The Inaugural Anonymous Review Squad
Three Reviews by Three Theater Professionals
BOOM She's straight, he's gay, they're both doomed.
Tools
Seattle Repertory Theatre
Through Dec 14.
Stranger Personals
Meet Jules. He's a marine biologist who is convinced the world is ending—tonight. But he's stocked his underground lair with plenty of supplies and booze, and he has his
trusty fish with him. He just needs that special someone with whom to pass the time. The solution: Craigslist.
Enter Jo, a sarcastic student trying to finish her paper on the experience of having random, anonymous sex with strangers. She answers Jules's post about "sex to help save the world." Complicating matters further is the fact that Jo is straight and Jules is gay. And the fact that the world might really be ending. This is the center of boom's tiny universe: Is this really it? And do we get a do-over?
Fortunately, the two lead actors are fun to watch while they wrestle with those issues. Nick Garrison is simultaneously sweet and awkward as Jules. Chelsey Rives plays up Jo's anger while her seemingly random fainting spells keep thwarting her escape plans. Director Jerry Manning (a member of the Anonymous Review Squad) cranks up the speed on Jules and Jo until they seem hyperreal. They flit about from bar to couch to fish tank in fits and starts, punctuated by snappy back-and-forth insults and the well-timed "motherfucker!" All of this unfolds on a mod-'60s diorama designed by Jennifer Zeyl, with a wink and a nod to both her previous work (WET's The Museum Play) and to Wes Anderson's The Life Aquatic.
However, much like Anderson's recent tendencies, boom tries a little too hard to be clever and precious. Written over the top of the crisp scenes between Jo and Jules is another conceit—Barbara, the museum docent who literally looks over the proceedings from her perch above the set. Barbara can stop time, manipulate the action, and address us as if we're more than casual observers. While this is an intriguing idea, playwright Peter Sinn Nachtrieb relies too much on Barbara to give boom a sense of moral importance, and the role needs a light touch to pull off. Gretchen Krich treads too heavily on the spongy monologues, and in the end, boom's philosophical world-keeps-on-turning message ends up sounding, well, kind of fishy. ANONYMOUS REVIEW SQUAD
Seattle Children's Theatre
Through Jan 17.
The Wizard of Oz is a crazy story. We all know this crazy story. Most of us enjoy this crazy story. Some of us pay homage to this crazy story by dressing up like the Tin Man for Halloween or smoking weed while watching the film and listening to Pink Floyd.
The Wizard of Oz at Seattle Children's Theatre is a cute, charming piece of musical theater deftly staged and skillfully designed as a copy of the 1939 MGM motion picture starring crazy Judy Garland. This production hits all the right notes precisely, and the performances are well-constructed scale models of the 1939 film roles. But The Wizard of Oz can and should be so much more than a scale model! It is an allegory, an epic series of books, and a classically American tale by a crazy, creative genius! Any Oz has the priceless opportunity to flesh out the tale's archetypal characters, to reinvent Kansas and Oz and America, and to unleash a theatrical vision that L. Frank Baum would be proud of. Unfortunately, theater directors have allowed the film's vast popularity to diminish the artfulness, innovation, and opportunity live theater gives a piece like The Wizard of Oz.
The program for the SCT production unashamedly admits that the script was adapted for the Royal Shakespeare Company based upon the famous movie. Boo! Bad! Bullshit! Would RSC produce a stage version of 10 Things I Hate About You instead of producing The Taming of the Shrew? Would it capitalize on dead Heath Ledger's Petruchio ("Patrick" in 10 Things) the same way this Oz greedily cashes the crazy-Judy-Garland-as-Dorothy-Gale check? Stage adaptations of films are a lucrative and humiliatingly popular new performance genre—Legally Blonde: The Musical opens on Broadway after being cast via reality television.
The dark and scary elements from the movie are nearly absent at SCT. Cruelty is part of the allegory, crucial to the message and the key to the unique genius of Oz. Cruelty's absence is noted and missed by this critic. The superb music adds needed depth, but the heavy dependence on video is shallow. It's a letdown to see meanie Miss Gulch's video image cheaply bicycle across a silly video tornado. Munchkin Land and Oz are gorgeous, but look just like the movie. If SCT really wants kids to invest in live theater, it should not simply produce copies of movies that every parent has at home. ANONYMOUS REVIEW SQUAD
Balagan Theatre
Through Dec 13.
