Okay, now some people may disagree with me. But I found Entertainment Weekly's review of Clay's performance in Spamalot to be a very weak attempt at criticizing him. After all, that seems to be all they know about reviewing Clay, that is, to be critical of him.
In their review they start out with negative words for Clay, but then they do something that we are not used to. They actually kind of, sort of, hesitantly, say some nice things about him:
The American Idol runner-up — appearing until May 4 as the cowardly Sir Robin — is too tentative, withdrawn, and, well, un-silly for a gloriously berserk retelling of Arthurian legend that features vicious hand puppets, absurdly rude Frenchmen, and fourth-wall-demolishing riffs about the Great White Way. To be fair, Aiken handles Robin's big ''You Won't Succeed on Broadway'' number well enough that it doesn't become a self-fulfilling prophecy. He also has a good deal of fun in two smaller comic parts, the idiotic Guard 1 and Brother Maynard, keeper of the ''Holy Hand Grenade.''
Is this their attempt to remain true to their past negative reviews of Clay; however, even they have a hard time finding anything to be ultra-critical about? Here's my own review of their review. Agree with it or not, I think its interesting to consider:
EW is like an elementary school child. You know, when their mom tells them to say something nice about their sister or brother, and they just can't seem to make themselves say anything nice. They'd rather eat nails then do so. EW is just like that. They just........can't........quite........get........the........ words........out.......of........their........mouths. They know there was nothing worthy of a negative review, so they have to use words like "tentative, withdrawn, and unsilly" that are the worst they can come up with for Clay's performance. They leave a negative connotation, but not nearly as negative as they have in the past. But then, low and behold, if they don't kinda give him a backhanded compliment!
"One of the Monty Python team's favored ways to end a sketch was to have Graham Chapman don military garb and declare that matters had become too ''silly.'' Alas, Chapman might have approved of Clay Aiken's stint in Spamalot, the hilarious, Tony-winning musical version of the 1975 movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail." - You mean to say, EW, that Graham Chapman would approve of Clay's silliness, the same silliness you called "unsilly"? So maybe "unsilly" doesn't fit the bill after all, right?
"To be fair, Aiken handles Robin's big ''You Won't Succeed on Broadway'' number well enough that it doesn't become a self-fulfilling prophecy." - Oh my!! So his big number was done "well enough"?? Well, "well enough" isn't awful, is it? So, can you force yourself to say the words, "Hey, his performance was done well enough after all! In fact, we kinda liked it!"
"He also has a good deal of fun in two smaller comic parts, the idiotic Guard 1 and Brother Maynard, keeper of the ''Holy Hand Grenade.''" - Uh, wait a minute, Mr. "Unsilly and Tentative" Clay Aiken had a "good deal of fun" in his other two parts? "Good deal of fun" and "unsilly" don't seem to be synonyms of each other. Sounds like you were at least somewhat amused by his hysterical performance here.
B+ - You gave Clay a B+??? After that half-hearted attempt at criticizing his great performance, you gave him a B+ after all? Now, EW, you have really given yourself away. You really did like his performance after all didn't you. I can read between the lines!
EW, if you would just break down, just once, and admit that Clay did a knock 'em dead, high spirited, fantastic performance in Spamalot, maybe the next time it won't be so hard to say it. Try practicing it in front of the mirror 10 times a day, and maybe by the time his CD comes out in May, you might even be able to have a favorable review of it. Maybe you will be able to say the words, actually form them with your mouths, "His......CD......is......quite......good!" Time will tell.
