why did the critics hate BONNIE & CLYDE?! | review roundup of the new west end musical

[@daveatron_]

tbh my reason for seeing a show is pretty much different every time. I saw Back to the Future bc i love the film, I saw Newsies for the dancing, I saw Operation Mincemeat bc of the ridiculously good reviews, I saw &Juliet for the queer rep, I saw Mary Poppins bc it was closing, I saw Tina bc I got a £15 ticket 😉😉

[@jessredman9439]

Watched this show 2 days ago (the final preview) as an avid fan of both the og broadway album and many of the cast. However, the friend who accompanied me had never listened to the album and barely knew the story. We both absolutely loved it and I for one will definitely be back. I was so disappointed to read the reviews as they just didn’t give any justice to the incredible show I still maintain I watched. In fact, it had me doubting my own opinions slightly and warning friends and family that the reviews didn’t reflect the amazing time I’d had. In this cost of living crisis, especially as theatre ticket prices continue to rise, Ive been very hesitant to book tickets for shows recently, and have possibly paid more attention to the opinions of reviewers than I should have, but now seeing how much our opinions have differed on this show in particular will definitely change this.

[@TheTradge]

This is my problem with theatre critics, they don't seem to be able to distinguish between traditional theatre and musical theatre, they aren't one and the same, and I feel treating a musical in the same way you would treat a play is short-sighted and lazy, we need more people reviewing who are better suited to reviewing musical theatre specifically, either that or update existing critics on the criteria on which they judge a musical, because at the moment they've got it all backwards

[@BauerandBagwell]

Where musicals are concerned, I often go for neither the score nor the script- Before seeing a musical for the first time, I try and go into it cold- I often deliberately don’t listen to the cast recording until after and will often have like a one sentence synopsis worth of information on the script. I like going to the theatre and being surprised… and then go back for a repeat viewing or two!

[@mwmheps]

Same here!

[@jurney3478]

Yeah. I don't generally like listening to cast recordings. I went into Next to Normal cold and was so grateful I did. I was genuinely shocked by the 1st act "twist".

[@whoviangirl3878]

same!

[@chuckoneill2023]

That being said, how do you choose which shows to see? By the performers? By the reviews? I'm curious....

[@ey8767]

Same!

[@mtfan3457]

I go for both song and story, if i don't like either the songs or story line i won't go and see it

[@benjaminmcelroy6894]

As much as it hurts to say I think score weights more for a musical. A musical with a weak book can still be very captivating. Cabaret comes to mind. The book has parts that need work (even after all the rewrites they have done) with some highlights. The last scene with Cliff and Sally, Cliffs last monologue, Fraulein Schinders last monologue is also great. But it has parts that are weak and drag. Meanwhile Billy Elliott had a surprisingly great book but a score that has so many duds making the show at times such a slog to get through.

[@andyhaochizhang]

I wouldn't call the modern Cabaret scripts weak in the context of musicals, since there are so many high profile musicals that are quite devoid of content (or even send questionable messages) when the music is stripped away.

[@PhimbleG-d]

I loved it. It’s fun, it’s a bop. The book is good. Not everything has to be Six or Hamilton 😃

[@langleymneely]

I’m just grateful this show isn’t trying to “update” the Bonnie & Clyde story by making them fugitive social media influencers on tiktok or some other awful Boomer “Hello fellow kids” cringeworthy attempt at “relating” to the “youths”!? Now watch the very second I write this Mickey is going to say that’s exactly how the show is! Lol😜

[@davesmith5470]

Love that you dissect other reviewers and critics reviews, it's one of the wonderful things about the way social media has taken away the professional newspaper critic whose power to kill a show has been dramatically diluted. Sunset Boulevard also famously starts at the end, and then back tracks - nothing wrong with that device. I'd love to see this show now having listened to you, to make my own mind up. I book shows for all sorts of reason, the 'buzz' going around a great show, the writers (I'll go see everything ALW does for example), the artists, the book, reviews like this....a whole mix of things. I can't play Chess but still went to see it and now seen it many times and it's one of my top ten faves. Love your articulation and perspective MickeyJo - such thoughtful thorough analysis.

[@TheTradge]

For me the score and songs are a huge contributing factor, there's a reason it's called "musical" theatre, the reason I fell in love with Hadestown was primarily because I adored the cast recording, I think the music is stunning and beautifully crafted, on top of it being a gorgeous reinterpretation of the original Greek myth. Bonnie and Clyde is the same for me, it's one of the few cast albums where I literally don't skip a single song, and it's a regular feature of my drive to work, so yes it's safe to say a good score is a massive contributing factor for me enjoying a musical. This is why I'm not a fan of Lloyd Webber, I find his music incredibly dull and simplistic, not to mention he plagiarises a LOT. I watched Phantom on broadway last year, it was impressive in terms of its scale, set, costumes, etc, but the narrative and score I just found extremely boring and it didn't really "grab" me in the same way shows like Hadestown, Hamilton, Billy Elliot, Miss Saigon, etc did.

[@helzbelle13]

Saw this show last night & it was every bit as amazing as I knew it would be! Slight changes to the Broadway version I already knew & loved, but the West End cast & crew did an amazing job and deserved that standing ovation they got!

[@rainbowpearlvlogsandanimations]

I haven’t seen this particular version of the show, but I was in a small, local production of Bonnie and Clyde last year. A couple of the performers who were in the production I was in did get the chance to see it on the West End, and of course, they absolutely adored it. Seeing the show get panned by critics like this, despite its positive audience reception, and seeing its lack of attention at the Oliviers, I’ll admit is quite heartbreaking. This is not only because I feel a tinge of nostalgia for that small production when I hear of it, but also because I think its musical style is not often seen in modern musical theatre, and though the book isn’t the greatest in the world, it’s certainly not terrible.

[@lene_m.r7778]

Honestly, when I first heard about Bonnie & Clyde the musical and hearing that it only ran on Broadway for a month, I wasn’t even that surprised. The American theatre market seems to hate Frank Wildhorns work. Pretty much all of his musicals have been unpopular during their, mostly brief, Broadway runs and almost never get revivals. The funny thing is, in Germany (my home country) his musicals are wildly popular(Especially Dracula and Jekyll and Hyde, but Bonnie & Clyde as well) and there is a guarantee that at least one of his musicals is running somewhere at any given time.

