Follies

I saw two earlier performances (and was there tonight), and it didn't happen at either of them. He appeared in the doorway at the back of the stage at the very end of the final scene, but that's all.

From what I’ve heard, they’re in the studio at the end of the week recording!

Great news about a recording. Pity there will be no DVD though.

I do hope it's true - how wonderful it would be to have Quast, Dee & Bennett's performances preserved!

I agree Abby. The more I think about Mallardo's comments the less I think I understand. Criticism is filled with comments such as 'I enjoyed x but it would have been improved with more of y' both in the 'professional' sense and the general chit chat sense. 

Indeed the whole thread on 'Hype' is basically a lot of us going 'If it had been more x I'd have liked it but it was y'

But honestly (I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it) I genuinely do not understand how I am 'wrong' to say 'I found x characters more interesting than the main ones' to my mind that's the same as saying 'I wish we could have a film about Black Widow's point of view rather than Iron Man because I find her story more interesting' just because the writers didn't write that story in the film I saw, doens't mean I can't express a preference for that angle of the story. 

Is 'I think Gertrude is a far more interesting character than Claudius and wish there was more of her and less of him' a legitimate critique of Hamlet based on that definition? Genuine question, trying to understand what you mean!

Yes but, firstly the comments you're talking about aren't in a 'review' in any formal sense they're in chit-chat on a forum, which to my mind is equivalent to a discussion, so your point doesn't hold?

And I'd contest that reviews can (and do!) include elements of 'what would improve this production' by their very nature. My comments were 'in my opinion what would improve the book of Follies was more on the other characters' which whether a new or old production is a valid commentary. It's an expression of my reaction to the piece, and critical assesment of what in my opinion does and doesn't work. I fail to see how this isn't 'allowed'

I think the point here may be "constructive criticism": If you critisize only what's there, you would say: "I find the relationship blather tedious and wish Sondheim had cut down on that".

Fair enough. But to be constructive, you would add what you think might have been better, in this case: "I wish he had dedicated more time to the other Follies girls and their stories to make the show more interesting".

It's same difference as saying "Ugh, your hair is awful" (it's what's there) and adding "I think you look much nicer with a fringe that hides your high forehead" (the fringe is not there, but you explain why you think the present state is unsatisfying).

Or am I way off here?

Exactly @baemax I'm equally puzzled therefore by positive commentary i.e by saying 'The set and costumes really make it something special' can imply that without it would be less so-special. As in ANY comment about what is on the stage/contained in the plot/music etc etc also alludes to what it would be without good or bad.

The phrase I used was “criticism serves a purpose when it is based on what is rather than what isn’t”, the key word is purpose. It is interesting to read what Billington or whoever wanted instead but that is about their differing hopes and needs, which isn’t, in the end, something that relates to the reader who has seen, or is thinking about seeing, the production being reviewed. Talking about what is in front of you allows the reader to compare and contrast their own response.

Billington is the worst at this, though.

There is also the difference between text and production, which some reviewers blithely ignore. With an unknown play that doesn’t matter because the text is up for discussion as much as the direction and acting. With a known show, especially a widely known one, a reviewer critiquing the text is on less safe ground, unless the production has hacked it around, been newly translated and so on. 

But you're still talking about critiquing a show as it exists and, of course, any part of that show including the writing is fair game. I'm talking about critiquing a show because it is not a different show, because it is not the show you (or someone else) would have written. That, it seems to me, is not a legit approach to criticism.