ALW's Cinderella

I'm sceptical about this notion that critics will be more generous simply because theatre is making a return. A professional critic is not likely to allow that to influence their opinion of a show. The Guardian review was detailed and fully justified its five star rating by what was actually said. This is also true of other positive reviews. The difference with Quentin Letts' early review in previews is that he didn't justify his rating with a detailed critique - had all the other reviews been as cursory as his there might be a case, but no. The critics genuinely loved this. 

100% this. It’s a lovely fun witty show with a big heart, some great songs and a fab design. Delighted to see it getting the recognition it deserves!

And indeed, like Phantom, the snidey comments and desperation to see it fail can now disappear into obscurity….

When the Guardian critic tells you that the lyrics are amazingly witty when they're pedestrian at best, and the tunes are fantastic when they're all ploddy and square and none of it fits the character it's supposedly written for, you begin to question their sanity. Are they so desperate for a hit they'll say absolutely anything?

With all due respect, I think it's unfair to assume all opinions which don't match up with yours about this show should be thrown in the same big pile just because a few reviewers paralleled your thoughts. I totally agree with you that there have been some snidey comments directed at Cinderella, and very possibly some people who - for whatever reasons - don't particularly want it to succeed. But a lot of the criticism has been fair, and people are entitled to a negative opinion.

I personally really wanted this to be great, but I left the show feeling quite let down after struggling with it. I've posted my detailed thoughts previously, but it had nothing to do with snide or desperation for anything to fail. I just honestly didn't think, despite a few strong elements, that it was a very good show. In fact, the WOS review may have hit the nail on the head with this comment:


For me, the good heart and sumptuous tunes weren't enough to forgive its (IMO many) failings. For Sarah Crompton (with this review) and others, I guess they are. And maybe that's the key to whether you enjoy this show or not.

I don't rate that particular reviewer at all, not because I disagree with him, but because he fails to show any musical insight and winds up being condescending towards something he hasn't given any real consideration to. Here he points to two songs that he considers "joyful" as best examples and has nothing to say about the score. His review is shallow. The fact that he rates "School of Rock" as one of ALW's best is very telling to me. The Independent provided a much better mixed review than this one. And while I'm not a fan of some of ALW's recent work, how can you just dismiss all of it as "self-important nonsense"? He totally lacks objectivity. 

It depends on which of these are really critics. Quentin Letts is not really a theatre critic. Nor is the person the Guardie have used. Most professional critics have been replaced by journalists/columnists who don't have much of a cultural memory. And I mean this sincerely - I don't have a view on Cinderella either way as I'm holding off seeing it until later in the year. Nothing would please me more to find a show that is to my liking. That said, what I've seen/heard so far doesn't suggest that this is going to go on to attain classic status, as it will date within a decade.

I have much more respect for, say, the 4* review for Cinderella in the Times. At least Clive Davis knows what he's talking about. Unlike, say, the entertainment reporter the Express got to do their Phantom review, who even stated the show was at the Prince Edward!

Original Poster.