[@IvyroseGullwhacker]

Okay I'm just seeing this comment and now I'm praying for a German production. My best friend lives in Hamburg and I've been so pleased by what is being produced there!

[@jscho8674]

It's odd, isn't it? The way New York audiences hate Wildhorn shows is very confusing to me. I saw the very first production of "Jekyll and Hyde" at the Alley Theater in Houston. It starred Chuck Wagner and Linda Eder. I always thought they should have stuck with Chuck in the lead, and should not have changed the show so much between that production, and then the later pre-Boradway Houston production that starred Robert Cuccuioli (sp?) And Linda again. Robert couldn't sing the full role like Chuck did, and they took a ton of good songs out or reworked them. The Anthony Warlow concept album is closer to the original Alley Theater production, but even it wasn't as good. It's such a shame. Wildhorn later premiered his "Svengali" at the Alley too, which was great but never went anywhere, and "Civil War", which was sooooo good but didn't connect with audiences in New York. Wildhorn really is talented, but I think he is wrapped up with the wrong team. The wrong producers. **sigh**

[@overlydramaticpanda]

For me, I generally go to see plays based on the book/a synopsis and musicals based on the score/cast recording (if it's available), general information about the show, the cast, and anticipation of how they're going to stage things. With regards to Bonnie & Clyde, that critic who compared it to Six kind of demonstrated the real problem here: not every show has to be "the next big thing". Not every show is designed to be "the next big thing". And expecting every show to be "the next big thing" just because it has a similar trajectory as the previous "next big thing" ultimately does *far* more harm than good. Bonnie & Clyde tells the story it wants to tell - and I honestly can't think of a weaker criticism for the show than "they spoiled the ending right at the start"; like, have these people seriously never heard or seen Hamilton, Evita, Blood Brothers, Sunset Boulevard, Hadestown, The Last 5 Years, Merrily We Roll Along, Sweeney Todd, or Phantom..? Or even any of the myriad other musicals based on famous historical events, because...god forbid these critics ever have to review a production of Titanic if they're going to take issue with knowing the ending to the story from the start... And the fact is that B&C tells its story just fine. It doesn't idolise or demonise the couple, which is actually a fairly impressive feat, more examine the circumstances that led to their crime spree and its eventual downfall. Plus it has a fair range of styles in the music which is certainly more than can be said for quite a number of recent popular musicals. Some of the lyrics are a little silly but, as is said in the video, they're written in the voices of the characters - I'd be instantly taken out of things if the characters all sang lyrics that were filled with words they wouldn't know or use just because the lyricist wanted to sound smart. And besides that, I've never come across a musical that didn't have one or two dodgy lyrics in there somewhere, even Sondheim shows. Bottom line, the show does what it wants to and it sounds like this production does what it wants to as well. It's every critic's prerogative to like or dislike the end product, of course, but some of these two-star "news-site" reviews read to me as though the critic in question went in with the assumption they weren't going to like what they saw or heard...

[@KtSnow981]

I saw it when it was at the Arts Theatre last year with an American friend who knew it inside out - I hadn’t heard a single song from it and had no preconceptions. I thought the book was fine but the songs are outstanding and all the performers were phenomenal, I’m taking three friends to see it again in a couple weeks time and I can’t wait! The score is always what draws me to a show, the narrative being strong is obviously a plus but it’s not a complete make or break to me. And I just go and see whatever intrigues me regardless of reviews.

[@Upndouin]

Same here. I had no idea who Bonnie & Clyde were. I loved the musical so much when it was at the Arts that I went again the same week 😂 - cannot wait to see it again at the Garrick

[@paulamusik2509]

I actually love the book of Bonnie and Clyde. To me the book is what draws me into a show and the music is what keeps me there and resonates with me afterwardsy if that makes sense. I can like a musical because of the music but I love a musical because of the book and to me Bonnie and Clyde is the same case. I really like the works of Ivan Menchell. I like his writing style and I think he is really good at making very difficult topics easily accessible in the short amount of time a musical lasts. I like the narrative of his Bonnie and Clyde and how these two characters stumble further and further into catastrophe fueled by their background and the exploration of their fame and popularity despite their terrible acts of crime. It doesn't explore every aspect of the topics it tackles but it is still a really rounded show and the point it makes is very clear while still remaining morally ambiguous and letting you decide enough on your own. As for the question of how much I let affect reviews my decision to see a show of not: I think I read reviews solely out of curiosity but I would never let them affect my decision to see a show. To me what I know of the show itself before matter much more. If the performances, if the music, if the plot, interests me, I will go even if the reviews are terrible.

[@blotcho84]

Just watched your review, it's interesting to see what the other critics thought! When looking for new shows I am always very interested in the book of the musical first. I do always preview at least some of the score beforehand--I don't go into shows *completely* blind, but it's nice to be surprised by the music too.

[@brittanyfischer1786]

You pose an interesting question because I do care about the plot and really enjoy shows with a good plot, but at the end of the day, I don't think I have ever enjoyed a show with a good plot and bad music whereas good music and a bad plot can still be fun.

[@AnnieC64]

I am a HUGE fan of Bonnie and Clyde - best to get that out there first! I would say that I generally go for the score rather than the script but both have some influence. In this case, I knew the song Raise a Little Hell as my son sang it for drama school auditions, but we first went to see the concert version as Jeremy Jordan fans. Going to see the show at the Arts was subsequently a no-brainer and at that point we fell in love with Jordan and the rest of the cast resulting in many repeat visits! The new version at the Garrick is a serious upgrade and I have my second visit on Monday 🙄. Regarding whether I take note of reviews, I would say yes to a degree. Your review of Sky’s Edge lead me to see it and I am so glad that I did, but for a more established show it would almost always be about the score and/or the cast.

[@AnnieC64]

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

[@nataliecarter80]

Loved it! I saw it at the arts and Garrick more recently. I liked it more at the arts as I think the minimal staging suited a smaller stage but it’s still amazing and vocally everyone is flawless!

