There was a London West End musical life of Leonardo Da Vinci which the critics hated, partly because it featured a fictional female love interest when Leonardo is generally believed to have been gay. It was financed by the island nation of Nauru using proceeds from its guano fertilizer business, prompting every critic to say they had found a way to turn crap into crap.
My Dad told me about another West End disaster called "Fire Angel". Every West End theatre has little signage areas out front where they put press quotes about the show. Even with a terrible show they can always quote critics saying something positive, even if it's only about one song or one actor.
However, no review said anything good about the show, so the signs all had snippets like "Fire Angel is a musical" - The Times.
Just to throw this out there, there's nothing to the proposition that Da Vinci was gay. There's a handful of comments in his personal writings regarding sexuality, and they're humorous or dry, with a sense of disdain for sex.
Unsurprisingly, Freud is responsible for some of the first suggestions of homosexuality, extrapolating from Da Vinci's writings in ways that aren't founded. Everything was phallic for Freud.
There was a single contemporary anonymous accusation of sodomy, but such accusations were like shitposting, and Da Vinci was prominent in public, and close to people that drew harassment.
The available evidence would suggest that he was celibate with an ascetic view towards sex, but even that conclusion is shaky at best. If he was gay, then it was obviously private or suppressed, but so would any heterosexual relationships have been. Projecting sexuality into his character is an interesting thought experiment, but there's not enough to really tell.
Without a direct communication by an individual, or some form of historical evidence, the sexuality talk amounts to gossip, in my opinion. Da Vinci deserves more respect than that.
The single solid conclusion you can derive from all of the evidence is that he kept his sexuality extremely private.
To be clear, I speak from a heart of no judgment or discrimination over sexuality, understanding the persecution and vile nonsense accompanying the catholic culture of Italy at the time. I simply think that speculation detracts from the genius of what he did leave for history.
It could be that I'm mistaken, but it seems tawdry and a bit self serving when assumptions like this are made, but I'm willing to entertain opposing views. My opinion is that privacy should be respected, even that of the long dead.
Excellent and measured comment. There is also the consideration that discussing what we now would call the “sexual orientation” of men at that place and time is ahisotrical: “Renaissance society did not have the concept of firm sexual orientation that exists today and many men were in practice bisexual.”:
> Even with a terrible show they can always quote critics saying something positive…
Many years ago when movie times and reviews were posted in newspapers, I recall seeing a print ad for a movie that had the quote “X is like a beach vacation…”. The movie was beyond terrible and I was curious of the source so I dug up the actual review. The full line was: “X is like a beach vacation, except you’re not invited.”
They can't make a musical but a musical about Nauru itself has potential. A tiny island nation 5km in diameter that somehow survived WW2 despite being the site of many battles and for a brief point in history was the wealthiest nation per capita thanks to bird poo. Their government proceeded to squander the wealth and today the only industry is as a prison for Australia's pacific solution.
I went to see Manor at opening night. I thought it was OK, I was entertained. Was weird to find out (just now!) that it had got an absolute mauling in the press. It makes me wonder if I have terrible taste, and to what extent the 'quality' of a work of art is constructed after the fact by a social in-group (the critics).
Relatedly, I've started watching movies at random, without reading reviews before or after, to try to develop a sense of what I actually enjoy. Whether I have any real critical faculties at all. Perhaps it is all just received opinion. I re-watched League of Extraordinary Gentlemen last night though, and can confirm that it is in fact bad.
This may be enough to justify harsh reviews. If people are going to spend several hundred dollars to see a live show, it better be an amazing show, something they'll remember for life. If people want to see something that's just okay they can watch a movie and not regret their loss of time and (nowadays very little, if on a streaming service) money.
I think one of the big differences critics and general viewing audiences is the amount of media consumed and how it effects their views. Over time the bar of excellence goes ever higher and the tolerance for the good, mediocre, and bad becomes less.
It's kind of like a lot of one-hit wonder bands. They may have a lot of really good songs but it all gets overshadowed by their mega hit song so people rarely get to hear it.
Most Millenials know the song, "Flagpole Sitta" by Harvey Danger, for instance, but how many people know "Problems and Bigger Ones" off of the same album, or "Jack the Lion"?
"Closing Time" by Semisonic is in the same vein, but on the same album is, "Secret Smile", "Singing in my Sleep" and "Gone to the Movies". Great songs that can totally stand on their own but most people hear the hit, enjoy it, and move on, never realizing how much musical depth they're missing.
Furthermore, for a similar reason, critics probably are more attracted to novelty than the average viewer for whom it may actually be a negative if they're just looking for an enjoyable and not too challenging night out.
I once went to opening night of Il Trovatore at the NYC Met opera. I thought it was great. At the end of the performance, singers for the usual ovations but when the director appeared on stage, the audience started booing. They apparently didn’t like the modern decor. Neither did the NY Times. I obviously don’t have a good eye for these things.
