Features Mar 14, 2012 at 4:00 am

A Gorgeously Brutal New Play by Keri Healey


Good to see a review by someone with a background in what they are talking about. (Congrats!)
This may be the best play I've ever seen in Seattle, after nearly 20-years of theater-going. I'm still reeling, more than a week later.
Don't forget Keri's play Penetralia done at Annex many years ago!!! Dark, sad, poetic and devastating. Can't wait to see this one.
I loved every element of this play. From Keri's writing to the perfect execution by cast and crew. I can't wait to see it again!
This is an amazing cast in a thought-provoking ORIGINAL play written by one of Seattle's kickass playwrights. Go ahead, try NOT to talk about this play after you've seen it!
Any idea if it's been published, for those of us not living in Seattle?
#6 - It hasn't been published yet, but you can contact printersdeviltheater@gmail.com to see about getting a copy of the script.
I really disliked it. Dumb "murder mystery." Unrealistic dialog. Terrible non-set. It was no good, and I'm not sure why so many people are saying they like it. This review is clearly an inside job.

The STRANGER gave money to the production. It says so on the program. That isn't made clear in this review. THEY SPONSORED THE PLAY. Of course it gets a positive write-up with an interview with the playwright. Of course it does.

It's just somebody's therapy session puked out on stage and you're supposed to think it's deep or honest, and it is boring. Where did the money go? They didn't spend it on the Goodwill furniture they use as a set and costumes.

Just saying, if you're on the fence, don't believe this insider hype.
@ 8: Point of fact: The Stranger did not give any money to the production. "Sponsorship" usually involves giving discounted advertising and stuff like that—but I don't actually know because writers are usually kept far away from ads and sponsorships, as they should be. Editorial/advertising firewall and all that.

In sum, a) you are wrong about the play, b) wrong about my motivations, and c) don't understand the fundamental facts and mechanics of what you're talking about.

And you impugn my honor, anonymous commenter! My candor about my opinions is a source of great irritation to friends, enemies, family, employers, and colleagues alike. I've got my flaws, but I say what I mean—and I have a long line of enemies to prove it.
@9: Just sayin', you guys never do an in-depth piece like this unless it's part of your "buy the Stranger for a week" thing.

There's a conflict of interest that you're not being honest about. You surely know somebody involved and are pretending to be a wide-eyed critic who just happened to stumble upon a great show that renewed your love for theater.

You may have really liked it, not calling you a liar - just misguided, but someone is someone's friend here. Even in your "positive" reviews, you find some nitpick, and this college drama class writing experiment gets hyperbolic praise.

It was frequently boring, overlong had really unnatural dialog and, beyond a few lighting effects, was distractingly cheap-looking. You give all this a pass for some uncharacteristic reason.

I'm not going to debate the merits or demerits of the play here—I made my case in the review/interview. But I don't understand what "conflict of interest" you're talking about. Do I know people involved with the show? Of course I do. Seattle is not a big town and I've been writing about theater for years. As a result, I know people, at least in passing, involved in 95% of the shows I see. That doesn't stop me from calling it like I see it.

I also don't understand what "buy the Stranger for a week thing" means. (Are you talking about the Strangercrombie charity auction we used to do?)

We tend to write longer reviews and previews about shows we're excited about, but that just reflects our interests. We get excited about projects that sound promising. Sometimes that promise is fulfilled and those shows get positive reviews. Sometimes that promise is not and they get negative reviews. Sometimes they don't get reviews at all.

Being suspicious is always a good idea: as a reporter, I endorse it. But if you did just a tiny bit of research—looking back at shows we've previewed, sponsored, etc. beforehand, and then the reviews those shows got afterwards—I'm sure you'd see that your cabal premise is entirely imaginary.

And even if I were somehow selling my conscience down the river for "Torso," what would I be getting out of the deal? (It's not like Broadway, where there's big money at stake—small theaters couldn't afford to bribe anyone, even if they wanted to.) Whether a production succeeds or fails has zero impact on me, personally speaking. I have no incentive to be anything but honest.
If you haven't seen this play, GO. It's the last weekend.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.