[@mwmheps]

Very interesting discussion as always Mickey Jo! While I generally don't go to a show I haven't seen for either the book or the score (usually just because I love seeing as many different musicals as I can and sometimes because of who's in the cast or creative team). In terms of reviews, negative ones wouldn't generally be enough to put me off seeing a show unless maybe I wasn't too excited about it in the first place and it ends up being inconvenient to catch it - I try and avoid them as well until I've seen it. A positive review can definitely pique my interest though especially from someone I trust that I'm often quite aligned to like yourself (as always I'm grateful you've led me to catch shows I've absolutely loved like Ride and 42 Balloons!). In terms of what keeps me coming back to a show I've seen though it's usually going to be the score and the performances rather than the book - of course the ideal is that it all comes together but it's the score and the thrill of live music that makes you want to relive the live show again in my experience.

[@EMM_84]

For me I am more likely to forgive story issues if the music is strong because I can connect emotionally with the characters. I will rank a show higher though, if the book is also strong and doesnt depend on the music to do all the heavy lifting. Could a musical have the music taken out and presented as a play? If not, book might need some work. It's the same thing as listening to a cast recording without any other context. I might not get every nuance but if I can follow a rough plotline with just the music, I'm intrigued and more likely to check it out. To me, you have to consider book and music together and how well they balance and play off of one another. If I had to choose between the two it would be music though. I enjoy a good play now and then but music is what keeps me coming back for more.

[@drkarner]

Definitely the score is what draws me to buy tickets for a show. I will see anything by Wildhorn because his music is beautiful and he selects lyricists who are able to tell the story. You are SO right that the songs are what add to the script, hence the word musical!!

[@TheWiseGrif]

If i cared more about the book than the score, i'd go see plays, but music is what draws me in, and even a flimsy plot (or no real plot) won't deter me from seeing a musical if I have heard clips and snippets and enjoy the music and performances...it's why Six is such a polarizing show; because sure, it's more of a concert than a proper musical, but dammit if it isn't one of the catchiest and fun shows. And if the show happens to have a fantastic book AND score (like those who win all the top awards, and even the Pulitzer for Drama), they're some of my favorite shows because they have EVERYTHING, great music, riveting plot, killer performances, etc

[@BellePullman]

Given the proliferation of Jukebox musicals, it's clear that "book" is low priority for the public! (not that jukebox shows can't have a great book, but people are buying tickets for the familiar score). I read reviews for the details shared rather than the reviewer's opinion. Some professional reviews feel more like teachers' reports than opinions - as if they're instructing the director and production team rather than informing the public on what the show's like - frustrated Dramaturgs? I completely agree that the reviewers are judging on Play criteria - mentioning the musical elements but they don't seem to influence the score. Perhaps reviewers need to specialise? Musicals reviewed by people who appreciate the complexities of story-telling through music and dance when combined with a book? If the music, dance, and vocals are irrelevant to your opinion, maybe musicals aren't your cup of tea?

[@Ryan_P]

I generally don’t know any of the songs from a show, so I’m generally booking based off of the synopsis or reviews from people like you.

[@Pianoslave1]

It’s usually hearing a song or two from the musical that will interest me in seeing it. I feel like a weak book can be saved by great music but if the opposite won’t work for me

[@beatricedunnavan4576]

Good question. I do for the score. Especially since the score is often featured in promos/behind the scenes clips. The book alone doesn't tell me anything about the quality of the production but the score does.

[@victoriamaisey2179]

Weird, I've kind of changed my opinion in the last few minutes....was absolutely gonna say score and though it is still the most important thing to me, but just remembered I saw The Commitments at my local theatre recently which had so many great vocal performances but there was minimal story and I was bored to tears. Has really got me thinking...maybe 70/30 then. I will always go to a musical over a play because I go to be transported by the music.

[@martinpike1171]

SCORE is my most important factor for deciding on show likeness

[@laurenjcoates]

It's so interesting, as a critic myself, to listen to you analyze/break down reviews-it's not often we see folks criticizing critics, so props to you for even having the foresight and knowledge to put together videos like this! I guess what I would say in defense of theatre critics in regards to your frustrations with their lack of acknowledgment of the book is that, in many cases, a publication's theatre critic pulls double duty for plays and musicals, and most writers tend to come from a literary/English background. In that sense, many theatre critics simply don't have the in-depth knowledge/terminology of music and music theory to properly address/critique those elements of musicals to the level that you seem to want from them. On the one hand, I definitley agree that their lack of acnolwegment of the music is frustrating, but at the same time, I think it would be disingenuous and not fair to the musicals if we expect critics with backgrounds in plays, literature, and English to be expected to parse through the minutiae of a musical's score when they don't have that education or knowledge. You also touched on the fact that they seem to so heavily emphasize the book and that points of a lack of familiarity with the show itself-I agree that it's frustrating how little critics seem to understand that performances/direction tend to matter more than a book when reviewing a musical, especially one that's simply being revived as opposed to an original piece. There's only so much a show can do to the original book, so to judge a production harshly based on a source material they don't have the capacity to significantly alter is unfair. BUT, at the same time, it's a critics' job to provide their opinion so it can inform general audiences who are considering seeing the show: so in that sense, I think that critics not being familiar with the musical isn'tr really something they can be faulted for, because many of their readers/theatregoers won't be familiar with it either. Like I said, thanks so much for putting so much time, effort, and care into these videos-they're not just interesting to me, but they also help me re-evaluate my own writing as a critic.

[@Grethrey123]

I think you’re right in that many critics are trying to be morally right and reviewing this show as if the real Bonnie and Clyde are somehow being presented as a documentary. Of course they were bad people but this show is at its heart a romanticised version of that story, not a documentary! I remember seeing a similar review of a production of Dogfight where the entire review was about how disgustingly sexist the show was - which was all about the material as opposed to the production. The whole point of that show is that the men, at the start, at least, are terrible people. Reviewers are trying to be socially and politically aware instead of reviewing the show. Sure you can touch on these aspects - Bonnie and Clyde, two notorious outlaws from the depression, four army vets with very sexist views about women etc. that is just a statement of fact about the characters. But they do then also need to review THE PRODUCTION as opposed to judging the material as good or bad simply by the subject matter. If notorious figures from history were never to be examined like this we wouldn’t have Assassins, for example.

[@loredosol]

Shocked about the mixed reviews, (went on Friday and loved it). For me it depends on the show but mostly its about the songs along with the performances however I feel the story is just as important too (when I went to see Bat out of hell I absolutely loved the score however I though the script was poor which overall effected my enjoyment of the show). Regarding reviews if its a big named show or a show I really want to see I don't go by reviews however for the less known or new shows (or I'm uncertain on a show) then I do go by reviews. But just like films/books theatre is a personal choice, something that has poor reviews may be enjoyed by the audiences and something with positive reviews may be hated by audiences.