The people who boo at operas are detestable. Like they have a mental image that the work is preserved in amber and the staging must never change. It's crazy and short-sighted. Example, they booed Patrice Chereau at Bayreuth in 76 and that is now considered a classic that rebooted Wagner out of the endlessly stale swords and horns look.
Plus there is the absolute dickishness of booing a team that spent six months or more slogging their guts out so they could sing, in tune, for three hours straight, for their entertainment.
My Dad starred in an epic flop which ironically got raves from John Simon, a much-feared theater critic for New York Magazine. Unfortunately, his positive review was not enough to rescue the play, which promptly closed after (I think) 2 or maybe 3 performances.
Actors need to grow an iron hide. My pop went on to have a decent career with small parts in big movies, bigger roles in some low-budget films, and a few commercials to pay the bills. The writer of the flop, Tom La Bar, was my dad's mate in the Marine Corps. They lived interesting lives.
Art is about risk. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
I've been "lucky" enough to be in theatrical flops, and start-up flops. The mood is very similar -- the sort of constant background nervousness, and the tricks you play to keep your motivation up. I liked this piece for describing something that you never feel at the time, which is the transitory and arbitrary nature of the failure. The show that I was in which was called "the worst show on the (Edinburgh) Fringe" was directed, written and and starred folks that would go on to be well-known as very talented, popular performers; and in different combinations the folks in the start-up would be the engines behind much more successful companies.
Of course, it could have all been my fault as the common element, but I'd rather not think about that :)
I suspect the latter. Much of the storytelling aspect of filmmaking is done in the editing room, piecing together takes into a narrative and deciding what makes into the finished product. A terrible movie can be made into a decent one (or better) with a skillful re-cut.
I assume that 1) they know and 2) they can never, ever admit during or after that they knew... possibly not even to most people in their personal life.
There are a lot of things that a production can't recover from, no matter which other elements are excellent:
* Bad director
* Bad cast
* Bad writing
Get those 3 things right, and you can recover from bad special effects, bad costumes, bad make-up... even lousy cinematography or low budgets.
A lot of the most compelling art happens when people fully commit. But if you fully commit to something which is a little off, a brilliant performance can become something that feels "bad" but you still can't look away.
If an actor gives a committed performance while filming, they could have the sense that it is either amazingly good or amazingly bad. And either premonition could be right or could be wrong.
(Not to get into what makes something "bad" anyway which is a whole 'nother subject...)
Working in feature film visual effects for several years, when an obvious flop goes through the studio it casts a dark depressing cloud over the entire 2000 person operation, despite the film being only one of 4-6 productions in the studio at that time. Regardless, the work requires painful attention to detail and long hours - which seem to double in length when the film content is stupid, poorly executed, and we (the VFX team) have an irrational hope from the filmmakers that the VFX will somehow polish their turd. It really hurts the entire studio, dragging on all productions.
Yet, worst than working on a flop is working on what everyone recognizes will be a Best Picture Oscar candidate, and the filmmakers are hell bent on driving your studio out of business with their extreme demands. It was extremely painful to be at Rhythm & Hues during the making of "Life Of Pi" - we knew it was gonna win Best Picture and we knew it was bankrupting our company and ending our jobs.
I found it fascinating that the London theatre business is such that a play must continue running for a minimum period (described in the article) even if it's a failure. That's really bizarre.
In my younger childless life, I used to go to the theatre fairly often and even had a Goodman subscription. I don't think I ever saw anything that would have qualified as a flop or even an artistic failure, but the Chicago theatre scene is pretty vibrant. While we lived in Los Angeles, we went to the theatre less often, but again a pretty vibrant theatre scene although not as risk-taking as Chicago (many smaller venues seemed to be actor-financed productions meant to catch casting directors' eyes, but none of these actor-producers had Ed Wood–like blindness to bad production, at least none that I saw).
My sense is that New York is a lot more risk-averse, especially in the main stages. Perhaps things get more daring in smaller venues in the outer boroughs?
In major cities, there are a lot of smaller theatre companies you can go to. The quality is a bit hit or miss but tickets prices tend to be in in tens rather than hundreds of dollars. (NYC will be more expensive of course.) I have a subscription to a theatre that has a couple of companies in Cambridge MA and it's always an enjoyable night out and is pretty economical.
It's probably not that it must continue but rather that it must pay the rent and salaries anyway, so if the venue is going to be 1/3 full then it's at least some revenue to compensate instead of nothing and they continue.
Readit News
My Dad told me about another West End disaster called "Fire Angel". Every West End theatre has little signage areas out front where they put press quotes about the show. Even with a terrible show they can always quote critics saying something positive, even if it's only about one song or one actor. However, no review said anything good about the show, so the signs all had snippets like "Fire Angel is a musical" - The Times.
