'The Notebook' Musical Draws Battle Lines Between Critics and Fans

If you had followed theatre feeds on social media for the past couple of weeks, you would have thought ‘The Notebook’ was a lock for the Tony for Best Musical. The show, based on the hit 2004 movie and Nicholas Sparks novel, opened on Broadway on March 14th.

According to many of the theatre influencers, threads, and other feeds I follow, this was going to be a must-see and the odds-on favorite for many Tony Awards. The score, by indie singer-songwriter Ingrid Michaelson, has been heavily praised by Broadway fans, and many have been posting videos of them before/after the show to highlight the emotional impact of the show. An ingenious move has been selling specialty tissue boxes in the lobby.

By the time opening night rolled around, this show seemed like a lock for all the success 42nd St has to offer.

Then, the reviews came out.

At best, you could say the reviews for the show are mixed. From the reviews I’ve seen, no one is raving about the show. Some are positive about it. But many more are giving it a thumbs down.

Mark Kennedy of the Associated Press said, “The bombastic musical that opened Thursday at the Gerald Schoenfeld Theatre is about a love for the ages but has understated songs by Ingrid Michaelson, who offers coffee house vibes instead of passion’s thunder. The book by Bekah Brunstetter loses gas well before it’s over and piles on the melodrama.”

Jesse Green of The New York Times said “When songs provide so little information, barely differentiating the characters let alone advancing the plot, a musical tends to sag. And when a musical has gone to some trouble to accommodate those songs — the movie of “The Notebook” runs two hours, the show hardly 20 minutes more — the trade-offs are of the nose-versus-face variety.”

Johnny Oleksinski of the New York Post(who I rarely agree with) said, “the show amounts to a series of un-involving pencil sketches rather than a layered portrait of a decades-long love.”

Frank Rizzo of Variety said about the show, “no charm, no complexity, nothing special.”

But not all the reviews were bad. Some were positive.

Chris Jones of the NY Daily News said “There are two main reasons why this show works. Most important is the songwriter Ingrid Michaelson, who might be a Broadway newcomer, but whose lyrics eschew the mawkish pitfalls in favor of simple, direct communication of intense but familiar emotions through melody and song.”

Also, many praised the performances of Dorian Harewood and Maryann Plunkett, who play the older versions of Noah and Allie.

But why the vast divide? Why are audiences raving about the show, but it’s barely moving the needle for critics? I think the reason is that the show, which I haven’t seen yet, may be giving fans what they want without being the artistic achievement that critics love.

I think that the show also delivers on the emotional expectations of fans of the book and movie. I’m not alone in thinking that. Kate Reinking, a theatre influencer, also talked about this on their TikTok the other day.

And look, I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with fan service in musicals, especially ones based on beloved movies or books. It can serve as a nostalgic callback, evoking cherished memories and emotions associated with the original material. This nostalgia not only resonates with longtime fans but also helps new audiences, drawing them into the story and encouraging them to explore the source material further.

But critics aren’t going to walk into the theatre with those pre-conceived emotions. They’re not going to sit down in their seats hoping to be emotionally destroyed by a show and then start to cry the minute the first bar of music is played.

What they are going to do(or at least should do) is take in the show with no bias and let the material and performance sway their reaction. Most good critics will do this all the time, but there are plenty who don’t.

But I can’t help but see the panic in many of these fans’ feeds that their opinions are so much different than the critics. And while it might sound silly to some, it’s fair to be worried - bad reviews can kill a show.

So what happened? I’m reminded of an article we published a couple of weeks ago by Clara Tan. In the article, Tan talks about the Back to the Future musical.

“Broadway has been moving in a very specific direction of late, adapting movies that were pop-culture phenomena in their day in the hopes of cashing in on the nostalgia of fans, as well as the average tourist who comes in to see a show, and decides, well, we might as well see Back to the Future: The Musical since it’s a known quantity.

I am certainly not the first person to note that capitalism incentivizes the creation of mediocre product in order to attempt to capture the market share of undiscerning consumers, and I’m sure I won’t be the last.”

Later in the piece, Tan writes:

“The art that is being overwhelmingly produced of late is no longer being treated or viewed as art, but as content. It is seen as material to be consumed without the need to critically engage, like a prime goose being pumped full by gavage in order to prep its liver for harvesting.”

Again, I haven’t seen either show yet, but I wonder if what Tan said about ‘Back to the Future’ is how most critics saw ‘The Notebook’. Either way, I don’t think the show is in danger, given the reviews. It’s selling quite well right now and I don’t see anything that will likely steal audiences away from buying tickets for this. I also do expect elements and performances from this show will be highlighted come awards season.

But I think ‘The Notebook’ serves as another example of how these shows are designed to make fans feel one way and critics to feel another.