Pagan Christmas

Comments

Thank you Brendan! I couldn't have said it better! I, too, thought, do I really need to see Dancing at Lughnasa? But based on the fact that I always love Sheila's work, I thought, why not? And am so glad I did. It's a wonderful production and deserves a bigger audience. There is great chemistry on stage and that's often the most elusive thing in theatre. I love new work and definitely encourage more theatres to take a chance on it. But at the same time, just because something has been done before doesn't mean it's not worth doing again and allowing a new set of artists the opportunity to explore it and new audiences a chance to experience it - especially in such a solid production as this one is.

on December 1, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Interesting point you bring up about Three Tall Women: It makes a lot more sense and comes across a lot better when you see it as a memory play by the playwright or by the boy that shows up in the end. Thing is, Albee didn't establish that at the start of his play, and instead we're just watching a dying old woman bitch, wax nostalgic and try not to shit her pants in the first act. I know a playwright wants to show, not tell, but firmly establishing the point of view is probably worth beating us over the head with an opening monologue from the son.

I'd have spent less time trying to decipher with the first act and more time enjoying it had I know we were watching a memory play from a boy's or playwright's POV rather than the old woman's.

As for Lughnasa... great performances that could have used a better, more relevant script. Shiela Daniels and that cast did all they could with what they had to work with.

Gomez on December 1, 2010 at 4:47 PM

I'm shocked you liked "Lughnasa"...it was so...old fashioned and corny. And, yeah, the dancing parts ARE great...there's just not enough of them.

But, it was still better than "G.O.C".

michael strangeways on December 2, 2010 at 11:53 PM