Unsurprisingly, Freud is responsible for some of the first suggestions of homosexuality, extrapolating from Da Vinci's writings in ways that aren't founded. Everything was phallic for Freud.
There was a single contemporary anonymous accusation of sodomy, but such accusations were like shitposting, and Da Vinci was prominent in public, and close to people that drew harassment.
The available evidence would suggest that he was celibate with an ascetic view towards sex, but even that conclusion is shaky at best. If he was gay, then it was obviously private or suppressed, but so would any heterosexual relationships have been. Projecting sexuality into his character is an interesting thought experiment, but there's not enough to really tell.
Without a direct communication by an individual, or some form of historical evidence, the sexuality talk amounts to gossip, in my opinion. Da Vinci deserves more respect than that.
The single solid conclusion you can derive from all of the evidence is that he kept his sexuality extremely private.
To be clear, I speak from a heart of no judgment or discrimination over sexuality, understanding the persecution and vile nonsense accompanying the catholic culture of Italy at the time. I simply think that speculation detracts from the genius of what he did leave for history.
It could be that I'm mistaken, but it seems tawdry and a bit self serving when assumptions like this are made, but I'm willing to entertain opposing views. My opinion is that privacy should be respected, even that of the long dead.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/renaissance/leonardo-da-...
Many years ago when movie times and reviews were posted in newspapers, I recall seeing a print ad for a movie that had the quote “X is like a beach vacation…”. The movie was beyond terrible and I was curious of the source so I dug up the actual review. The full line was: “X is like a beach vacation, except you’re not invited.”
Deleted Comment
Relatedly, I've started watching movies at random, without reading reviews before or after, to try to develop a sense of what I actually enjoy. Whether I have any real critical faculties at all. Perhaps it is all just received opinion. I re-watched League of Extraordinary Gentlemen last night though, and can confirm that it is in fact bad.
This may be enough to justify harsh reviews. If people are going to spend several hundred dollars to see a live show, it better be an amazing show, something they'll remember for life. If people want to see something that's just okay they can watch a movie and not regret their loss of time and (nowadays very little, if on a streaming service) money.
Most Millenials know the song, "Flagpole Sitta" by Harvey Danger, for instance, but how many people know "Problems and Bigger Ones" off of the same album, or "Jack the Lion"?
"Closing Time" by Semisonic is in the same vein, but on the same album is, "Secret Smile", "Singing in my Sleep" and "Gone to the Movies". Great songs that can totally stand on their own but most people hear the hit, enjoy it, and move on, never realizing how much musical depth they're missing.
Plus there is the absolute dickishness of booing a team that spent six months or more slogging their guts out so they could sing, in tune, for three hours straight, for their entertainment.
In short: it wasnt you.
- High quality and enjoyable? A classic.
- Low quality but enjoyable? A personal favourite.
- High quality but boring? Critics choice that no one watches.
- Low quality but boring? Obvious trash.
It made for some nice screencap wallpapers, though.
[0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780504/
https://www.google.com/search?q=nautilus+car+The+League+of+E...
https://slleiter.blogspot.com/2021/06/589-whitsuntide-from-m...
Actors need to grow an iron hide. My pop went on to have a decent career with small parts in big movies, bigger roles in some low-budget films, and a few commercials to pay the bills. The writer of the flop, Tom La Bar, was my dad's mate in the Marine Corps. They lived interesting lives.
Art is about risk. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Of course, it could have all been my fault as the common element, but I'd rather not think about that :)
There are a lot of things that a production can't recover from, no matter which other elements are excellent:
* Bad director
* Bad cast
* Bad writing
Get those 3 things right, and you can recover from bad special effects, bad costumes, bad make-up... even lousy cinematography or low budgets.
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mOIxyRTY5I
If an actor gives a committed performance while filming, they could have the sense that it is either amazingly good or amazingly bad. And either premonition could be right or could be wrong.
(Not to get into what makes something "bad" anyway which is a whole 'nother subject...)
Yet, worst than working on a flop is working on what everyone recognizes will be a Best Picture Oscar candidate, and the filmmakers are hell bent on driving your studio out of business with their extreme demands. It was extremely painful to be at Rhythm & Hues during the making of "Life Of Pi" - we knew it was gonna win Best Picture and we knew it was bankrupting our company and ending our jobs.
In my younger childless life, I used to go to the theatre fairly often and even had a Goodman subscription. I don't think I ever saw anything that would have qualified as a flop or even an artistic failure, but the Chicago theatre scene is pretty vibrant. While we lived in Los Angeles, we went to the theatre less often, but again a pretty vibrant theatre scene although not as risk-taking as Chicago (many smaller venues seemed to be actor-financed productions meant to catch casting directors' eyes, but none of these actor-producers had Ed Wood–like blindness to bad production, at least none that I saw).
My sense is that New York is a lot more risk-averse, especially in the main stages. Perhaps things get more daring in smaller venues in the outer boroughs?