Derren Brown - Infamous - A Review

[CraigMitchell]

“Infamous” is the title of Derren Brown’s much awaited new live stage show that opened in the dreary town of Dartford, England on Fri 15th March. Currently in previews – the show will soon be touring the hills of merry old Britain – before settling in for a likely West End run in 2014.

There has been great buzz surrounding the return of Andy Nyman to the creative team. Having collaborated on much of Derren’s early material, the show was somewhat of a triumphant reunion for the two performers ... and the promise of more groundbreaking material with Nyman in the role of Director and co-writer.

It is impossible to get to grips with a show of this nature without analysing certain aspects in great detail. As such – for those who will be seeing the show at any time in the future – this is your opportunity to read no more. Infamous is in previews. It is not a finished product and things will no doubt change. I saw the show on opening night ... and this review is that of the performance that was presented. For those who wish to retain the surprise – you may now take your leave. I strongly urge you to do so. There are, however, thousands of others around the globe who sadly will not get to see the show... and will want to know more. The decision to read on is entirely your own.

RK Edit: The producers of the show have asked that the description of the show itself be removed since this was an early preview and it gave away far too much. I agree.

[CraigMitchell]

Whether the show is in previews or not is immaterial.

Once tickets are sold and presented to the public - it is open for comment and review.

You cannot attempt to shutdown discussion and discourse because we are still "tinkering" or because the producers do not agree with what is said.

Case in point ... Spiderman on Broadway and Love Never Dies in the West End had extended preview periods. The show was changed multiple times. Every iteration and every preview performance generated comment and thought from thousands of viewers.

Magic is no peculiarity. We are not an island. Even more so when you enter the theatrical realm in the digital age.

No one is forced to read my thoughts on the subject. They do so voluntarily.

I respect Richard's decision that he does not wish to host the review on his server ( although I do not agree with his motivation ) but hope he will allow readers the option to decide for themselves whether they wish to read it or not.

RK EDIT: Link removed.

[Bryan Miles]

HI Craig,

Thank you so much for your honest and critical review of Derren's show. I really enjoyed reading about it, and I have no doubt that the show will be amazing by the time it reaches the West End!

Much appreciated

[Noel Britten]

Good call Richard - both times.

To say that people internationally will not get to see the show is poppycock. Derren's released TV versions/DVD's of all his West End Shows.
It will be great that everyone will enjoy them as they are meant to be seen...with anticipation.

If you want tittle tattle go to tittle tattle sites - Long Live The Genii!

[Noel Britten]

Briliant in that trying to think a word that wouldnt be offensive to anyone it's been censored

Think of a longer word that starts with poppy

[Richard Kaufman]

Unfortunately the word censor picks up a word even if it's part of a longer word. Nothing wrong with poppyc*ck, of course.

[Roger M.]

I would have dearly liked to read Craigs review rather than to read that it had been deleted.

It's suspicious when an "open" stage production requests that all reviews of their (now moneymaking) show be deleted.
There' simply no valid reason for requesting a deletion.

It's Richard's site, and he's rightfully going to do what he wants to do. Respect for his ownershiip of this web forum.

However, the danger of deleting a review only opens doors to more deletions down the road, from any and all who request such things, and makes one wonder if one is reading an accurate representation of what was originally written (what else might be edited or deleted?).

In the end, it's just not transparent, and makes one wonder if Mr. Brown is enjoying special treatment for some unknown reason.

The New York Times has never entertained requests from Broadway producers to change or delete their reviews of any Broadway show, and as Genii is the equivilent (to the Times) in the magic world, It's depressing to see this turn of events.

[Richard Kaufman]

You don't review the damn show before it has opened! It's not open yet, it's in previews. Maybe you should learn some of the etiquette of journalism AND the professional theater.

[Roger M.]

That's not accurate Richard. And considering the tone of my post, it's also just a bit rude. I noted that I respected your right to do whatever you want.....and commented on what I perceived to be some of the shortcomings of doing so.

