report this user
Aug 16, 2012 bottsford commented on "Multiple Pukings".
Okay; then don't go. No one's forcing you to pay $20. It's a gamble; sometimes things click and the results are exhilarating and sometimes...not. The gamble is part of it. And the results have been enjoyable, even delightful and dazzling, more often than not for me, personally.

But don't bitch about the potential failure when that potential failure is the *whole point*.
Aug 15, 2012 bottsford commented on "Multiple Pukings".
It's unfortunate that Constant didn't see the Saturday night performance as well; by then, the band had taken impressive leaps forward, and the writing was substantially stronger. The whole weekend was a powerful argument for the Kamikaze format as a skill-building as well as a community-building exercise. Frankly, I was impressed that non-writers crafted that Saturday script line-up.
Jul 20, 2012 bottsford commented on Intiman's Big Opening.
Could you expand on that continuity, Brendan? I'm sure a few of the actors had appeared in previous Intiman shows, but beyond that...? I don't believe any of the directors had worked at Intiman before (I guess Valerie Curtis-Newton directed previous iterations of 'Black Nativity', which always felt jobbed-in). I'm not being snide here, I'm genuinely curious to know what connects this new Intiman with past iterations. Turnover is usually a more gradual process that allows for some preservation of institutional culture, and I don't see that happening here.

Not that Intiman was particularly distinctive before; it, the Rep, and ACT all seem to share the same somewhat generic blend of classics and new plays that are successful/acceptable enough for the regional circuit. Intiman did go out on a limb with some interesting world premieres and some striking interpretive productions (I really liked Bart Sher's 'Cymbeline' -- those cowboy ballads were gorgeous), but that didn't give it a genuinely individual mission. What makes this a revival of a previous organization instead of a completely new one trading on an existing brand name?
Jul 19, 2012 bottsford commented on Intiman's Big Opening.
What exactly does it mean to say "Intiman is back"? What relationship does this new group have to the previous group? Are there any creative personnel in common? Are there even board members in common? Do they even share a mission statement? Are we saying that the building itself somehow creates these productions? Because that seems to be the only common thread.
Jun 22, 2012 bottsford commented on Transgender Marriage.
Really, Oscar M? You want to beat up on this article? While the language may not be perfectly vetted for maximum correctedness, it's a pro-trans article. How many pro-trans articles do you see in journals with a circulation of this size?

Yes, it's "othering" to call it "transgender marriage", just as it's "othering" to use the term "gay marriage" -- but that's the moment we're in. It's in that context that the term "transgender marriage" is being used.

Wouldn't you (and the rest of the world) be better off if you put your energy towards grappling with your enemies, rather than your allies?
Jun 13, 2012 bottsford commented on "She's Basically a Female, Non-Asshole John Cassavetes.".
Really? "Brilliance"? "Next Great American Director"?

We Go Way Back -- Charmingly sweet, but clumsy and underwritten

My Effortless Brilliance -- about 20 minutes of mild amusement spread over 80 minutes

Humpday -- This one I like, and the reason I went to 'Your Sister's Sister" with hope

Your Sister's Sister -- Some definite charm, but woefully underdeveloped and culminates in one of the more pat anticlimaxes I've seen recently

...and none of them hold performances that are unusually nuanced; I can think of a dozen movies last year that were notable for the grit and subtlety of their acting, all equal or better in that respect than 'Your Sister's Sister'. Which is not to say the acting wasn't good, it just wasn't evidence of "brilliance" or "next-greatness".
Jun 5, 2012 bottsford commented on Read This If You Posted a Privacy Notice on Facebook in the Last Day or Two.
While copyright law is pretty broad, there are a wide variety of circumstances in which writers do not own their words, and I suspect that Facebook has written their agreements to ensure that this is one of them.

But as you point out, the real issue is that FB can launch and endure a lawsuit much more easily than just about anyone.
Feb 23, 2012 bottsford commented on Etymology of the Day: "Snark" (or, Hello 2004!).
I'd disagree with Brendan's definition of snark; I'd argue that snark is specifically criticism where the urge to be snide and/or witty comes at the expense of being accurate or substantial -- i.e., that it's a term applied to knee-jerk dismissals and lofty high-handedness that's trying to disguise a lack of genuine thought.

Basically, the opposite of what Brendan claims it is, which is a club to beat people who are in fact making accurate and telling criticisms.

Of course...Brendan's definition comes from the perspective of a critic who sees the word being used against him, whereas my (and, I believe, Julavits') comes from the perspective of artists, who feel bludgeoned by unjustified criticism. I imagine that there are indeed plenty of artists who feel that accusations of snark are their only shield, and so use it indiscriminately.
Feb 16, 2012 bottsford commented on A Bill To Ban All Abortions and Sentence Docs to Live in Prison.
That's a very evocative metaphor.
Feb 10, 2012 bottsford commented on Now Playing at On the Boards: El pasado es un animal grotesco.
Uhm...actually, it's an interesting but not very emotionally engaging piece, sound in its ideas but a bit flat in its execution -- particularly when hampered by having to read gobs and gobs of text on supertitles. (If you are a Spanish-speaker, you will undoubtedly have a richer experience than monolinguists like myself.) It's not bad, but the praise it's getting baffles me.