"You Can't Take It With You"

[YouOverThere]

It's deja vu all over again. My latest sojourn to the theatre was to see You Can't Take It With You, which won a Pullitzer Prize and got great reviews in both Denver newspapers. Once again, I was tremendously underwhelmed by a critics' favorite. It actually wasn't as bad as Hairspray or The Light In The Piazza, which is probably why it didn't win as many awards. A few of the gags even were funny. But still it was a waste of money. The play was overly long and had characters that didn't seem to serve any purpose other than to cram in a few more opportunities for jokes, most of which were predictable and therefore not terribly funny. It was more appropriate for a community theatre group than for a professional theatre company.

On the other hand, Third, Wendy Wasserstein's final play, which I found far more interesting and challenging, only got "pretty good" reviews locally. I'm developing a theory about critics: they prefer simplistic things over complex things because it's easier to sound intelligent talking about the simplistic.

[papeetepatrick]

It's deja vu all over again. My latest sojourn to the theatre was to see You Can't Take It With You, which won a Pullitzer Prize and got great reviews in both Denver newspapers. Once again, I was tremendously underwhelmed by a critics' favorite. It actually wasn't as bad as Hairspray or The Light In The Piazza, which is probably why it didn't win as many awards. A few of the gags even were funny. But still it was a waste of money. The play was overly long and had characters that didn't seem to serve any purpose other than to cram in a few more opportunities for jokes, most of which were predictable and therefore not terribly funny. It was more appropriate for a community theatre group than for a professional theatre company.

Well, if you're talking about the classic property that was a great play and film, 'You Can't Take It with You', it doesn't really make too much sense to review it as though it were other than a revival of a classic. The way you've written it, one might think it was a new play, rather than something from 1936 (the play) and 1938 (the film). 'Hairspray' and 'Light in the Piazza' are different, being only a few years old. However you may not care for it, 'You Can't Take It With You' has been done by hundreds, if not thousands of 'professional theater companies.'

[Helene]

Well, if you're talking about the classic property that was a great play and film, 'You Can't Take It with You', it doesn't really make too much sense to review it as though it were other than a revival of a classic. The way you've written it, one might think it was a new play, rather than something from 1936 (the play) and 1938 (the film). 'Hairspray' and 'Light in the Piazza' are different, being only a few years old. However you may not care for it, 'You Can't Take It With You' has been done by hundreds, if not thousands of 'professional theater companies.'

I can attest to its longevity, as it was my senior class play in the Age of the Brontosauras. However, I can't say I thought much of it then or now, although that's not critical consensus by any means.

[YouOverThere]

Well, if you're talking about the classic property that was a great play and film, 'You Can't Take It with You', it doesn't really make too much sense to review it as though it were other than a revival of a classic. The way you've written it, one might think it was a new play, rather than something from 1936 (the play) and 1938 (the film). 'Hairspray' and 'Light in the Piazza' are different, being only a few years old. However you may not care for it, 'You Can't Take It With You' has been done by hundreds, if not thousands of 'professional theater companies.'

I might have been a little too subtle. I'm not just interested in the specifics of this particular play; I wonder why I find myself so often in disagreement with the critics and if others here have the same experience. This isn't is limited just to theatre; the Rocky Mountain News reviewer gave a very good review to the Colorado Ballet's recent production of Le Corsaire, a production that I thought was one of the weaker efforts in the 8 or so years that I've been attending the CB (and I'm not alone in that opinion).

[dirac]

I'm not just interested in the specifics of this particular play; I wonder why I find myself so often in disagreement with the critics and if others here have the same experience. This isn't is limited just to theatre; the Rocky Mountain News reviewer gave a very good review to the Colorado Ballet's recent production of Le Corsaire, a production that I thought was one of the weaker efforts in the 8 or so years that I've been attending the CB (and I'm not alone in that opinion).

I think we’ve all had that experience at one time or another, YouOverThere – it’s one of the perennial hazards of theatregoing (and moviegoing, and balletgoing). If you know a critic’s work well – if you’ve read that person regularly over a reasonably lengthy period of time – then after awhile it’s possible to figure out how your respective tastes differ and judge accordingly.

In addition, most of us live in areas where there is only one daily paper or two if you’re lucky, whereas if you are reading reviews of the Royal Ballet in the British papers, for example, you have three or more to choose from at a minimum and are thus more likely to get differing perspectives.

It may also be that some of your local critics just aren’t up to snuff, of course. Many papers are cutting back on their arts coverage, which means that people who may not have the proper background are reviewing plays and dance performances. Online reviews are often catch-as-catch can, too.....