BTW, I've made 100% of my living in professional theatre for over 35 years, so please refrain from any implication that I may not know anything about what I'm writing about. I'd be happy to share with you a link privately, it will take you to our theatres website if you doubt the quality of my knowledge Richard.

There was a time when it was generally frowned upon within the theatre community to review a preview, but that is no longer the case.

What has prompted this shift is the multitude of online theatre blog sites, and their willingness to review shows long before their opening date. With some shows now in preview for months, the newspapers simply couldn't sit idly by for weeks (or longer) without commenting on a show.....while all the while a massive online buzz was happening.

So, "yes", assorted newspapers and a great many websites review theatre previews as a matter of standard business.......funnily enough, exactly the same as how Craig reviewed the DB show above.

[Richard Kaufman]

Then let's look at it this way. I don't care about all the chuckleheads babbling on the internet about shows that are still in previews. I don't want any shows reviewed here that are still in previews. It's not fair to anyone involved in the show: writer, actor, director, producer.

[CraigMitchell]

Out of interest - ticket prices are the same for the "preview" dates and the "regular" show dates.

Infamous finishes its previews on the 23 March.

[Richard Kaufman]

It is not relevant to the discussion that preview prices are the same. And if you decide to post a review of the show here if you've seen it after it opens, then avoid any spoilers whatsoever. Nothing annoys me more than people spoiling shows, books, and movies by giving away too much.

[CraigMitchell]

"It is not relevant to the discussion that preview prices are the same."

A full priced show well has an expectation by today's audience that a show should be developed. If not - there is a reason that 'previews' are then offered at a subsidized rate.

With regards to other reviews that contain spoilers - why not simply feature a 'spoiler alert' as is the accepted norm for such pieces that contain detailed info ?

It's all about choice. Those who want to read it - can have the option to do so. Those who don't ... need simply skip it.

[Richard Kaufman]

No spoiler alerts: just don't give things way. That's pretty simple.

[IrishMagicNews]

Would I have read the review had it been allowed here? probably yes.

Will I see the show? Yeah, when it hits Dublin next year.

Am I glad Richard took it down? Yes.

I do know Derren, in his previous shows, asks the audience not to tip the content online. I imagine he probably does the same this time.

I am flabbergasted that someone in our community would even contemplate tipping it.

Brendan

[Roger M.]

Just a note, for many within the publishing world the Broadway production of Spiderman did away with forever whatever was left of the line remaining between "what is a preview" and "what is an opening".

Because the producers kept the Spiderman production in previews for what seemed like half a year (182 performances), there were hundreds, and then thousands of reviews both online and in the printed press long before the show actually opened.

If one desires to somehow seperate a theatre performance featuring magic from a theatre show in general, I suppose you could create a multitude of levels of "surprise" as to how shocked you were that somebody paying full price for a ticket actually commented publicly regarding what they saw through their own eyes.

That is (of course) the entire point of reviews, to hold producers accountable to the public by forming a common opinion amongst those who attend shows, and then report to the public regarding how those shows did, or didn't move them.

So although a forum owner absolutely must be given due respect for what they choose to do in their own forum, that doesn't at all translate to what's actually happening in the world of the theatre press, the act of reviewing live theatre in print or online, or reviewing preview performances/opening performances in general.

For the record, Craigs "online preview reveiw" was par for the course in terms of what's happening in 2013 in terms of internet theatre reviews, and will no doubt be duplicated first with dozens, then with hundreds of online reviews of DB's show long before it reaches anything resembling an "official" opening night.

BTW, producers made reviewing shows on opening night attractive by originally offering newspaper reviewers FREE tickets to the opening night performance in trade for their reviews.

There were many historical instances of reviewers getting an early reveiw (and perhaps then selling more papers) by attending and reviewing a later preview performance.

It's a common misconception that previews are somehow sacred, when in fact they're commonly used as a cash stream for producers, generated by selling tickets, and usually paying actors less for "previews" than they are paid for "shows".
If a show changes radically during previews (as did Spiderman), it's most often a sign of a pending theatrical disaster rather than anything resembling an ongoing rehearsal that the public shouldn't comment on.