[@lindakahler4799]

I was fortunate enough to see Jeremy Jordan and Laura Osnes in the original limited run years ago. Loved it

[@lindakahler4799]

BTW It was always meant as a limited run in NYC because a new show was coming to the Hershfeld. NYC critics hate Wildhorn because Jeckyl and Hyde was such a success making their reviews worthless

[@EmmaFiltness]

I lean more towards the score and songs

[@markjlabella8869]

Six has great songs. Not much on story / plot obviously - it’s essentially a concert but man is it amazing!

[@cedoniapeterson9239]

Edited to add: I might scan the first line or two of a review when deciding whether to see a show, but unless I see a major red flag I don't rely too much on them. I much prefer to check reviews after I see a show to hear about things I may have missed. There are several reasons I'll book a show, but usually it will be either because 1) I love the score, 2) I've heard great things or 3) I know very little about it, either positive or negative, but I can get cheap tix and it's fun to go in blind sometimes. I just saw Bonnie & Clyde a few days ago, knowing little about the outlaws OR the score, and I came out smiling and humming the songs! I can understand some of the criticisms of the book, but honestly the music was so good that I don't see how anyone could give the show only two stars.

[@jaybryant-green585]

I actually love this show! I've seen a production here in Little Rock, and have worn out the soundtrack. I grew up in Fort Smith/Van Buren Arkansas where Bonnie and Clyde had once been. My Dad recalled seeing the car they were killed in, not too long after they were gunned down. I saw it myself when I was young, and they brought it back to my hometown.

[@cedgson91]

I think I see shows based on whether I would like the themes and content of the show. Usually see comfort shows. Being autistic it’s hard to see new things. Trying recently to see other plays and musicals this year but still a little cautious. I don’t potentially want to spend money on something I wouldn’t enjoy. Reviews help a little towards the decision making but then again it’s down to personal preference. Like I love Six but someone else may have negative opinions on it.

[@fringelilyfringelily391]

I don't have enough money to pay for a dud, so I do take notice what critics say ... as for book or score, I want both to be strong if it's a book musical ... for a little gem like Assassins, which doesn't depend so much on the book, however, it's the score.

[@claire2088]

I wonder whether some of the critics are just slightly looisng the ability to appreciate the shows as an audience member? Like if I'm attending a show it's once or twice a year absolute max so I just want to be entertained, but if it's their second show of the day then what I would love on occasion would feel repetative if I'd seen that many. I think you get it alot with book reviewers as well, where they prize novelty and surprise over enjoyment because they're jsut borrrrreeeeeeedddddddddddd and want something new. It's a shame when an art form isn't valued for being entertaining, as if it's somehow 'worth' more if it's surprising and self referential and you need some background to even enjoy it

[@sophiea.8366]

For me, I book and enjoy a musical mainly for the music. I am much more a musical lover than plays and its always the songs and the quality of their delivery that I remember and love.

[@rossp1467]

Having seen the two London productions, do you think that the difference in the sizes of the theaters impacted intimacy of the two productions? I also think critics have a general tendency to blame a show's failure more the book than they do the music IMHO.

[@daveford12]

The critics panned les miserables and look what happened with that one. Don’t be dependent on professional critics, bloggers, KZbin critics and influencers opinion to sway you from seeing or not seeing a show, if a show takes your fancy go and see with an open mind and form your own opinion. There’s a lot of great shows/plays past and present I would never have seen if I took notice of what the reviewers have said. Critics/reviewers are always disagreeing with each other but It’s your money paying for that ticket and even your most trusted reviewer can sell you a dud or steer you away from barnstormer.

[@brianwaddingham]

Evita, Phantom, From Here to Eternity, Blood Brothers, Sunset Boulevard... all shows that use the " flash back" as a story telling technique - some of which are very highly regarded! Evita especially, and Eva Peron was hardly a saint herself!!

[@lonellfletcher]

I disagree about book; the structure and narrative are (or should be) the foundation of musicals. Without them, its just essentially a concert and if the transitions in and out of songs don't flow straight from the narrative, or if the tone of the dialogue and songless scenes are at odds with the tone and language of the songs, then everything all falls apart.

[@meghangrove]

Flat?! Lacking charisma?! Which clearly hard-of-hearing person wrote that?! May their shoes ever be full of Lego. The critics were insanely harsh. The cast is amazing and the score is beautiful. That’s what I went for. That’s what I will go again for.

[@Upndouin]

100% agree with you

[@therockerkriscentral]

I book more on a blend of both, if the music is digestible and the libretto is moderately stable a foundation for the score to “score”… it’s a two way street for me

[@carriew5106]

I go to a lot of plays, so the book is pretty important to me, but generally I am more interested by who is in it or involved. For example I went to see To Kill a Mockingbird because I love Sorkin, not because I'm a fan of the book, and I wasn't disappointed. But it is heavy on the Sorkinism and that isn't for everyone. I went to see Betrayal when it was on despite not really liking Pinter, but really wanting to see if Charlie Cox was good (he was excellent, as was Hiddlestone and Ashton). I also tend to gravitate to subjects/plots which interest me. With musicals I will usually try to listen to some of the music first, but I'm more inclined to wait and see how they settle in. And listen to word of mouth from colleague's/friends who might have already seen it and recommend. I rarely bother with reviews unless I'm undecided and then I go to reviewers who I think are on a similar wave length to me. I'm not someone who is ever likely to read the Times so it's unlikely we enjoy the same things.

[@JeaniusIsMe]

I try to go in blind to most new musicals, and don’t usually listen to a cast album before booking tickets. Reviews are the most important piece for me (I know which critics tend to have similar tastes to mine and listen to their thoughts, plus, full disclosure, I’m a TV critic, so I trust reviews a bit more than the average person), but character and narrative arc are the second. In a perfect world, the music should complement the book in such a way that they work hand in hand and you can’t fully separate them.

[@hanyaghetany4429]

I care about the script and the dialogue which is why i have a major problem with wicked eventhough the songs are amazing

[@langleymneely]

Granted my hypothesis on this probably dates the hell out of me (im 43) BUT Im curious how many of those mediocre reviews are consciously or sub consciously having a visceral reaction to the show not being on par with the violence of the original ‘67 film with Beatty & Dunaway? I know there are several generations above mine (actual Boomers, Gen X) that idolize and worship the seminal work of the legendary Arthur Penn, so I can imagine the specter of that film clouding the reviewers ability to take the musical in on it’s own merits?