Two clichés struck me as I took in this Othello. Let's go one cliché at a time.
"If you can't hit the high C, you can't sing the aria." That's apt here. As eager as this young troupe is, the company does not have the wherewithal to approach this notoriously difficult tragedy (or problem play, I'd say)—technically, experientially, or emotionally.
"Always play tennis with someone better than you." Somehow this is apt as well. If you want to grow as a director, as an actor, or as a designer, take on the really hard stuff.
High C: Othello is a beast of a play, technically. Its vocal and language requirements vex actors with years of Shakespeare on their résumés. The cast of Balagan's production isn't there yet and, with few exceptions, they drown in the words. The green-eyed monster (jealousy) central to the play is an emotion absent from the psychological landscape of director Ryan Higgins. Add to this some very unfortunate lighting and less-than-generous cutting of the text, and you have a very difficult three hours of theater as an audience member.
Tennis: And yet I was drawn to the two main characters in this production. Mike Dooly as Iago is compelling in his assuredness. I liked watching him, and I enjoyed seeing him grow as an actor from scene to scene. I wasn't ever sure why he was so intent on destroying Othello (Mr. Higgins's bad, I fear), but I'd be interested in seeing him repeat this role in five or six years. In the title role, Johnny Patchamatla cannot quite fill it, but he is, on some fundamental level, arresting. I believe him as a warrior. His voice is like good scotch. And I am delighted to see Terri Weagant back on stage in Seattle. Her Desdemona is ardent, clear. She's the best thing up there. In lesser roles, Patrick Bentley is oddly interesting (want to see more of him) and Jason Harber's Roderigo is perfectly naive and bumbling.
If you've never seen Othello, don't go to this one. It could ruin your appetite for Shakespeare. But if you've seen it many, many times—and if you care about watching actors throughout their careers—then do go. ANONYMOUS REVIEW SQUAD
Share via
But the middle review is, as a review, exactly what pisses people off about reviewers. It isn't about the show, it doesn't engage the show for what it is, it doesn't serve the audience by reporting much of the play itself.
The Oz review is about the reviewer's feeling about the original source text, it's a soapbox to comment on the baggage he/she walked into the theatre with.
"Oz wasn't what I wanted it to be." Who cares? We don't know who you are, beyond what you've told us about yourself in this review, which is more than you said about the production.
Really, if that is reviewing, why bother?
In the spirit of this all, I'll stay,
ANONYMOUS
Have you seen the film recently??!! SCT's version is both clearly set in earlier time period and, while the script and music are based on the film, it seems to me that the characters were portrayed with a great deal more relationship to the books than the film. I thought it was terrific and lovingly adapted to make use of the terrific music.
Why have you put quotes around "OZ wasn't what I wanted it to be" as though you were siting the reviewer?
Never once is that stated. What is, in fact, stated is that the production is "a cute, charming piece of musical theater, deftly staged and skillfully designed..." it continues by putting Oz in context not only as a as a book, but also as numerous film and stage adaptations. Once the context is presented it is then described what SCT decided to include or excluded and the reviewers opinion "noted and missed" about these choices.
So where's the soapbox?
Clearly, you do not want any type of critique or context presented to you when reading about theater, so here is a review of OZ: The Wizard of OZ is COOL! SCT did a mediocre job with it. But who gives a fuck because they intend it for kids and we shouldn't expect any better. Spend the same amount of money and buy the movie. You and your kids will get more out of it.
Here is the soapbox.
People like you are the problem. Oz could be the greatest, weirdest thing that SCT has ever done. "The Never Ending Story", is another example of something that has the potential to be amazing, and epic, and beautiful, and sad, AND SMART, that kids could still love, could change their life, and make them love the theater.
But that would be really hard. They might have to scrap the fifteen other "deftly staged" pieces of crap they are going to put up this year to make it as good as OZ FAN wished it was. AND ON TOP OF THAT THEY MIGHT FAIL! IT MIGHT STILL BE CRAP! AND YOU MIGHT HAVE TO SEE IT MORE THAN ONCE TO MAKE AN INFORMED OPINION!
