Comments
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.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
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.
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.
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 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.