Critic's Choice

When a critic sees a production of Hamlet he doesn't like, he's smart enough to know he can't blame the author. But when a play isn't quite a classic, the critic figures it's fair game.

This is tricky. Shouldn't a critic as least ask "this has been a hit before, is it the production's fault?"

I wrote about this earlier when the mostly negative views came out for the Nathan Lane-Matthew Broderick production of The Odd Couple. Some of the reviewers took on the play, which I think is one of the funniest ever written. If it isn't working, couldn't it be the production? For that matter, couldn't it be that the play and characters are so famous that some of the laughter is lost due to familiarity?

It seems the same problem might be happening with the not-so-well reviewed production of Once In A Lifetime that just opened in London. This comedy, about sound coming to Hollywood, was the hit that made the team of Kaufman and Hart back in 1930, and has had quite a few revivals since. I've seen several myself, and some were pretty funny. In other words, the play still holds up. If it has any problem, it's not that it's dated so much as the plot and characters have become templates for numerous other shows that mocked the movies. If you've never seen the play before, it might still feel familiar.

Which brings me to the review in The Hollywood Reporter. The critic is quite condescending, as if it's not worth reviving the play (even though successful productions have been done in both London and New York in the last 30 years). In fact, the critic makes the less-than-worthless suggestion the play might work if only it were a musical.

But the silliest statement comes near the end: "Tim McMullan, as a stereotypical German director [just curious--how many German film director characters had people seen before 1930?], and Jonathan McGuinness, as an underworked screenwriter, do well to add spark to dull characters." Oh really? I can't comment on how good the actors are, but these characters, especially the latter (Lawrence Vail, perhaps the best role in the play) have been making audiences laugh for over three-quarters of a century. But oh, I forgot, you're a critic, you know better. Even though countless actors have gotten huge laughs with the same lines and situations, the parts aren't funny so it must be the actors doing something with nothing.