[Joe Mckay]

Hey Craig,

I got a chance to read your original review a ouple of days ago. Thanks alot for a fascinating and well written piece.

Derren Brown and Andy Nyman are pretty much geniuses. So I am sure they can keep on improving the show throughout the previews. And I think your input will help in that regard.

[Max Maven]

Curiously enough, the first Broadway show to abuse the tradition of not reviewing during previews was Doug Henning's Merlin, which stayed in previews for an unprecedented amount of time.

Internet or no, the understanding the critics will hold off from reviewing a show until its formal opening is still usually held to, and not only with Broadway productions. Amusingly, when Criss Angel opened at the Luxor in Las Vegas, his show went through weeks of previews. The Vegas press disliked Angel for some of his offstage behavior, but willfully did not review the show until its official opening.

One Las Vegas critic got around this in a clever way. He did not see the show before its opening, but he did stand outside the showroom on a preview night, with a voice recorder. He asked the exiting audience members to comment on the show, harvested some of the negative ones, and published those in his column.

At any rate, I think the traditional agreement to let a show get on its feet during previews, unreviewed, is a fair arrangement, provided the show plays fair and has a reasonable limit on the length of the preview period.

The fact that full ticket prices are charged for previews is not an issue. The purchasers know they are seeing a show that is in the process of being tweaked, so they get to weigh the pros and cons of that. The preview show may have flaws, but the attending audience gets to see it before everyone else. Fair trade.

The fact that the Internet is filled with amateur reviewers who opt to ignore the traditional arrangement and leap into cyberprint with spoilers is a non-issue, in terms of defining what is good behavior. That there is a great quantity of bad behavior on the Internet should not affect those who wish to hold to good behavior.

I hasten to add that Craig has every right to make the choice, regardless of tradition or the explicit requests of the creators of the show, to publish his review of Derren and Andy's show, complete with spoilers. But Richard has no obligation to provide a platform for it, or a link to it.

[CraigMitchell]

@Roger M. - great to have your take on matters. You clearly are well versed in the world of theatre.

@Joe - thanks for your kind words.

@Max - I appreciate that you took the time to weigh in.

I will add though that what is deemed "good" and what is deemed "bad" is entirely a matter of perspective as Roger clearly pointed out. Even more so in 2013 ... the days of black and white, sacrosanct traditions are long gone unfortunately.

Out of anything, I am probably most surprised by the fact that the show's producers actively tried to shutdown discussion on the subject ... of all things, that seems to be the most impossible of quests in today's day and age.

[Q. Kumber]

Craig,
You should not be surprised your review was removed as a previous review you wrote of one of Derren's shows was also removed from this forum.

[CraigMitchell]

Wow ... you're right. I had forgotten all about that! Seems like ages ago. I've tried to search back and I can't recall whether that was at Richard's request or at the producers behest again. I do remember though that particular show was definitely NOT in previews.

So now we have a case of two of Derren's reviews having both been removed ... stranger and stranger

[IrishMagicNews]

I don't think it is strange at all.

Surely Derren and/or his producers wish for the show, given the type of show it is, to remain a surprise for audiences is honourable.

It is not like the show is going to be crap and they area afraid word of that will get out.

[mrgoat]

If Mr Brown requests no one writes spoilers, why does Craig feel it's OK to ignore that simple request?

[CraigMitchell]

2 reasons @mrgoat ...

1 - Such a request is in my view unreasonable. This is 2013. It is a public performance. Everything is thus open for discussion. I believe such discourse is healthy and promotes development of the art. Audience feedback is vital to any creative process. Those who wish to participate - can. Those who don't - simply avoid it. Free choice. If it had been a closed viewing - I would respect that completely.

2 - It's not possible for me to fully delve into such a show without going into detail. I could tell you for example that a show has the building blocks of a performance unlike any other, but never quite allows the story to overcome the magic. Without context and detail - that would be meaningless to me. I would want such a view substantiated and fully explained.