[@pkminpkmon]

I tend to book musicals by the score more, and also if it has actors I’ve seen live and love!

[@ontheclouds0123]

Personally, I do think that the score generally is more important as it is essentially, a musical. Before watching a show, I try to check if there are original cast recordings, or press call video clips (they usually release a lot of them here in Korea), and more often than not, my interest in a musical dwindles if I don't like the musical numbers. I think that generally, a weak script may be compensated by a good score. For example, Frank Wildhorn's scores are hugely popular in Korea (i.e. Jekyll and Hyde, Dracula, Death Note just to name a few) that he was commissioned to compose a score for an original Korean musical, The Man Who Laughs, based on Victor Hugo's musical of the same name. Coupled with highly popular musical actors, it became a huge success winning Best Musical in six different musical awards shows domestically. It can also be said that a part of the success of the show can be attributed to the score by Wildhorn. However, it's interesting to see how there are audiences who do not think the script is the best (personally I think that there are scenes in the show that are dragging), and that the story doesn't match the score. Nonetheless, audiences still consider the show as a show worth revisiting.

[@AngryMoor]

I see a play or musical based on the narrative. My opinion can differ from the next person. All art is subjective. We will have different experiences.

[@floraposteschild4184]

I don't think I've ever gone to a musical just because of the songs. Or rather, I think the songs and the book should be inextricably entwined into a whole. It's why I usually hate jukebox musicals.

[@danjon8799]

Really interesting video here and I think its a really interesting observation on asking what makes us as theatre goers rave about a show and what we base it on. If you asked me this question about ten years by a mile it would have been the score and being able to hear that score live would be key for me (Growing up shows like Phantom, The Producers, Witches of Eastwick were shows I would regularly listen to on repeat but I was also that person who when I was on the way to see the show I would listen to the cast recording of that show I was seeing and in a weird way that kind of spoiled my experience as a theatre goer because there weren't as many big surprises as there were if I went in blind). This kind of goes onto my point that over the past ten years my thinking on accessing musicals have changed and especially brand new musicals like Bonnie and Clyde. I think the reason why is because I remember once having a conversation when I went to see a show with someone and I remember they said "If you're solely wanting to go just to listen to songs, why spend 60 quid to see a show and instead buy a cast recording?" and that was what struck me because I know if I would go see Bonnie and Clyde it wouldn't be to hear JLG sing "Raise A Little Hell" but to see the show and actually react to the story. So for me I go to the theatre for that. Personally I'm not as surprised though with the less than favourable reviews of B&C as I've never really been a fan of Wildhorn (I've always referred to his shows as "the curse of Wildhorn") as the issue is he relies solely on one standout song from his musicals (ie. J&H - This is the Moment, Scarlet Pimpernel - Into the Fire, Wonderland - I Will Prevail) and his songs but at a sacrifice the books are extremely weak and to the extent where you genuinely wonder why he is still working today when his books are truly poor (extremely one dimensional characters, lots of poor tropes and moments where they are meant to be serious actually come across as ridiculous). Which is why I am not surprised that B&C has faltered the same fate.

[@walkercountry2009]

When I lived in NYC, it was enormously about the performers and the performances.

[@rodfine6039]

Hi Mickey Jo, thanks for your review: thoughtful, considered and articulate as always. Regarding your general questions at the start: do I choose based on narrative or score? For me, it varies - it may be any combination of the story, composer, performers, reviews, buzz. I don't generally read reviews beforehand, I tend to read them afterwards. The relative importance of songs versus narrative? The narrative is important to me, but it doesn't have to be great; it can be quite thin and the show can still be great if the songs and/or dance are outstanding. I watched Bonnie and Clyde a couple of days ago, not knowing the musical at all, though I am moderately familiar with the factual history. I agree the performances were all very good, and I did enjoy the evening: none of the songs totally grabbed me on a single hearing, but they were fine, and I dare say some may grow on me over time. No problem starting with the death scene, but if you do that, you have to bring the story back to the point (cf. Hamilton, Evita) - when it ended, I was surprised and a bit disappointed. "Wait, is that it? Oh." But I felt the show seriously failed in its depiciton of the main characters. Obviously there are huge challenges in sympathetically presenting characters who have committed monstrous crimes, and piece does a good job in showing just how wretched their lives were, and how little they had to lose; I felt they came across as romantics who never had a chance, and who made some bad choices. I think that's dishonest. Bonnie and Clyde and their gang were mass murderers. The show didn't give nearly enough weight to the grief they caused: for example, a grocery clerk called Doyle Johnson tried to stop him stealing his car, and was shot dead (actually by another member of the gang in this case), leaving a young wife and infant son. And according to some accounts at least, Bonnie and Clyde actively enjoyed the violence of their criminal lives. That doesn't mean they're not a suitable subject for a musical. But the romanticised depicition leaves the audience rooting for them - pretty much unequivocally - and it shouldn't. The murders were glossed over, the damage they did and the grief they caused not mentioned. How about including a song from Doyle Johnson's widow to add some balance - how would she get through her grief, and raise a child alone? Any story of Bonnie and Clyde should be uncomfortable to see or hear; both in what they did, and in how The American Dream failed them. I felt that the musical, in its efforts to humanise them, downplayed the harm they did; ironically romanticising them just as the newspapers of their day did. Which brings us back to the relative importance of songs versus the narrative. As I said, the narrative doesn't have to be great; but if you're telling the story of people who existed, it has to be faithful to their history, allowing for some artistic licence. I think Bonnie and Clyde failed in that; I found it deceitful. To me, and in this specific case, it presents a obstacle I can't get over. I'd still give it 3 stars based on the songs and the performances, though.

[@meghanj28]

Definitely the score….but as someone who lives in NYC and sees a lot of shows in previews because the tickets are cheaper, that has changed a bit. More just what I’m interested in based on past projects I’ve enjoyed (and I usually care more about the creative team than the actors). Back when I lived 2 hours away from NYC & only saw around 3 or 4 broadway shows a year, it was 100% based on whatever cast recordings I connected with most.😊

[@sevensongs]

I don't have a chance to go read the play or research every aspect of the plot. (Heck, I live on in the Pacific NW of the US! My access to theatre is already limited!) The music is what I have access to, so that's what will dictate whether I'm interested in a show. PLENTY of musicals disappoint me story-wise, so they don't become my to shows and I won't bother with a repeat showing, but if I like the music, you'll at least get me once.

