Critical responsibility for new musicals

Mark is associate editor of The Stage, as well as joint lead critic. He has written regularly for The Stage since 2005, including a daily online column.
by -

Can critics be part of the dialogue and conversation around the nurturing and development of new musicals, or do we just have to put up and (not so) silently protest when we are faced with some of the routine horrors that are put in front of us?

Are producers feeding the public what they really, really want – with shows like We Will Rock You, Rock of Ages and Let it Be only encouraging, as I wrote here just the other week, "a continued rush to the bottom"?

On the one hand, is it any wonder that the West End has virtually given up the ghost (not to mention trying, and failing, to turn a musical version of Ghost into a hit) in terms of creating original musicals, but is relying nowadays on an endless diet of recycled pop shows or imports of pre-existing Broadway hits, like the imminent arrivals of The Book of Mormon and Once (the latter with a largely Anglo-Irish creative team who had to go to New York to create it before bringing it back home).

Now, however, the tired, lame formula of jukebox catalogue shows is looking like it is on its last legs, too, though just the other day Judy Craymer, producer of Viva Forever!, was putting on a brave face to the Evening Standard, claiming, "The critics were always going to give us a hard time but the truth is it's sold out until June." In which case, one wonders just why the show is at the half price ticket booth every day and tickets are freely available on the ATG website for almost any performance you look for.

But blaming the messenger seems to be a recurring theme: Jennifer Saunders, the show's book writer, added to the Standard, "So the critics – five middle-aged men – didn't like it. If you send your dad to see Viva Forever! on his own then of course he's going to hate it. It was no surprise."

As one of those avowed middle-aged men, I'd only like to point out that many of my colleagues are in fact women, and none liked it any more than we did. In The Times, Libby Purves noted in a 2-star notice, that Saunders's contribution was

…scrappy, lazy, clichéd and inconclusive. Even the end makes no sense, suggesting no jeopardy, choice or sacrifice.

The Stage's Lisa Martland added:

In Mamma Mia!, producer Judy Craymer struck theatre gold with a musical that had just enough of a story to cleverly showcase the excellent pop songs of Abba, but her luck has run out with this truly mediocre attempt at doing the same with the Spice Girls’ back catalogue.


And in The Observer, another female critic Miranda Sawyer (who is much younger than Libby, lest age be a factor), wrote:

Oh dear, there is very little to recommend this show. The songs are murdered, either by the set-up – a discussion about middle-aged pubic hair leads, astonishingly, into Too Much – or the arrangement.

Another younger (but male) critic Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out dubbed it "a dull, pointless exercise in not giving the people what they really, really want" and nailed the underlying problem precisely:

For the most part the blandly cast, blandly sung Viva feels like it was knocked off in about five minutes, a witlessly affectionate homage to reality TV talent shows masquerading under the thinnest veneer of satire. It's inconceivable that the intended original Viva Forever! director Marianne Elliott – she of War Horse and The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time – would have stood for this, and you only have to look at the just-opened The Bodyguard to see what great direction (from Thea Sharrock) can do for an iffy musical. Viva Forever! is now helmed by Paul Garrington, a longterm Craymer associate whose recent career has largely involved setting up new productions of Mamma Mia! – her sole previous hit – in foreign countries.

Of course all of this has come after the event, as critics have been invited to pass judgement on a show that has already gone through a long period of prior development. But perhaps those negative reviews have dented not just egos but had a positive effect: I'm hearing that it has been re-rehearsed and changes are being implemented. So perhaps it would be interesting to re-visit it now.

I've yet to do that, but more immediately and personally I've seen a creative team respond to my own criticisms of another recent opening – and implement immediate changes. When I reviewed Craig Adams and Ian Watson's LIFT at Soho Theatre that opened the week before last, I wrote in my review for The Stage that it "has sparks of genuine pleasure, but is weighed down by a fragmented, over-earnest structure."

