Young Frankenstein Theatre Royal Newcastle/Garrick London

I didn't notice the costume falling apart of the missed one? Where was that? The light is a gag - he's a blind man....yes the show stopped briefly with that cloth

Show just gets better - loved it. As did the audience. I think the Garrick has a whopping hit here

One of Elizabeth’s earring fell apart as she walked to the front of the stage for Surprise
One of the ensemble was on stage as a villager after Puttin on the Ritz but still had their tails and green make up on.

Telegraph, excellent 4 Star review.

www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/what-to-see/want-howl-laughter-walk-way-young-frankenstein-garrick-review/

Mark Shenton liked it as well

I have never seen a reviewer miss the mark on a show so much as Natasha Tripney's 2* review in The Stage has done for Young Frankenstein.

Her review is an utter disgrace. Men in power? Blah blah.

I loved the show and 99 percent of others will too.

I don’t think people will take much notice other than she’s made a fool of herself by writing that nonsense.

The stage is a naff newspaper anyway

The Stage comments are ridiculous, she is completely unable to be objective because of her personal opinions. The scenes she describes are so far apart from modern "real" life they cannot be seen to be supporting domestic abuse, objectifying women or anything else. I work with domestic abuse victims, her comments do not help.

More damaging I find are the idylic love stories with the oh so perfect relationships that always turn out wonderful in the end.

Obviously the Weinstein scandal is still a bit raw and effecting for her... "It contributes to a culture in which men in positions of power, movie producers say, can treat women like they exist solely for their titillation and amusement."

Just because there's a specific example in the news right now that can be referred to in an interview doesn't mean lots of women haven't been feeling this way for years. Once you're aware of a social imbalance, you can't just overlook it in a way you would have done once, and perfectly otherwise-innocuous shows can easily rub an audience member the wrong way if it ties in with their awareness. I remember everyone else loving My Night With Reg at the Donmar, but for me it was just one in another long string of plays with no female cast members, and sometimes I can overlook that, but on the day I saw Reg, I couldn't. If Tripney finds the show tired and female-unfriendly and just another straw on the camel's back, then that's perfectly valid and her opinion doesn't need to be excused or explained away.

I'm sympathetic to the general concerns that Natasha Tripney is raising, but I think this is a strange place to dwell on them. I've only seen the film, not this adaptation, but everything that's in bad taste in Young Frankenstein is knowingly and overtly in bad taste. It's unconsidered misogyny or the stealthy abuse wreaked by the powerful that needs exposing. Exposing the not PC values of Mel Brooks is like complaining that there's blood in a steak.

It's not uncommon for people to call out reviewers for not being 'objective' enough, but I never really understand what that means.

By definition any review of an artistic or cultural thing is going to be subjective. Sure, we each have our own concious and unconcious biases, but these will colour every aspect of a review: The way that we take in a story, or the subtexts that we do or don't see, whether we think something is faithful enough to the source material, whether it's funny or not (and whether or not we feel the humour to be intentional, or in good taste, or outdated), what we think of the music and the lighting and acting and whatnot are all going to be a reflection of our personal views and tastes.

The fact that someone might view a work as an allegory for something, or in poor taste, or badly executed, or whatever doesn't make it more or less subjective than someone who views those things differently; it's just that their biases are slightly different.

Indeed, the idea that a reviewer would try to curtail their subjective opinion seems to me to be entirely counter to the point of a review: Over the course of several articles the audience is able to get some idea of how a reviewer's tastes tally with their own. If reviewers started deliberately holding back on their thoughts to somehow be more representative of some unnamed everyman, then why bother having them in the first place? In the extreme, I suppose a truly objective review might be a dispassionate list of the technical specifications of each play.