DEAD ACCOUNTS Reviews

[After Eight]

"This commissioned piece arrives more or less out of nowhere, with no discernible track record, rather like the old days when NY awaited the next Simon, or boulevard comedy, i.e. CACTUS FLOWER and FORTY CARATS."

Neil Simon certainly had a track record, as did those two plays.

[jv92]

The thing about Matt Windman is that he also speaks like he's writing a review. Watch him on Theater Talk.

[luvtheEmcee]

- Matt Windman is one of the worst theater critics in the business , he seems to hate 9 out of every 10 shows he sees.

- Honestly, are there more than one in ten good shows produced nowadays?

I think more to the point is the problem that a lot of young writers (and seasoned ones, too, but this is a learned problem that younger writers are adopting) feel they need to prove themselves, and that they can prove they've got chops by being excessively negative.If you hate something, it shows you're too smart to like it, or smart enough to know better.

[darion]

right on LuvtheEmcee. bunch of failed actor/playwrights who probably got picked on a lot in HS so this is their revenge.

[Auggie27]

Of course Simon and the French plays had a track record. My syntax is skewed, but I meant that unlike the old days, when plays were mounted and headed straight for Broadway/NYC, current productions tend to move out of regional/developmental crucibles. This piece didn't arrive with anything like the DETROIT or CLYBOURNE developmental fanfare, and came in more like a Simon play in days of yore.

[frogs_fan85]

The show did premiere in Cincinnati last year, so it didn't open completely cold... not that that seemed to help any.

[After Eight]

Luv,

"If you hate something, it shows you're too smart to like it, or smart enough to know better."

Or perhaps they're simply telling the truth.

I see the problem in an opposite light: critics who habitually overpraise shows that are awful and that an audience sees as awful. This is epecially true of the duds that are regularly presented by our repertory companies, and which Brantley and Isherwood can't stop raving about. And didn't Time Out's critic give five stars to If There Is......?

This overpraise does far more harm to the theatre than any negative critics, because it lures in audiences that end up hating what they see. I don't think it does any favors to to the authors either, except, perhaps, allowing future bad efforts on their part to be produced.

But the audiences are the ulimate losers.

[DEClarke]

Houston Chronicle - Forgettable Play, Extraordinary Performances

[wonkit]

AfterEight - I see your point about over-praise (and I have been a victim of bloated expectations from critics' praise). But overpraise does not lead to a premature and perhaps unwarranted early closing of an effort that may be flawed but still be worth worth seeing. As one of the three people on this board who liked LEAP OF FAITH, I knew that it was flawed but felt that the critical vitriol was excessive. There were good songs and great performances offered in that musical but the TIMES in particular went in with the knives out. Perhaps the point is that critics should have a balanced and rational approach to all performances, making sure that they at least give credit where it is due. It seems like everything is fabulous or worthless lately. That can't be true, surely.

[CurtainPullDowner]

I'm pretty sure Rebeck will be back on the boards and soon, she wries quickly and the money seems easy to raise with her name (and perhaps a movie-star) attached.
Anyone got the inside poop on SMASH?
Did she leave calmly or kicking and screaming?