In the wake of the Toronto opening of a stage version of The Lord of the Rings back in March that I attended, I blogged here about the difficulties it was going to face after the mostly hostile local press reception it received… and commented that it was also playing in a city “where the local population isn’t huge, the tourists aren’t as plentiful as they used to be, and the theatre seats 2,000”.
Yesterday the closing notice was posted for the show to end its Toronto run on September 3, by which time it will have played 230 performances in 31 weeks. WIth the huge local investment that was made in the show — including from the local government — there are going to be a lot of people licking their financial wounds on this one. The political spin, however, is that the production needs be to measured in more than just base line costs: according to the closing notice release, the show “generated an unprecedented amount of coverage from international media, highlighting Toronto’s creative communities. By September 3rd, more than 420,000 people will have attended the show, some coming from as far away as Asia, South America and throughout Europe. It is estimated that by its closing date, The Lord of the Rings will have generated an economic impact of more than $640 million to Toronto and the province of Ontario.”
But what’s interesting is that, less than a week before this closing notice arrived, last Friday saw the announcement of the show’s London opening for next June at Drury Lane: of course, we have a far bigger audience catchment area than Toronto here, but the stakes — and the mistake of Toronto, as it must now seem — are being driven even higher (not to mention ticket prices, which are expected to top out at £60). It can’t afford to fail, in any sense, once again. But if mistakes have been made, at least they got the order of their announcements right: it could have been fatal to announce the opening of a London Rings after it was already known that the Toronto one was closing. As it is, the producers are going to have to fight the perception that they are importing a flop.
Meanwhile, further to my blog of yesterday, Cameron Mackintosh might have been quietly confident that he was importing a known hit, even though I feared how my colleagues might respond. And true to our collective perversity, those fears have, alas, been borne out. There’s definitely something grudging in the London critical tribe being faced with a show that has already been deemed a hit elsewhere: according to the Daily Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish, “either something has been lost in translation or this dinkily alternative but incredibly light-weight affair, staged now with a mainly British cast, was never as much cop as its New York admirers have been claiming…. Robert Lopez and Jeff Marx’s tame beast of a show lumbers up a cul-de-sac of one-note satire before hitting a brick wall of anodyne schmaltz. By the second half I found myself mentally rechristening it Avenue ZZZ.” Myself, I was a fan in New York and found it just as much cop here as there. And despite having arrived in town from New York only yesterday, it kept me fully awake….
Yours was the only fair Avenue Q review I read from a critic, Mark. The others were simply infuriating.
I agree, I loved this show! I do not understand how such praise can be given to a show like Jerry Springer, (which bored me senseless) and Avenue Q gets called a one-joke show?? I do not agree, I think AQ is filled with laughter through different scenarios.
What the critics have failed to realise, is that Avenue Q is attracting a huge new audience to the theatre. People who don't usually like musicals are lapping this up. Surely this should be embraced. This is also the only original musical this year amongst the revivals, tributes and shows based on films or books. I also do not understand the issue with the "feelgood" ending? The ending basically says "This is it" this is real life, it's only for now. Perhaps the laughably predictable critics would rather experience some of the misery they create! I think they missed the point at times, certainly Michael Billington missed something by quoting "would-be comic and his Chinese wife."
I have seen the show twice during previews, the second time I went was to bring a load of friends (who loved it just as much and will go on to bring others.) The audience response was amazing each time. Lets hope the strong word of mouth continues and prove that critics power is weak in comparison.
Part of the problem -- if it can be called that -- with Avenue Q is that it's a piece of musical theatre that draws on other media, in particular television, for its inspiration. As a result, I think that audiences, who get their cultural fulfilment from all avenues (if you'll excuse the pun), get the references far more than your average critic does.
If you spend all your cultural life in the theatre, then yes, Avenue Q's songs may sound simplistic and trite. What you miss out on is that they're *supposed* to be -- because it's parodying the Sesame Street/Children's Television Workshop way of looking at the world, but applying their principles to adults' situations instead of kids'.
There aren't many musicals, particularly in the West End, that I could bear to see more than once. Avenue Q is the one show where I could quite happily revisit time and again.
And let's face it - since when do critic's opinions of some musicals matter anyway? We Will Rock You and Mamma Mia got eye-rolls and tuts from most critics but appeals to a certain large audience and have been very popular. Maybe the majority of critics need to ditch their high-brow snooty attitudes to theatre and MT and accept that just as there is a audience for reality TV, there's also an audience for silliness and a good time in theatre. Not every production will be the Fraiser of musicals. There's always going to be the Friends of musicals too. Horses for courses, as they say.
Maybe newspapers need to employ some of those non-Oxbridge types that they all like to avoid (according to that recent survey) to review musicals too. You know - for the average joe and not just these middle class 'theatre types'.
I am really annoyed that there is such a disparity between the response of an average audience to Avenue Q and that of the majority of the critics.
I saw the show twice in previews and everyone around me was saying how fantastic it was, everyone seemed on a genuine high. To read the misery guts reviews really made me feel sorry for a piece that deserved so much better, many critics obviously wouldn't know fresh and funny if it hit them in the face. They do their readers a real injustice when they do not reflect in the slightest the average audience reaction to a show.
I saw Avenue Q and loved it but I did grow up with the Muppets. Maybe for the muppet generation this show will hit home.
Prior to seeing the show I had listened to the cast album. I had not really enjoyed the songs (which I thought were only mildly amusing), but on stage it all worked wonderfully. The cast were excellent, the set looked great and the show was warm and fuzzy on so many levels!
Jerry Springer the Opera has raised the standard on the expectations for satire in London, but I thought it was a little unfair to compare the two shows...
I think it's not a perfect show and of course it can't be cause It wasn't made for the stage but for the screen.