Watson, who wrote the book, duly got in touch with me, admitting, "it's looking like some people are missing a crucial point and without understanding it the whole thing looks just plain odd and fragmented", and offering to send me a synopsis. Of course, no musical should require a synopsis to fully understand it (though it has always intrigued me that the programme for Les Miserables finds it necessary to include one!), but after I read it, I realised I had indeed missed a key point that underlines the show's whole structure. That may well have been me being a bit dim, but as Watson considerately pointed out, the fault can never be with the audience.

But responding to that criticism more directly, the creative team have clarified the thing I missed – and moved it to the top of the show. So I went back to see it again last Thursday, and was pleasantly surprised by what I saw. It's not just that they'd taken active steps to embrace the criticisms I'd made and sought to fix their show 'on the run', but even more positively I was struck by how fresh and engaging the show was to its youthful packed audience.

It's fantastic that there's such enthusiastic support for new work like this, and perhaps venues like Soho – which, with its Edinburgh fringe feel of different shows taking place simultaneously on each of its different floors, and its large, buzzy bar space on the ground floor providing a social haven to it all to coalesce around – can offer a home for musicals as well as comedy, which seems to be its default setting these days.

The West End may be the Holy Grail of young (or any) composers, but after the experience of Loserville there last year, perhaps Soho would be a more hospitable home – and still geographically in the West End – for them to find their feet in. Who wouldn't rather play to a full house at Soho than an empty Garrick Theatre in the West End?

I'm going to return to this theme tomorrow, and look at other initiatives that are planting the seeds for musicals to grow.


  1. I am particularly interested to read Mark’s comments about Lift here. He was not the only one a bit befuddled by this musical. All credit to Ian Watson for revising & explaining, both to theatre fans on a forum & to Mr Shenton though & accepting constructive criticism graciously. Ms Craymer would do well to adopt such an attitude. She could start with perhaps consulting theatre forums where she will find many representative opinions of Viva Forever from all kinds of theatre goers (although she’s not going to truly know if they are ‘middle aged men’ or ‘athletic & wearing a thong’, I suppose…)

  2. True – but an issue is a lot of new musicals have titles that the general public (not people, like us, wrapped up in the industry) cannot relate to. The problem is people write a series of songs and think they’ve written a musical; the book often comes second hand (as was probably the case in LIFT). It was even the problem with Betty Blue Eyes, once Cameron changed the title from the recognisable “A Private Function”, the public had no idea what they were going to see. Creativity is all well and good for young writers, but if they want the shows to pay their bills for the rest of their lives (which, of course, not all writers care about) the subject matter is the most important aspect.

  3. The Soho is great for new work, but sadly hearing mumblings it is closing in Spring for a year…

  4. I haven’t seen Viva, but the main reason it’s so unappealing for me is that the song catalogue the show is built around is considerably weaker than the one the producers of Mamma Mia! had at their disposal.

  5. The gentleman doth protest too much I think. Several new musicals that have original scores have opened in the last few seasons – produced by terrific people with integrity, arguably vastly better than GHOST or THE BODYGUARD or SHREK et al, : most dismissed with backhanded slaps by Mr Shenton and his colleagues – many of whom wax poetic about the big corporate musicals they pretend to shun.

  6. I agree with mr.shenton that there is a lack of new orginal musicals in London and that already for years. It’s funny that one of the most exciting new shows I saw lately is a new musical I saw in Stockholm. It’s a daring new show called hjalp sokes with music by benny andersson which is completely different from the regular musicals. You would expect such an experimental show in London rather then in Stockholm. I really do hope the west end will find new inspiration soon.

  7. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this article reads like, ‘I made a criticism. The writer corrected it. Now the piece is good.’ Opinions, as we know, are like bumholes. I can’t count the times that critics have contradicted each other in reviews, so for a writer to implement a sudden change to a musical that has been in development for at least four years, based on one critic’s comments, seems nuts to me. I saw the musical after this article was published and the book is still vague. Even one of the cast admitted to me that at times they don’t even know what’s going on!

Leave a reply