At the end of the day - attempting to dictate to a paying audience what they can and can't do regarding discussion of a performance does not sit well with me. I understand why you may want to do so ... but don't agree with it.

[mrgoat]

2 reasons @mrgoat ...

1 - Such a request is in my view unreasonable. This is 2013. It is a public performance. Everything is thus open for discussion. I believe such discourse is healthy and promotes development of the art. Audience feedback is vital to any creative process. Those who wish to participate - can. Those who don't - simply avoid it. Free choice. If it had been a closed viewing - I would respect that completely.

2 - It's not possible for me to fully delve into such a show without going into detail. I could tell you for example that a show has the building blocks of a performance unlike any other, but never quite allows the story to overcome the magic. Without context and detail - that would be meaningless to me. I would want such a view substantiated and fully explained.

At the end of the day - attempting to dictate to a paying audience what they can and can't do regarding discussion of a performance does not sit well with me. I understand why you may want to do so ... but don't agree with it.

So you just think "I understand that Mr Brown requested no details be published, so as to not spoil the surprises for people, but screw him, I'll write what I want"

Nice.

I don't care if you liked it or not, I don't care what you publish, very few people will see it anyway, I just think if someone specifically requests you not to do something, ignoring that request is the height of bad manners.

You obviously don't, so I guess that's that.

[CraigMitchell]

"I just think if someone specifically requests you not to do something, ignoring that request is the height of bad manners.You obviously don't, so I guess that's that."

When said request is in my view unreasonable - I have no qualms whatsoever.

Not everyone is going to see the show. Not everyone is going to wait 3 years for a DVD. Not everyone believes detailed reviews are off-limits. And even those seeing the show may well be interested in its development and assessment.

You may be aghast at this evil writer ... but just as many are equally appreciative

[mrgoat]

When said request is in my view unreasonable - I have no qualms whatsoever.

Evidently.

I just find it a bit of a shame you disrespect a colleague's wishes. But, that's your prerogative.

[Roger M.]

To put on a public performance, and request it not be reviewed is frankly, amateur hour stuff.
It's simply not done (anywhere) in the live entertainment world.

It implies a fundamental lack of understanding of the live theatre, and I really can't believe that the Nyman/Brown team actually believes that such a request will garner any positive traction.

I suspect the sentence itself is simply part of the performance, and the expectation that people behave as they're "told" to behave following the show is simply a ridiculous expectation.

This topic seems to be going nowhere positive despite the active posting.

It's all little more than a matter of personal opinion, which also implies that nobody posting here can be "wrong", but can certainly differ in their take on the situation.

[Ian Kendall]

Consider this for a moment; a lot of Derren's live shows depend on the audience _not_ knowing what is about to happen. In order to maintain that level of surprise Derren _asks_ (at least in the two live shows I've seen) that you do not disseminate that information. In fact, he asks nicely.

Giving away twists in reviews has always been frowned upon. How successful do you think the Crying Game would have been if every newspaper at the time said 'she's a bloke'? In fact, we discussed this very subject a few weeks ago in the RS thread.

Now, if Craig was _told_, dictatorially that he _must not_ review the show, I can understand the resentment (and yet still be in contempt of his choice to ignore that), but if, as I suspect, he was _asked_, nicely, not to do so, then his choice is all the more contemptible.

Scrabbling for justifications doesn't help matters, either.

[Roger M.]

If every live theatre show was to take the position that it's important that future audiences not know what the show was about, and that nobody should review or discuss elements of the show after they've seen it......well, the number of people who would go to shows would become tiny indeed.

The weak arguement is easily (and logically) extended such that every show could benefit if the audience knew nothing about it in advance, and nobody commented in any media as to their impressions of the performance.

It's just a silly concept, and it's not how live theatre works.

Reading reviews of live shows (as well as reviews of books, art exhibitions, restaraunts, etc) is a fundamental (even critical) part of the entire experience.