There is honor in that. There is no honor in the OZ that SCT has offered this city.
So why does it exist?
who cares. It's just kids theater anyway. We have places like Seattle Shakes that really take the time to produce great, high quality, high risk, work where review and critique aren't only warranted but expected.
The very essence of good criticism lives in the ongoing relationship between a critic and her/his readers. It develops over time as I see where my tastes and beliefs align with the critics interests and tastes. It's a conversation. Otherwise it's nothing more valuable or resonant than a random opinion.
Happy Thanksgiving! much love always,
It seems to me that, if you REALLY want to prove your point Brandon, it would be a much better experiment to take other artists - since to some degree ALL artists, regardless of medium, share some basic critical faculties (or should) - and have them critique work in other media not in their area of expertise. Have a writer review an art exhibit, have a painter review a theatrical production, etc., etc. In this way the reader might get a sense of how each media influences not only the critical eye, but hopefully also to see where artistic vernacular, the language artists use to describe their own work, either enhances or diminishes ones ability to express critical opinion about work not in their chosen media, and how that influences the way a reader might interpret that criticism.
Sorry about that.
I'm not saying Oz is above criticism, but that the review in question had more to say about the reviewer than the production.
And that is always a problem.
The other is having only knowledge of what you like/want, versus an ability to create a critical context beyond yourself.
Reviewing is a real, critical, and demanding job. I still say it is too bad more reviewers, this one included, don't get that.
What you are asking for, ANONYMOUS, is the book-report school of criticism—no engagement with ideas or interpretations, just a play-by-play of what happened. That's bush-league criticism (read serious critics in any medium—in theater, try Terry Teachout or John Lahr or Ken Tynan) and you will find them doing exactly what you hate—going far beyond simple reporting and opining.
Sadly for us (and happily for you), you can find the book-report school of criticism in most arts sections of most newspapers in America.
Don't like critics who wrestle with ideas and criticize interpretations? Take your eyeballs elsewhere.
Tell me the reviewer didn't walk into that theatre with most of this review already in his/her head, a la dearly departed Joe Adcock.
Review number three critically engages the play without being about the reviewer and what the reviewer wants to say about art/culture/life.
If I had to put a word to it, I'd call the third review mature, and the Oz review juvenile.
If this experiment was designed to make me bite back and regret every defense of the theatre section of The Stranger I've ever uttered, well done. And way to add icing to the cake by talking down to your readers, fuckface.
The tone in review #2 is a little more juvenile, but its argument (SCT missed an opportunity to reinvent Oz) is not.
Sometimes critics get down in the weeds and pick apart performances, like #3 does. Sometimes they back up and look at the larger context, like #2 does. Both are legitimate.
I think this is a worthwhile experiment, even if the only by-product is to get more folks reviewing shows. Then more stuff gets reviewed, which raises the profile or more shows, and of theatre in Seattle in general.
Just the fact that we're all interested and commenting on this string means that we're engaged, so hey we must be on to something. Any good idea needs a little time to prove itself. If it sucks more and more as time goes on, then we'll all know. This is a small enough petri dish that the stakes are pretty low and the upside could be pretty high.
Perhaps this experiment will foster a real discussion of the nature of criticism in the Seattle community. I doubt it. The theatres want the publicity, and the papers need eyeballs. But until the level of critical writing in Seattle reaches that of Chicago, LA or New York, we will remain a second tier theater town.
(Although my Manning was almost a Narver.)
Prizes?
And by the by, I ditto Paddystclair. While I understand the desire for amateur critics not to fuck up their artistic relationships, the anonymity gives the review all the authority of a blog post. As a compromise, I'd kill the list of named theatre artists but add a specific author description for each written review... i.e. "Capitol Hill Fringe Designer", "LORT Staff Director", "Equity Actor with fancy pants Ivy League MFA." etc. That at least would allow me to understand the lens through which the writer views the work, but also preserve the somewhat tintillating mask.
Of course, this gimmick could also just be a way for Kiley to get out of having to attend theatre all together. All the dance reviews and fix-it lists sure are making me suspicious.
Nick Garrison was good, as always, but Chelsey Rives was a bit flat and I find it difficult to comment on Grechen Krich's performance because I LOATHED the character she was playing.
