Opening Night - Gielgud

NY Times is decisively negative. Gift Link

It opens with "in a London auditorium, a work of art is being desecrated" and has nothing good to say about the "algorithmically bland" score, Sheridan Smith who "exudes a homely approachability," and Benjamin Walker is "wooden."

"There are no dance numbers, power ballads, lavish sets, or cute romantic storylines. By entering the West End, ‘Opening Night’ is almost inevitably inviting an audience that will be confused by it. And yet: there’s a palpable warmth to it. Maybe it’s a musical, maybe it isn’t, but under all the avant-garde bells and whistles, it unquestionably has a heart"

Amen to that.

That Guardian reviewer is the worst

NY Times Review reviewed:

The review begins with a killer opening line, worthy of a novel:

"In a London auditorium, a work of art is being desecrated."

This sets the review in extreme highbrow territory, deifying a frustrating idiosyncratic ultra serious portrait, of creativity and aging, as a great work of art, and using it as a cudgel to beat this production.

The review serves conservative Cassavetes fans first and foremost, as his work is presented as essentially perfect, but the review gives no inkling of how insular and difficult Cassavetes is, and thus the review is essentially useless to Sheridan Smith fans who have bought a ticket.

The conclusion, that "Van Hove has transformed a taut, subtly observed character study into a sludgy melodrama" is foreshadowed by the novelistic opening line, which makes it inevitable.

The narrowness of this lens means that the fact that your vast bulk of ticket buyers, Sheridan Smith fans who see a few shows a year, would consider this show infinitely more fun than the source material, is impossible to address, and thus the review deliberately neglects to serve the majority of the show's audience.

Rufus Wainwright's songs are described as "algorithmically bland," which addresses the lyrical element patronisingly, by assuming that simplicity isn't beautiful, but also neglects the musical elements, which are as gorgeous, lush and primitive as anything Wainwright has done. Thus, the review's fetish for Cassavetes not only dies not serve the larger subset of Sheridan Smith fans, it also does not serve the smaller subset of Rufus Wainwright fans.

For highlighting that this show is less intense than its source material, the review deserves credit, but overall, it's just insular highbrow fossilised masturbation, unopen to the possibilities and potential of the piece, pandering to Cassavetes fans, and snubbing the core audience of ticket buyers.

I'd give this review 2 and a half stars.

Review of Reviews: The Telegraph

This review reads like it was written by Sheridan Smith's healthcare professional:

"She had a much publicised mental health episode during the 2016 West End run of Funny Girl, which saw her withdraw from performances for over two months. Since her return to the theatrical fold, fans have rallied, as has she; her ace turn in Shirley Valentine, which comically treats the woman-in-crisis trope, was a signal that she would bravely face her demons, and take risks."

The audacious cod psychology of the reviewer, who seems more like a celebrity stalker than a reviewer of a West End show, renders the overfamiliar reference to Smith as "Shezza" even more galling and appalling, as in:

"Shezza will live to fight another day."

Such an atrocious reviewing approach is slightly redeemed by its observation that "although [Van Hove] pioneered the use of live video on stage, here he barely bothers to justify, dramatically, his use of a roving film crew beyond the basic steer that the company are being trailed for a fly-on-the-wall documentary." It is certainly true that the documentary crew is a thin device, equally thin in "MJ the Musical," but better used there.


Overall, 1 star for the cod psychological hogwash.

I'm not sure if you're saying the reviewer here is stating the bleedin' obvious, or being pretentious on the show's behalf.

I haven't seen the show yet, but this seems to be the same idea, but more readable than the younger Norma glimpsed through the silver screen at the start of Jamie Lloyd's 'Sunset Boulevard'.  I'll admit that I didn't 'get' that when seeing SB, but only when seeing production shots from 'Opening Night'. Totally didn't get it was a silver screen, because it was an up/down curtain, and may have been distracted by the very uncomfortable 15-20 min wait for the show to start, and sense in the audience that it may be cancelled, with many people saying "ridiculous"  and "is this part of the show?" as the Young Norma actress stood there for all that time - a shambles.

The archetypal grandeur of the red curtain, and yet the furtive mean voyeurism of seeing through it just 'is' - barely a metaphor even.  A bit like the house in NT's 'An Inspector Calls'.  I remember seeing it decades ago, and some students were baffled afterwards at the family all expressionistically & uncomfortably packed into the house at the start - "what did it mean?".  It meant the family are uncomfortably packed into the house.  Is there a word for an expression of something that's abstractly artistic, but actually is just 'the thing itself' rather than a metaphor or simile?

Timeout review reviewed:

"Sheridan Smith is superb" says the opening headline, directly addressing the concerns of likely ticket buyers.

But does the reviewer warn those punters that they won't get the typical genre gratifications from this show (aka no dramatic impetus)?

Yes. The reviewer helpfully classifies this show as a "leftfield European musical" plonked in "the middle of London’s glittering West End."

He, again usefully, elaborates that the show is "entirely unshackled by genre niceties." Perhaps, he should have spelled out what that means: no addictive story dramas building to predictable thrilling climaxes, but still, it's clear, this one's different.

And the reviewer illuminates the positive in this absence of traditional drama, the uniqueness of the show: "there is truly nothing else like ‘Opening Night’ in Theatreland at the moment – not even close."

After all, you miss a "Heathers," there's a "Mean Girls." You miss a "Thriller Live," there's an "MJ."

But there is NOTHING like this. And this is the one in 10 years time you'll kick yourself for missing, even if you want to diss it till you die lol. The reviewer steps out of time to acknowledge that value.

Further, the review is specific about the tonal oddness of the show, which spurns typical tragic drumbeats, and "thrillingly pulls away from that, as Myrtle literally changes the script of her life and ‘Opening Night’ drifts into a euphoric final fantasia."

"There are no dance numbers, power ballads, lavish sets, or cute romantic storylines" warns the reviewer, but there is, he points out, "a buoyancy and belief in humanity that’s lacking in the original film."

And here it becomes clear that the heir to Michael Billington's compassionate embrace of both bracing theatre and embattled humanity is Lukowski, a critic who centres helping audiences decide whether something is to their taste, while remaining open to works that bravely break the mould.

4 stars for this helpful review.

Not crucified enough

Let’s see what the Sunday papers say too

Wow. Enough positive reviews that this isn’t the bloodbath we predicted. Fascinating stuff.

Does anyone know the current running time by any chance? I know its been cut since first previews

you know, for a while now  he's been my favourite critic, miles better than the Guardian one for example. I usually agree with his comments. I have no desire to see this musical but I'd be more inclined to believe this review than any of the others.