 10, 2011 at 06:39 PM
Chris,
Be a good boy and keep your shirt on. Think of grandma.
Chuck
Posted by: Chuck | February 10, 2011 at 08:01 PM
The word-of-mouth on SPIDER-MAN has not been good. It wasn't good before a single review came out for the show. In fact, word-of-mouth was quite awful. Horrible even. And yet, for the past few weeks SPIDER-MAN: TURN OFF THE DARK has been one of the the top five grossing shows on Broadway. Most weeks raking in over a million dollars. (Right up there with the misunderstood, high-belting green girl and Broadway's puppet show)
Who was buying tickets and didn't realize how much they were spending on a work-in-progress? Sure, I believe just as any other avid theatre-goer that previews shouldn't be as expensive. But that is hardly ever the case on Broadway. Maybe there's a 10 or 15 dollar difference, but that's about it.
At this point who is going to see the show for its merit? I know I'm planning on standing in line to get a rush ticket to simply say that I was there when... Will I make a pit stop at Dallas BBQ first for one of their giant goblets of frozen long island iced tea? Probably. All the better, right?
But really, what was the point? What was the point of reviewing the show far earlier than it needed to be? -- Did the reviews getting published really do anything? Other than cause some more drama and snag some more media attention, ticket sales probably haven't even seen any kind of blip. If anything, it probably helped ticket sales because people are probably worried that it won't be open for much longer. It's clear that all of the critics had a powwow to decide that they would see the show and release early reviews. Sure, the show has one of the longest preview periods in history, but it also has THE largest budget in the history of musical theatre. So why break the ethics rules now? I can't help but wonder if it was the critics deciding to take their due and put themselves in the spotlight for once. Be bad and go to print early... then people will notice you and pay attention and producers should take heed.
At the end of the day, this reader doesn't think the reviews coming out early did a single thing other than draw attention to the critics. Is the critic's job to tell the producers what to do? Shouldn't the critic go to the show and review it when invited? What's the use in going beforehand? Has The Critic become too self-important? Anyone else think reviewing the show early made all of these critics look childish?
Posted by: Jason | February 10, 2011 at 11:49 PM
It seems to me that it was not the critic who broke the rules, it was the producers of Spiderman who did by extended preiviews for months on end. If they are charging full price and have been doing so for three months, the ticket buying public deserve reviews. By trying to hide behind this "We're in previews" canard, they are simply trying to deceive the public and hide the level of ineptitude of their production. Turn off the dark, spiderman, and let people see what you're up to.
Posted by: Maddog | February 11, 2011 at 12:21 AM
I don't think the critics who reviewed Taymor's musical were thinking as sinisterly as Jason suggests. All of the writers acknowledge the reasons why previews are left alone, but "Spider-man" no longer met those criterion. It's not being significantly worked, it's been open in-town for months, and the producers are demanding full ticket price.
As long as these same critics update their reviews upon the official March opening, I think this will go down as an informed, responsible decision.
Posted by: Dan | February 11, 2011 at 01:37 AM
Musical theater has nothing to do with music, nothing to do with theater, everything to do with the puerile fantasies and woefully stunted sensibilities of the ignorant -- and with the greed of those wily and raffishly admirable producers who prey upon them.
Posted by: Archie Donald | February 11, 2011 at 08:47 AM
I do think the producers were the ones grossly abusing the system, and I am pleased that the critics went ahead and reviewed. For me the final straw was the way producers put out the word that celebrities such as Orpah and Glenn Beck enjoyed the show (apparently even name-dropping Beck in a radio ad). To me, that signalled open season on Spiderman, since they felt that the celebrities could review (or rather promote) it as is.
Posted by: EricP | February 11, 2011 at 12:58 PM
Wow, Archie. I wonder what you think of those of us who perform in musical theatre productions.
Posted by: MEl | February 11, 2011 at 01:10 PM
Archie, you're an idiot.
Posted by: Ralph Sevush | February 11, 2011 at 02:49 PM
(not having seen the show, nor likely to) I suspect this is a very, very expensive stink bomb with a very, very clever marketing campaign. That is the only conclusion I can match to the viral publicity Spidey is getting.
My attitude is "if they're charging full price, they are open, and subject to public comment" and the producer's subtext is "If you can't say something nice about us, please stay away or we'll never make out money back." They may well have bitten of more than they can chew technically, and Spidey may never really be ready for prime time.
Posted by: Al Pergande | February 11, 2011 at 07:35 PM
Let's not forget, folks, Archie lives way out there in Aurora, where he thinks they'll do musical ThEE-Ater at the Paramount.
We forgive you, poor lil' Archie.
Good night.
Posted by: Jake | February 12, 2011 at 06:55 PM
I'm with Jason. Don't hold a wake without a corpse. Don't pat your backs for doing it -- Brantley, Jones, et al. -- when the casket is still empty.
Do you believe in miracles? Me neither. But maybe we're wrong. Maybe the official March 15 opening will astonish us all. Or at least rate a "pretty good."