[@andyhaochizhang]

I feel like it's impossible to evaluate a show by evaluating the score and the script completely separately. Sure a lot of songs just serve as distractions or flavored dialogs, but some songs help with characterization and/or reinforce the message of the story in ways that are difficult to do with plain dialogs and monologues. To me, musical theatre is storytelling through music, so personally I tend to evaluate a musical as a whole the same way I do with any other storytelling media - how engaging/entertaining it is, what the topics, themes and morals are and how they are explored, how compelling the characters are, how logical the plot is, etc. The individual components can be analyzed separately, but the quality of the whole package is not just the sum of the qualities of all the individual ingredients.

[@Clouden3]

I'm definitely a more narrative guy. I think the music can get me in the door, but your story still has to be compelling for me to really fall in love with it.

[@olivethunderbird]

OMG Hey! I’ve only seen Bonnie & Clyde as a local production here in the States. Absolutely loved it so much! And I will say I definitely am more in it for the music and performance aspect then a perfect book

[@eliontheinternet3298]

I'm an American and I haven't heard anything about this show before. Something that really struck me about almost all of the reviews was the lack of knowledge about American history and culture (I don't know if that's quite the right word though). For example, the songs are described as 'bluegrass', 'country', and 'Western' which are all similar sounds but ones that I would consider distinct. Also, they talk about missing context for Bonnie and Clyde, but I feel like it's quite a well-known story (at least here). You said the show started on Broadway. I wonder if this is a symptom of more insulated critics being disconnected from more general background knowledge that the average theater-goer has?

[@alexandrateasdale5776]

The ending….? Is shown at the beginning…it’s a seamless loop, very powerful, we already know what happens to them….

[@IloveHeartlandX]

The music is definitely the most important thing for me in any musical-I'll never really remember the not sung parts so the book is very much secondary to me. Having said that, I haven't always heard the music before I see the show: I think Hamilton was the first time I'd listened to a full cast recording (several times) before going to see it. Wicked I'd heard Defying Gravity and Popular and that's it. Others I've seen the film first and become familiar with the songs that way (Hairspray, Chicago, Grease, Mamma Mia!, The Last Five Years). Or I'll just hear one song and that will have me hooked (like Sara Bareilles singing She Used To Be Mine got me into Waitress). I deliberately listened to the cast recording of Moulin Rouge before it came to London because I'm obsessed with the film and wanted to see what they'd done with the score for the stage, and I was a little concerned about some of the arrangements for my favourite numbers from the movie (Elephant Love Medley and El Tango De Roxanne) but thankfully they were much better seen with the full staging than me just listening! In terms of going to see shows where there's no cast recording, then the plot has to intrigue me in order to book tickets but the music will still be what I remember most afterward!

[@chuckoneill2023]

I believe the score always has more weight than the book. It's a well conceded fact that the plots of stage musical plays are, generally, bland and contrived. That's not a bad thing, necessarily. If you want depth and complexity, go see Death of a Salesman, or something by Shakespeare. If you're going to a musical, you're usually looking for uplifting, light entertainment. That's probably why B&C flopped on Broadway --- it runs, too much, against the grain. BTW --- dance can be important, too. Gwen Verdon filled a lot of seats, back in the day.

[@DCatastropheWaitress]

I wonder how many of th two-star reviewers have seen the classic film with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway? That version is pretty much impossible to top. Any musical adaptation would be at a disadvantage.

[@eleanormagson9915]

A good score can perhaps save a poor book from making a terrible night out, but without a good book it's never going to achieve excellence. I think narrative does hold a more integral role in something's ultimate success. In the same way, great acting, cinematography, score etc can't save a film with a poor story, but they can make it more palatable to sit through. For Bonnie & Clyde in particular, I tend to agree with the reviewers' general feelings, though they are a bit harsh and don't reduce it to 2 stars for me. I think when you realise it was made in 2009 it makes a bit more sense. If someone was making a musical out of Bonnie and Clyde's story today, it likely would be more challenging to watch, with more grit and cynicism, with a critical eye to what they did, the nature of criminal celebrity (today's true crime obsession) and the social issues at odds with the American dream. Personally, I think I would enjoy that version more.

[@Nikki-mx5my]

Interesting, I had no idea this show was on Broadway years ago. By the way, I have been meaning to tell you that your song at the end is super catchy. I find myself humming along with it.

[@lucyreid2161]

Personally, I go and see musicals for the songs. Not only do the songs advance the plot and we get a lot of story from them, but they’re the things that you take away from the show when you leave. I’ve never left the theatre quoting the spoken dialogue, I’ve always left humming the melodies. Music is the selling point to a MUSICal and although the spoken parts are important, it’s definitely foolish to believe that’s why the majority are going to see the show.

[@thosefroggyfolks2004]

When I see a show, I HAVE to know and love the music! There have been many times where I’ve seen a show before listening to the cast recording and my reaction would be “It was fine”. But then later, I would listen to the cast recording and fall in love with the show. Maybe it’s because I’m neurodivergent and have always struggled to gather the meaning behind a song until I’ve listened to it ten times (even top hits on the radio!). So the way I consume Musical theatre, the music COMES FIRST and then the book.

[@KateHistoryMysteries]

Musicals rise or fall based on their songs not their book: Exhibit A: Greatest Showman.

[@roxiesbroadwaybreakdown5599]

I usually go for the score. If you think about it, most musicals boil down to boy meets girl, boy loses girl and needs to get her back. Obviously there are exceptions when musicals are based on novels - Les Mis, or biographies… but even this is a true story and it’s a boy meets girl story. Their story is just extreme and not so funny. But one of my fave musicals.

[@natasha7760]

I've got to say it's usually the score, maybe I've heard a song or some hype (I try not to listen to the whole thing before the first time I go) but a weak book/script does end up often ruining a show for me tbh

[@tigerfanfrv]

I don't typically listen to the show before i see it. i go by summary. I don't get to go very often.

