No, No, Nanette - Critical Reception

Critical Reception

The original Broadway production opened to positive reviews; the New York Times pronounced it "full of much vigorous merriment and many agreeable tunes," and "a highly meritorious paradigm of its kind." It acknowledged that the plot was slight but praised the score, noting that "I Want to be Happy" and "Tea for Two" were already hit tunes (having premiered in the Chicago production the previous year). Robert C. Benchley in Life magazine admitted, "We had a preconceived notion that No, No, Nanette! was a pretty dull show, probably because it had been running so long before it came to New York. ... No, No, Nanette! is really very amusing." Charles Winninger, in the role of Jimmy Smith, received particular praise for his comedic abilities. The New York Times proclaimed, "Winninger gave the greatest performance of his career ... it was a more than hardened theatre-goer who was not moved to near hysterics by his every appearance." Benchley stated that "Winninger and Wellington Cross, with that ease and facile kidding which comes to comedians after a long run, are a highly comic pair."

The 1971 revival also received almost uniformly positive reviews from major newspapers, which welcomed its innocent nostalgia. Clive Barnes of the New York Times stated: "For everyone who wishes the world were 50 years younger ... the revival of the 1925 musical No, No, Nanette should provide a delightful, carefree evening. ... This is far closer to a musical of the twenties than anything New York has seen since the twenties, but it is seen through a contemporary sensibility." Douglas Watt, in the New York Daily News, agreed. However, there was some critical disagreement concerning the overall tone of the production. The New York Times thought it "attractively tongue-in-cheek", while John O'Connor of The Wall Street Journal deemed it "a sparkling revival" that was "spiked with jiggers of self-conscious and self-congratulatory camp." T. E. Kalem, in Time magazine, stated: "The show is a copious delight, but it has a sizable temperamental flaw. No strict decision was made as to whether it should be played straight or campy." Jack Kroll of Newsweek considered it a sincere representation of the 1920s, declaring it a "very moving show."

Ruby Keeler's tap-dancing and charm in the revival were widely praised; Richard Watts in the New York Post stated, "Ruby Keeler, looking every bit as attractive as in her heyday as a film star, can still do a tap dance or a soft shoe number that is a joy." O'Connor found her charming and warm, writing, "she smartly whisks the delirious audience right back to those good old Busby Berkeley movies." The score was also lauded. Barnes stated, "the melodies are light, cheerful and exuberant", and the lyrics " a place in any museum of American musical comedy, and yet live wonderfully today." Multiple critics cited Busby Berkeley's supervision as a contributing factor to the show's success; Kroll asked rhetorially, "the production has dignity, taste and wit, and how else could it be under the aegis of 75-year-old Busby Berkely, that authentic genius of the old Hollywood musicals?" Stage veterans Bobby Van and Helen Gallagher received particular praise for their performances. O'Connor stated that, "the best performances came from Bobby Van as the suave, debonair dancing lawyer ... and the adorable Helen Gallagher as his short-suffering wife." Watt pronounced Van "a hoofer par excellence" and said that Gallagher gave "a most stylish performance."