Why Send L.A. Critic Who Dislikes Vegas?

In reply to Laurie Winer’s “review” of Michael Crawford in “EFX” at the MGM Grand Hotel (“Magic! Or Just ‘EFX’?” Calendar, May 31):

It is difficult to fathom why the L.A. Times would assign a critic who has such patent distaste for Las Vegas. Opening with the cost of the production--$40 million--and immediately posing the question, “Is the show supplying subliminal messages to gamblers . . . ?” Winer completes her first paragraph with a less-than subliminal bias toward the Las Vegas experience: “Whatever else it may be,” she says, “ ‘EFX’ is the latest in a long line of not-so-subtle casino encouragements to risk, risk, risk.” Huh?

She describes Theoni Aldredge’s costume for Michael Crawford’s first entrance as “a white Elvis suit.” (Aldredge, incidentally, is a Tony, Oscar and Emmy winner.) Then she calls the star “an amalgam of Tom Jones, Liberace and Capt. Kirk.” Except for the fictional Kirk, of course, all the comparisons are to dazzling performers who are Strip icons. But the line comes off as a sneer.

She also knocks Michael Crawford for joining the venture with a rather snide, “The former Phantom of the Opera is gainfully employed once again,” as if Crawford had been out on the bread lines instead of starring in “The Music of Andrew Lloyd Webber” and helping to conceive “EFX” with a creative team that includes numerous Tony winners.

She concludes that “EFX” is “a hybrid of the theme park and the musical, a natural entertainment for a town in total denial.”

Compare Winer’s review to Richard Corliss’ reportage in Time on April 24, in which he applauds Las Vegas for providing what Broadway no longer can--musical spectacles. He goes on to say, “For now Broadway is ancient history; Vegas is the musical theater of the coming millennium. . . . People don’t go to Vegas for a Sondheim musical (indeed, not many go to Broadway for one). Vegas shows are zippy, out-of-mind experiences aimed at vacationers of all classes and countries.”

In this context, Corliss viewed “EFX” as having “that cosmic expanse of spirit, that lift of a driving dream, that wily, woozy pretentiousness, that have marked the boffo Broadway musical ever since ‘Cats’ crept into town nearly 13 years ago.” He credits the MGM Grand’s extravaganza for its “glorious sets,” “phantasmagorical costumes,” “lush, hummable ballads” and the immensely talented Michael Crawford, who plays all the lead male roles.

Corliss “gets” Las Vegas. He doesn’t apologize for it. And he is able to view its larger-than-life shows without judging the venue that puts up the money. And he is not alone. Chicago Tribune reviewer Gary Dretzka said, “There’s never any doubt that this is a Las Vegas show, but the Broadway influence can be felt throughout. . . . In a town that never tires of topping itself . . . ‘EFX’ is a totally over-the-top, thrill-a-minute experience that variously will inspire awe, wonder, and stunned incredulity.”

Perhaps a legitimate theater critic--especially one with a snob’s-eye view of Las Vegas--is not the best editorial choice for reviewing a grand-scale entertainment. However, a $40-million production in an 1,800-seat venue is as much of a creative risk as an Equity-Waiver production in an 80-seat house.

Would Winer make snide remarks about Burbank when reviewing a play at the Victory Theatre? Would she refer to the homeless looking for handouts around the Music Center’s Ahmanson Theatre and Mark Taper Forum?

I wonder which of us--Winer or I--is the denizen of “a town in total denial.” Maybe geography is just a state of mind.