Yes, Julie Taymor's dreadfully pretentious, and worse, dreadfully dull movies are a colossal drag. But she's achieved wonders on the stage. Once, anyway. Maybe she will again; maybe she'll fail. Deserves a chance either way. And with her name on that marquee, she'd be cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs not to use every bullet in her gun to hit the bullseye. Beg, borrow, steal Mike Nichols for a long weekend. Fire Bono and hire Paul Simon, who knows something about a musical in trouble. Turn the whole thing into a frickin' puppet show. Whatever it takes. And ignore the critics while doing it. Still got a month. She'll be busy. C'mon now, you don't want to see a "genius" fall flat on her kisser, do you?
Blaming producers for being avaricious and unscrupulous? Why shouldn't they? They're ponying up the money. They have a right to a return on their investment. A big return. No gun is being held to any temple to force any person (critics included) to buy a ticket. Even if SPIDER-MAN flops at its premiere it'll be around for years, bet on it. Money to be made in flops.
The corpse appears? I'll bring the Bushmills.
Posted by: Joe Carlson | February 13, 2011 at 10:20 AM
Perhaps the biggest error in all this is that critics found it necessary to review this show at all. Knowing full well that this production is in the midst of so many difficulties and still continuing with a review shows that the participating theater critics have little patience to conduct their duty responsibly. They interrupted a crucial step in the development process that shows they had more to say about the poor business practice of the producers charging full prices for a preview than caring about properly reviewing a show.
Perhaps the only point I will support is that watching a preview should always be cheaper. It provides a service to the theater and the community that it performs for. A symbiotic relationship where those watching a preview provide valuable feedback to a developing production through a shared experience that is crucial to the continued success of any production. The patron in turn is given a discount for providing that service and seeing a show that is less than ready. After all, regardless if the show is a flop and makes millions, we can all agree that we would rather watch a successfully produced production to enjoy over and over through many productions on Broadway and in touring companies and not simply because we want to be there due to media hype. To achieve this we need audiences to be rewarded during previews. Spending your good money should be reserved for what is finished.
The critics should have spent more time editorializing their distaste for the practice of charging full price for a preview than trying to prove a point in doing a full review.
Posted by: Pablo Rojas | February 13, 2011 at 03:46 PM
Just posting one man's humble opinion. Sorry if Rob, Andreas, MEI, Ralph, Jake, and the rest of the chorus line got their Winnie-the-Pooh shorts in a bunch.
Who is Archie Donald?
Not much of a theatergoer, really, and achingly uneasy around those who are. Not my crowd at all. Too many cardigans, too many loafers, too many broken dreams. And the B.O. is un-fookin'-believeable! I mean, what do you people eat for breakfast, Alpo?
Who is Archie Donald?
A simple man. A kind man. A man as sweet and temperate as St. Francis, as wise and compassionate as the Buddha, as brilliant and gentle as Einstein. Gentle to a fault. Wouldn't hurt a fly unless it bit me. Then I'd rip its wings off. With my teeth.
Who is Archie Donald?
I am the tallest, darkest leading man in Hollywood, and Fay Wray sits pertly in the palm of my hand.
Archie Has Left The Building.
Posted by: Archie Donald | February 14, 2011 at 02:57 PM
Apparently, "Archie Donald" also requires psychiatric assistance.
Posted by: Jake | February 14, 2011 at 05:10 PM
Our Man Archie!
This sounds like fodder for some real American Musical Comedy.... If we have any wannabe composer/lyricists out there reading, you should know that I'm probably not the only one who'd be entertained by Archie Donald's song and dance extravaganza! And we can leave the witty one liners up to ol' Arch himself, as those are his strongest suit.
Posted by: nobody in particular | February 14, 2011 at 05:53 PM
Vanessa Redgrave's solution: change the NAME of the play and everyone will be fooled! From the 2/15/11 NEW YORK TIMES:
While Mr. Jones said he slipped easily into his role, Ms. Redgrave acknowledged her own reputation for forcefully examining her characters — for instance, the prejudices Daisy has even though she believes deeply that she holds none. The director, David Esbjornson, described Ms. Redgrave’s focus on puzzling out her character as “laserlike and total,” and this seemed wholly so. For example, she wasn’t too familiar with the other Broadway fare around her; she referred to “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark,” the $65 million musical extravaganza a few blocks away, at one point, wonderfully, as “Let the Light Come in From the Dark, Superman.”
Posted by: Jeremy McDonagh | February 17, 2011 at 08:16 AM
Ah, Vanessa Redgrave! What times we had!
Twenty plus years ago she dropped her bathrobe for me. And for everyone in the New York audience of Peter Hall's production of Tennessee Williams' "Orpheus Descending." Don't remember the play. Remember the bathrobe. And a curious birthmark shaped like the Isle of Wight.
Posted by: Don Flanders | February 17, 2011 at 11:44 AM