[@lindseyblumell8194]

Just saw it. I felt the actors were singing their hearts out but at a certain point it did feel like it was glamourising death and crime a little too much...unlike &Juliet where they challenge the ridiculous plot of the original, this sometimes tries to deal with the seriousness of the story but ultimately falls short for me. The costumes were amazing though.

[@mattbonner5281]

Whoa did MickeyJo just reference me and our group at the first preview in the first minute or was their another group there??! 👀 👀

[@lozzle]

I do think that ultimately, I want the book and the score to both be effective and working in harmony, but the music does have a little more weight to me. Sometimes a fantastic book can elevate a mediocre score but ultimately, if the music isn’t giving the right emotions, then the show isn’t going to reach the heights for me of a show with incredible music. I think a score alone equally cannot carry a show - but it can at least make a show entertaining, if nothing else. Hell, I saw We Will Rock You about three times during its original west end run and that couldn’t find a plot if it tried. I’ll never think that a show without a good or at least serviceable book is a good one though.

[@Frx0289]

For musicals, I'm going for the score. Sure a good book helps but it's a musical I want good songs. For a play, the book is far more important. First time I saw Bonnie and clyde I came out with a very mixed feeling and I think it was something in the book but I've still gone back twice more because the songs are so good. Also I will look at reviewers, but I've really come to notice a disparity from more traditional reviews vs social media reviews (you, all that dazzles, theatrefan etc), and I will only really consider the latter, as that's what tend to match my tastes.

[@ondiiina]

Ah warning, ADHD struck again, this is very long! Haven't seen the London version but taking away the shoot-out scene kinda takes away from the opening scene. It felt so much more powerful and "satisfying" when it closed on the same scene. Kinda like a circle. It closed more neatly and Bonnie's last lines felt haunting (especially with the small reprise!) As for the critics part: maybe they count the songs as a part of the story and thus they do not need to focus on them separately from the book? That's what I personally do! The songs are there to further the narrative OR deepen the characters. I judge musicals mostly by how tight the story is and how enjoyable the experience is. For example: I do not like Be More Chill's story. Especially not as an adaptation, as loose as it is. However it's super fun to watch and to perform! The book (and overall story and characters) were made worse in the Broadway version because they tried to be more serious. The campiness was what made it work even if one would say it's a childish and not a deep story with a deep message. However the songs were greatly improved as seen in the cast recording. They became unique. You heard it and immediately thought "that's Be More Chill!". Not only that but the robotic, science-fi-y sounds let you know what the story is (a science-fi musical about highschool and AIs). The cast amped the campiness. It was a very, very fun listening experience! And of course, the stage performance matched this. I would go to see it just because of that! The songs MAKE the experience. They're what decide if it's fun to see. Of course, a great story or great characters would be good too but musical theater cannot take itself as seriously as a play. You cannot be all sad and serious. People are singing, it just won't work. Still, I can totally understand wanting a strong book. We all like to see things that have depth and are fun to explore and think about. Critics want to be seen as serious but come on! It's musical theater! At least tell us if it's fun! Audiences want fun. So yeah it's crazy that the critics willingly avoid the most essential part of the show. I agree that Bonnie& Clyde's book is a tad weak (if it didn't change too much from the original), my biggest hang-up being that Bonnie was written as more innocent, a poor girl in love that was roped/manipulated into a criminal life when she willingly did it, she loved the attention. Far Too Late was infuriating because they make her want to leave despite the real Bonnie wanting to stay when Clyde pleaded for her to quit and go back to her life. I'm glad that the directing changed this (or it was the actress's choice and they rolled with it) but I would have loved it if they had made it a bit more clear in the book/the songs (switch around the second verse of Far Too Late with Clyde panicking and instead of trying to convince to stay, he tries to get her to leave which she refuses, seemingly out of love but it'd be heavily implied that she wants the fame (so instead of her last verse being a sort of silver-lining, it's her true/new motives that come out and she realizes that this is her way to fame and immortality)). Another problem I have is that there are too many ballads. I'm sure the actors kill it but I'm not a fan of these, and certainly not of LOVE ballads. The songs that were different are more dynamic and fun. Those are songs I'd listen to on the regular. Checking the Spotify account of the OBC, those are the ones others listen to the most. It's honestly a shame there aren't more because they're really, really good. I'd have loved a badass/cool Bonnie solo instead of yet another ballad (her two majors songs, and her duet with Blanche are plenty enough. She ain't just a romantic! And even Blanche had a fun number outside of ballads and more "quiet" songs). I'm also wondering if they staged it to be more dynamic because it felt a bit.. Still? Not much happening outside of amazing performances from the actors. I'm fine with it focusing on the romance, the stories about them always do and that was part of the appeal. It's ridiculous to expect it to not be the focus, especially when musical theater usually focus on romance and relationships (platonic or not)! Like any other person, I'd have loved more Crimes™ but it was clear it wasn't going to be the focus. Also the real Bonnie&Clyde were terrible robbers. If I remember correctly, the murders were also sort-of accidental too. Not sure it would have worked when the musical isn't really a comedy! The way they act inexperienced, because they are, and fooling around as you described is perfect. If I remember correctly, critics from the Broadway run also said this (not about the last point about the focus on romance and crimes, this is just me critiquing the critics) and they're absolutely right. The show is good, don't get me wrong, but with a few tweaks here and there it'd go from a 3 (/3,5)-stars to a solid 4-stars. I'm a bit disappointed that it sounds like they haven't really changed anything from the original run (except taking out parts I adored sadly) but I really like the show and I'm glad it finally got the run(s) it deserved! I truly did not expect it to be brought back for the concert and certainly not for multiple staged performances. It's sad that my niche little show is getting more well-known but it deserved to be recognized and loved!

[@alysaurusrex2166]

I wonder if part of the disconnect with the context happened when it came across the Atlantic. As an American, I feel like the story of Bonnie and Clyde is so well-known it’s basically American folklore. As well as the Great Depression and the driving factors that cause at least the beginnings of their criminality. I imagine that isn’t as well known in England. However, any musical should stand on its own feet enough to be well understood no matter where it is staged. I also tend to agree that the show does romanticize two undoubtedly violent criminals. But that’s a problem with the mythology of the couple in every medium. I personally think the show does a good job to humanize them without excusing their behavior. It could definitely do better, but I don’t think it does a terrible job.

