BroadwayGirlNYC: Don't (Always) Believe the Hype

Since I see just about every show that comes to Broadway, I do my best to keep from hearing/ reading reviews till after I've seen any given production.  I absolutely love going in "blind" -- to the story, the staging, and the quality of the show. Nevertheless, if I miss the first preview, I end up getting a general sense of many productions before I'm in the house myself.  Even if I avoid the papers, on twitter multiple 140-character exclamations can foreshadow impending excitement or disappointment.  

I try to clear my head when I enter any theatre, and go in with as open a mind as possible.  But sometimes, especially when the buzz is bad, I can't help but think about it when I take my seat.  I cross my fingers and I vow to give every show a chance.  I never want someone else's opinion to color the way I see any show.  But it's hard to go in completely clear headed.  The buzz is always there.

Lately, however, I've realized that buzz can actually flip on its own head; I find the my opinion of a show ends up the opposite of what I've heard/ expected.  

In pondering the way buzz affects my viewing of new theatre, I've realized something that surprises me: I often have a better time at shows that have been reviewed as bad or mediocre, than I do at productions that have been called the greatest thing to come to Broadway in years.

Is it because I disagree with reviewers in general?  Or because I'm fighting their influence so hard that I overcorrect?  I don't think so.  In fact, I think it's all about the relativity between what I'm expecting and what I see.

Consider two shows we'll call "average," which could both leave me saying "I enjoyed it" but not jumping out of my seat to go and see it again.  For show A, I've heard vaguely negative buzz.  For show B, I've heard great things.  I enjoy both shows equally, but because of the contrast to what I've heard, I end up feeling much more excited about show A than I do about show B: it's satisfying to say "Wow, that was really much better than I thought it was going to be!" (show A), but it really stinks to go in expecting a new favorite, then leaving unimpressed (show B).  I've experienced both numerous times.  

Bottom line: Sometimes going in with low expectations can lead to a surprising night of entertainment. 

Reviewers aren't wrong.  They aren't right, either.  Reviews are subjective, about theatre and all other kinds of art.  No one is more "right" than anyone else, from the youngest fan's perspective to the opinion of the New York Times.  I'm not challenging the validity of anyone's review.  What I am doing is encouraging you to take a risk in seeing something that doesn't necessarily have "blockbuster" written all over it.

Whereas the bummer of unmet expectations can be pretty disheartening, lousy buzz can be a safe place to start, because it only leaves room for pleasant surprise.

What are some shows that the critics have disliked, that found a place in your heart?  Tweet me your answers @BroadwayGirlNYC.