Steadying ‘The Ark’?
Michael McClean is calling for a miracle over at Meridian Magazine after the nasty, liberal New York Times mined the media waters for the off-Broadway journey of his musical “The Ark.”
“The universality of the liberal press’s slamming of this show has contrasted so dramatically with the audience responses that you might think the critics decided to do all they could to keep a hopeful, family friendly musical from finding an audience in New York City,” writes McClean.
He adds: “Though the producers of the show never anticipated this show being a favorite of the cynical New York press, they were not prepared for the intensity of the attacks on the show, its writers, their religion and their ‘particular set of family values.’”
McClean then goes on to compare himself to George Baily — it actually makes a bit of sense if you read the piece. You see, McClean directed “Mr. Kruger’s Christmas” which starred Jimmy Stewart who… well, you get the picture.
He then asks people to buy tickets to save the show.
That the New York Times is so obviously against such family values is made manifestly clear by such anti-family-values judgements as: “The music is loud and simple enough to appeal to children but lacks distinction, while the lyrics are repetitive and banal” and “The show’s creators find anachronism to be endlessly hilarious, though their pop culture references are often so dated as to be themselves anachronistic.”
Meanwhile the members of the AML-List are taking a more sanguine view of the situation.
Hat tips to the AML-List and the much-missed, master of musical mayhem Jeremy Grimshaw.
NOTE: Sorry about the maritime imagery, but I wasn’t strong enough to resist.
Hilarious stuff (Meridian never fails on that account). I can’t imagine who decided to invest in a musical by that cheeseball. No doubt the pitch relied heavily on Mormon-ness.
Comment by NFlanders — November 22, 2005 @ 3:09 pm
The problem with this is that it really comes off as rather whiney. It’s one thing to criticize a criticism that is wrong or beside the point. However it seems to me that this is arguing beside the point.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 22, 2005 @ 3:23 pm
What’s ridiculous is that it appears that the critics aren’t critical AT ALL about the values it’s trying to espouse, but rather they are not amused by the humor and quality of writing.
And that piece by McLean is particularly disgusting. He’s using Meridian as a platform to sell tickets to his show by suggesting it’s a war of evil vs. good. Blech!
Comment by Rusty — November 22, 2005 @ 3:28 pm
Pathetic. Trying to make a buck off the saints by couching this as good vs. evil. I’m so glad he can rail against the “liberal media” too, that should get the rubes all riled up and enlisted in his cause. By the way, I think that “its a wonderful life” is an awful movie.
Comment by ScottCW — November 22, 2005 @ 3:35 pm
I certainly find the difference between this plea and the pleas that were made on behalf of “States of Grace” (note that as far as I know Richard Dutcher didn’t make any of those pleas personally or ask people to) to be interesting.
To be fair, it’s not totally beyond the realm of science fiction that Miriam Horn, the reviewer, went into the show with some preconceptions. However, I do think that the review itself is careful to offer up clear aesthetic judgements of the show. Yes, such judgements can be speculative, but they certainly can be useful in giving a sense of whether you might be turned off (or on) by the same attributes.
In fact, Horn even writes:
“For many in the audience, the theatrical merits of the show may matter less than its inspirational tone.”
It seems to me that that is mainly the case that McClean is making. He certainly doesn’t respond to the aesthetic criticisms other than to say that the audiences have loved the show. I for instance would be interested to hear what he has to say about Horn’s aside: “The show’s creators find anachronism to be endlessly hilarious, though their pop culture references are often so dated as to be themselves anachronistic.”
This means, then, the type of people that want that type of entertainment is who will go see it. Whether there are enough of them to save the show — I don’t know.
I haven’t seen it so I can’t comment on its aesthetic qualities. Eric D. Snider has reviews of two versions of the show on his Web site.
Comment by William Morris — November 22, 2005 @ 3:55 pm
According to several online sources like this one, the play has already closed. Is that true? Also it got lots of bad reviews, besides the NYT.
Comment by ed — November 22, 2005 @ 4:14 pm
The NYT review was “bad” in the sense that it did gave the show a bad review artistically but I didn’t sense any religion-bashing or disrespect in that regard, or any bashing of family values, in the review. Maybe I missed it somehow.
It does seem rather like he is trying to make a buck off Latter-day Saints by spinning the NYT’s aesthetic rejection (perhaps deservedly so, I can’t say since I haven’t seen it) as a war on family values. If it’s not good, it’s not good, even if the subject matter is family values.
Comment by john fowles — November 22, 2005 @ 4:37 pm
John,
You’re exactly right. This had nothing to do with family values and everything to do with aesthetics. You didn’t miss anything.
Comment by Rusty — November 22, 2005 @ 5:19 pm
I doubt a lot of Meridian readers make it to Manhattan.
Comment by John Williams — November 24, 2005 @ 12:35 am
I once had to sit through a reading of “The Forgotten Carols” (complete with music) on Christmas Eve.
It was a long night.
Comment by John Williams — November 24, 2005 @ 12:37 am
I was okay with McLean’s plea until the final paragraph: “The only way for evil to flourish is for good men and women to do nothing.”
Letting McLean’s production die is EVIL, like the FRU-ITS of the DEVIL!
Comment by will — November 28, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
I can’t believe McLean is making this a good vs. evil debate. I saw the original production of The Ark in Utah as well as this production out here in New York. I must say there were a lot of changes since the last time I saw The Ark in Utah, changes to help “spice” it up for the off-broadway audience. I think if they had stuck with the original production, the production that Eric Snyder gave an A, it would have had much more success.
I also agree that McLean is just trying to make a buck by spinning the battle against evil argument in getting us to buy more tickets. Someone from his PR staff left a message at my house, asking if we could advertise The Ark in church meetings and to remind people that we all got a “Mormon Discount.” Come on. McLean must know that advertising in church is a no-no.
Comment by jayne — November 30, 2005 @ 11:20 am
What is sad is that most of McLean’s music is trite and panders to the members of the LDS Church. He abuses his membership in the LDS as a springboard to sell his mediocre recordings. Perhaps because of the trusting nature of LDS members (I am one myself and hold a PhD in Music History and Conducting and am a professional musician) Utah has the highest rate of con artists in the country. Maybe this gullibility is related to those who purchase his music as well.
Comment by Gern Blanston — November 30, 2005 @ 10:41 pm
All “christian pop music” is mediocre, not just LDS pop. One would think the Lord would be a little more supportive of His song writers.
Comment by Duff — December 4, 2005 @ 4:20 am