We all know, kids included, that the world can be a difficult and dark place. Sometimes bright and positive theatre is ok for our young ones. Maybe you've heard of the willing suspension of disbelief-Theatre 101?
Perhaps you and and this Anonymous Reviewer should hang out at On the Boards and stick with what you know. P.S. SCT is doing A Tale of Two Cities in March, so maybe try it out again when there's some decapitation going on-should be right up your alley.
Willing sense of disbelief-Theater 101?
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
These plays don't have to be "psycho-sexual, art house piece of mind fuck theater..." but they have the chance to be great. They have the chance to be exciting. They have the chance to be more beautiful than T.V. This OZ was not. I am sorry it wasn't. Do I need a review to take me though this meidorce play which I already know the story to; maybe you do but I doubt it.
Maybe because it is SCT and it is another middle of the road piece of crap, which they are notorious for putting on stage, I shouldn't be disappointed that something like the snow storm was poorly projected on a scrim and only for a moment. Maybe I should punch myself in the head so that when those choices are made and kids who HAVE ALREADY SUSPENDED THEIR DISBELIEF are pulled back into the reality that their Wii is more creative than the fucking WIZARD of OZ I should just take it as the sign of the times. It's a big deal because they didn't think about it, they were lazy, and it showed.
Willing sense of disbelief-Theater 101?
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
These plays don't have to be "psycho-sexual, art house piece of mind fuck theater..." but they have the chance to be great. They have the chance to be exciting. They have the chance to be more beautiful than T.V. This OZ was not. I am sorry it wasn't. Do I need a review to take me though this meidorce play which I already know the story to; maybe you do but I doubt it.
Maybe because it is SCT and it is another middle of the road piece of crap, which they are notorious for putting on stage, I shouldn't be disappointed that something like the snow storm was poorly projected on a scrim and only for a moment. Maybe I should punch myself in the head so that when those choices are made and kids who HAVE ALREADY SUSPENDED THEIR DISBELIEF are pulled back into the reality that their Wii is more creative than the fucking WIZARD of OZ I should just take it as the sign of the times. It's a big deal because they didn't think about it, they were lazy, and it showed.
It really is too bad that you have no idea what you are talking about, but feel the need to share it. You clearly have no clue about SCT's reputation outside of your own dark and cloistered world, and have no clue what goes on there.
I'll just point out that Linda Hartzell is, nationally and globally, the biggest name in theatre in Seattle. And, if you've ever met her, you'd know that whatever you might think of the results of her work, she is far from lazy or thoughtless.
Hell, ask any actor who has worked for her - SCT cast more locals than any other Equity house.
You've got issues with SCT - we get it. But, frankly, I don't think you know jack shite about kids and/or TYA, and I really wish, for everybody's sake, you'd just shut the fuck up.
Snippy argumentative point: I think the point of the experiment is a) Give the readers (or a vocal minority of them) what they want & b) See if theatre artists are considered, by the theatre-section readers, to be better informed than theatre critics. Brendan has already decided, as made clear here: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/theat…
I have a suggestion to improve the current experiment: assign codenames to the 5 reviewers. They still keep their anonymity, and we the readers can track which 'anonymous' reviewers are generating content we might actually give a damn about.
Perhaps years down the road The Stranger can stage a big 'reveal' of who was who.
Better yet, I'd love to find out this is all BS and each were actually written by Brendan.
A critic is always a divided person;
writing simultaneously for today's theatre-goer and tomorrow's theatre historian...
I try to refrain from saying anything about an artist that I could not, after taking a deep breath, say to his face.--Irving Wardle
What they say about my plays doesn't matter, my plays will survive the critics, but what they say about my productions matters very much because what they write is all that posterity will know of the subject.
--Brecht
what is the artist trying to do? why is this play important? where does the work succeed in helping the audience achieve a catharsis, or even get entertained.
failing that, how did the artist atempt to achieve these?
Of course it could simply be that Seattle theater is worth nothing more than egotistical, personally relevant commentary. That is this theater professional's thouroughly researched opinion.
And Boudreaux, seek out the gems. Few and far between, I will concede, but they're out there.
By observing beauty and truth in others, we observe it in ourselves. The reverse is equally true.
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (29) RSS