[@morley364]

For me, a score is what tends to get me 'caught' on a musical, but if I don't like the book then I'll usually just stick to the soundtrack/cast recording and wouldn't spend the money to go see it.

[@AdamPTrainz]

I like going for the score

[@livilam8411]

I mean, we call them "musicals", not "theatricals". I definitely care more about the music than I do about the book

[@lauraratner4844]

If it’s a musical, I’m there for the music. Like I adore Six which has almost no book, but the songs are amazing.

[@danielwinch2986]

I do not like to know about a score or book beforehand; if the theme or topic interests me I book.

[@laurenwatt6793]

When picking a MUSICAL to go and see, I only really consider the score, and not the book. If i wanted something with a killer narrative, I'd just go and see a play. I also don't really factor in critics' reviews when picking what to see, but do definitely rely more on word of mouth and social media 'hype' when deciding what to see!

[@HazzaLizzi]

Personally, I like to listen read a little synopsis (not a full one, to avoid spoilers) and then have a listen to the recording before getting a ticket. I don’t often read reviews first. This is because i feel sometimes it can cloud judgement. I want to make up my own mind. I might look at scores (for example, is it a 4star on average? Or most of the scores pretty low?). I won’t read full reviews until after. I like to compare my experience to the reviewer’s. :)

[@seansimpson7879]

I love musicals for the score first then the story, rare musicals have both but if the score isn’t great I want my money back.

[@lucyhenig7125]

for me the score is defo more important in a musical! for my absolute favourite ones, they also truly have something to say and do so in a skilful / interesting way with the script, but it’s unfair to expect this to be done incredibly well in literally every single musical

[@danielrobinson7350]

Generally more the score, but sometimes because I’m interested in the story (Come From Away and Amelie being two like that) and a good score can’t save a show for me, I’d just listen to cast recording then.

[@jasonvoorhees8478]

Mickey, I am an American, and I love B&C. I think the London version leaves something to be desired. As far as B&C being mass murdering sociopaths, I suggest that you do a bit more research on how their lives really were. There are several youtubers out there that take deep dives on who they actually were. One of them even has an 8 part series where each part is more than an hour and a half. I liken the 2 star criticisms to people just assuming they know everything about Guy Fawkes and simply see him as a bad man.

[@DemonRumm]

More of a score gal myself. If I'm interested in the score or music, I (generally) don't care or mind what the book or plot is (barring some personal tropes or story beats I either avoid or really need to be in the mood to see, such as maybe something like Spring Awakening). An interesting plot or book alone really isn't going to get my butt in a seat, which I might say is because I'm an avid reader with a great imagination. (Plays are a different beast, we're not considering them here) So as an example, let's take Bonnie and Clyde. I do want to see it, but for this example let's shelve that. If I'm not interested in the score or choreo, but find the book intriguing, tbh I'll just find a book on Bonnie and Clyde and read it. Fictional adaptation, stricter non-fic, whatever, I'll find a Bonnie and Clyde story and read it. Probs get the book from the library, and it'll be free, oodles cheaper than a theatre seat. Though I won't see it acted out, I have always been a reader who "sees" or imagines the scenes while I'm reading. However, the score or some truly unique staging really can't be scratched, either by a direct sub or a "close enough" substitution.

[@DemonRumm]

Also, I strongly disagree with the notion that Bonnie and Clyde is improperly focusing on the romance. Whenever I hear "oh it's like Bonnie and Clyde" or "you're the Bonnie to my Clyde" it is ALWAYS referring to relationships and not an offer to go on a murdering and robbing spree. I think Bonnie and Clyde in the zeitgeist IS lovers who committed crimes and made bad choices, but the love and relationship aspect is the strongest part. While I believe one can argue the robbing would be more engaging, I feel knocking the musical for the relationship focus is ignoring how Bonnie and Clyde are, in actuality, remembered and considered today.

[@bluelv]

I book for both. Nothing out on NY NY but the basic movie story line. Everyone listened to wicked before they saw it. Same with Putnam Spelling Bee and Ave Q.

[@stephensmall-dq5dc]

I love this show,saw it at the arts,and going to the garrick tomorrow, as for shows I go when word of mouth is saying how good a show is ,and if I think the musical sounds good .

[@adriana883854]

I would give this 3 stars for myself I am not sure what I didn't enjoy about it and watching these reviews I'm like oh yes that oh yes I agree with that. I loved the performances, I loved the songs, and some of the story. I think it definitely romanticized the pair and was missing more of the grit behind the pair and their criminal activities, I think it could have been a lot more darker if they added more of the crime to it other than just a pair being in love.

[@danielcollins2611]

I was in a production of Bonnie and Clyde. While it's an enjoyable show, it is not any good. The book is inept and there are moments where that bleeds over into the score. You have two couples. Bonnie & Clyde are totally on the same page and totally destructive/chaotic. Blanche is with Buck trying to live a 'normal' life, but her husband doesn't see her and doesn't want the same. They aren't on the same page and outwardly destructive like B&C, the relationship remains bifurcated and inwardly destructive (emotionally) to Blanche. When Bonnie and Blanche then have a duet, the contrast between those points should be the song. Instead we get a 21st century power ballad What's The Use Of Wond'rin. You Love Who You Love is an entertaining and good song, and it is patently the Wrong song. And that monologue directly in the middle of the shoot out scene - Clyde is expressing ambiguity about his actions/the act of killing people. Why does that ambiguity never surface in the score? He sings riffable self assured driving melodies throughout. Where are the dissonances? Are there more atonal moments that signify he is not always sure of himself? I think the show tries hard to entertain. The level of achievement on that front can be debated. But the storytelling renders the characters and situations as flat. They took a dynamic story with many inherent moral questions and removed ambiguity. While I don't agree with everything the critics said, the writing of the show alone is poor enough to warrant a 2 star review.

[@LegalVampire]

I'm more interested in the story of a show. I'd rather not hear all the songs first from the soundtrack, because then I'll just be comparing the live performance to the studio recording

[@shlouise]

I value the book of course, if there's no plot I won't enjoy it (for me Get up stand up let me down here), but a musical's score trumps it by miles. If the songs are passionate and engaging I'm sold. I saw 57 shows last year and bar maybe Cabaret, Bonnie and Clyde was my favorite! I also do value reviews but it depends who they're from. I'm much more likely to listen to your opinion rather than a newspaper critic who's so disconnected from every day theatre fans