[Ian Kendall]

Not when the facts being published are meant to stay covert.

There is a play in London that has been running forever; the Mousetrap. For years, the Time Out listing magazine just had, under the play's entry, the policeman did it. There is no doubt that this would spoil the play for most people who had not seen it.

This is not about 'what the show is about', but 'surprises in the show'; judging a magic show against a normal play is pointless, and just as much a 'silly concept'.

[mrgoat]

Not when the facts being published are meant to stay covert.

There is a play in London that has been running forever; the Mousetrap. For years, the Time Out listing magazine just had, under the play's entry, the policeman did it. There is no doubt that this would spoil the play for most people who had not seen it.

This is not about 'what the show is about', but 'surprises in the show'; judging a magic show against a normal play is pointless, and just as much a 'silly concept'.

Absolutely. One can review a show without giving away everything, especially when you have been specifically asked not to. Shows what little respect Mr Mitchell has for Mr Brown as a performer and person.

It's a shame really.

[Roger M.]

Shows what little respect Mr Mitchell has for Mr Brown as a performer and person.

It's a shame really.

Damien, I don't think there was a lack of respect shown to anybody.
I don't believe a vastly different "take" amongst assorted Genii forum posters translates into anything resembling a lack of respect towards anybody.

I believe everybody in the thread to date has offered up pretty solid support for their personal statements, which in and of itself displays efforts to proceed with a conversational tone......and not a lack of respect.

I also don't believe a few differing opinons translate into anything close to "a shame".
They're just different opinions.

[mrgoat]

We disagree. And that is fine.

If Mr Mitchell choses to ignore Mr Brown's requests (twice that I know of), there isn't a law that can stop him.

I just don't understand why he tried to spoil the show for everyone else. Kinda like someone's mean big brother telling a little kid Santa doesn't exist.

[John McDonald]

image.jpg (219.87 KiB) Viewed 5534 times

[IrishMagicNews]

Was just about to post that John. It is as if he knew this debate was happening, either that or he is a mind reader, oh wait....

[CraigMitchell]

"I just don't understand why he tried to spoil the show for everyone else. Kinda like someone's mean big brother telling a little kid Santa doesn't exist."

Seems we have divergent opinions. But again - and to reiterate - those people who chose to read a detailed and comprehensive piece on the performance did so entirely of their own free will - with the full knowledge and understanding that they would be reading a detailed review that substantiated my thoughts on the performance. The disclaimers were there. This wasn't a billboard - "Santa doesn't exist"

Can't please everyone.

[mrgoat]

Seems we have divergent opinions.

Yes indeed. I respect Brown's wishes, you don't.

Can't please everyone.

You can. You just do as you're asked.

[El Mystico]

Craig gives a good reason for publishing a detailed review of the show.
" I believe such discourse is healthy and promotes development of the art. Audience feedback is vital to any creative process."

A number of people here, myself included, think there are good reasons for not publishing spoilers.

Is there a compromise that would satisfy most, which would be for Craig to publish his review sometime after the DVD release? Would that keep most people happy?

For instance, in the interest of promoting development of the art, could Craig now publish (or rewrite) his review of the previous show, that got deleted from here? Of course, it would lack 'news' value now, but if that aim is to promote development of the art, the newsworthiness is irrelevant. Any by publishing it now, most people who wanted to see the show will have done so, so there will be the biggest audience in a position to provide the feedback that Craig wants to generate.

In a sense it is akin to this: book reviews in newspapers tend to avoid spoilers. But 'Critical analysis' books on classic texts have no such limitations.

[Richard Kaufman]

The whole point, aside from not reviewing shows while still in previews, is that Derren's shows are full of surprises. You will enjoy the show much more if you haven't read about every detail in advance. Simple.

There are lots of examples in film, books, and plays where not knowing what happens is important. If someone had told me about the end of "An Inspector Calls" before I saw the wonderful movie with Alistar Sim I would have been quite annoyed.