Great reading, but very frustrating at the same time. This is the "inside" story of the debacle that was the Spiderman musical-or at least, it's the book writer's very biased view of what happened and what went wrong.
What's frustrating is that the guy doesn't seem to GET it a lot of the time. Spiderman did not fail because the critics were mean, or they never could figure out how to get some of the set pieces to work, or because there were so many unfortunate accidents. It didn't make it because THE SHOW WAS BAD. BOTH versions-the infamous 1.0, and the "improved" 2.0. Look-I'll admit I never got the opportunity to see either version but after reading this, I've looked at clips online and I've listened the soundtrack. The music is AWFUL and I'm sorry, I know he's Broadway's new darling, but Reeve Carney's breathy whisper singing does nothing for me. And even on the SOUNDTRACK, the overpowering instruments drown out the singer to the point I can't understand the words, so I can imagine how well it worked in live theater.
And the story looks worse. Berger's basic thesis here is that version 1.0, Julie Taymor's version, failed because she was making Great Art, which is not Marvel or anyone else wanted. And then she was, perhaps fairly, perhaps not, fired when she refused to compromise and became impossible to work with. My own take? You can read between the lines-a number about the VILLAIN GOING SHOE SHOPPING. It's got a GEEK Chorus (Do you GET IT? Really, are you sure you GET THE SUBTLETY?) These are the hills Julie Taymor chose to die on. It's not that it failed because she was some misunderstood Mozart making Great Symphonies for the unappreciative public who wanted another Salieri, it's that she was making BAD Mozart. Here's my take on Julie Taymor having seen Titus, Tempest, etc. She's not a director. She's a very talented and overpaid set designer. She designs beautiful spectacles, but can't relate to actors or help them develop their characters for shit. She's more interested in her extravagant set design then telling a good story-yes I know the Lion King. Here's the thing-The Lion King is basically Hamlet with cute animals, and even Julie Taymor's epic ego doesn't allow for the possibility of improving on Hamlet. The Lion King succeeded because it didn't NEED her to understand anything about character, or acting, or plot. It just required pretty costumes and movement.
So, anyway, back to this book. It is an in depth exploration of what can only be described as a trainwreck from start to finish. And that is very interesting and very entertaining. Yes, I admit that there's more than a touch of Spidenfreude in how much I enjoyed reading about this disaster. It just could have been a much better book if the author had been willing to do less whining and buck passing and more in depth self reflection about his role in the disaster. So many times, he records how he thought this or that didn't sound good, but HE DIDN'T SPEAK UP. He's far from the only problem, but his passivity and Yes Man-ing is definitely ONE of the big problems. My favorite passage he complained about Michael Riedel of the New York Times calling him inexperienced or some such thing (unfortunately I didn't highlight the passage). And he mentions his off Broadway play and his multiple Emmys-and I looked it up and they are for CHILDREN'S TELEVISION EPISODES. And, not that that's not a valid art form. BUt it hardly proves you're qualified to write the book for the most expensive musical in Broadway history, dude.
Anyway, the book is definitely worth reading if you are into Broadway, and especially Broadway flops. It just could have reached higher and become a tale for non-Broadway fans of art gone wrong, but like the musical it's based on, it lacks the appeal to transcend genre to a larger audience.