Seattle Repertory Theatre
Through Dec 14.
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
This rocks. Do this more. Great reviews.
This is sad. What do these reviewers think will happen if they publish their opinions under their own names? Is there any other field where this would not be considered ridiculous?
I’m puzzled–the theatre community usually takes criticism so well. Why are these reviewers acting as if it’s an artform dominated by whiny children?
You run the gamut here. A solid, standard review leads it off, and clearly Jerry Manning concludes it (or maybe it was just his voice in my head as I read it).
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
re:oz
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.
Anonymous,
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.
This is just another STRANGER bullshit gimmick that has nothing to do with good journalism.
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.
I like this. I’m in Oz which was not favorably reviewed, and i still like this. And I think the anonymity of these reviews are important because, if like the Stranger says, these reviews are being written by theatre professionals like Jerry Manning, the Seattle Theatre Community is small and everyone knows everyone else, this allows them to write honest reviews of shows even if they know half the cast, or are friends with the director. I think this is a good thing. 🙂
Happy Thanksgiving! much love always,
Interesting experiment, but all it really proves is that criticism, like any other form of expression, requires some amount of practice and “training” (for want of a better word) in order to be successfully executed. A couple of the reviewers here seem to have that basic grounding, while at least one clearly doesn’t.
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.
Oh, fuck me. Brendan, NOT Brandon – this is what I get for trying to write without either caffeine or prescription lenses.
Sorry about that.
Ms. Pennycandy, do you realize that of all the theatre’s in Seattle, SCT has by far the most global respect for what it does? Is it not at least possible that you, like the reviewer, doesn’t get TYA theatre? Has no real critical context for what it is? How often have you worked with young audiences?
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.
“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.”
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.
Brendan, you can reassure your smug self that because I call bullshit on this review, I’m looking for book report reviews, but I’m not. That seems the way The Stranger often engages dissent, so why not now?
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.
I’m not talking down to everyone, ANONYMOUS, just to you.
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.
Why so much vitriol? Does the future of the Seattle theatre scene hinge on the success of this idea? Look, they’re not all going to be textbook-perfect reviews. They’re not professional reviewers. They’re going to bring varying degrees of themselves and their experiences to this, so we’re probably going to get a varying style of reviews.
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.
The first review wasn’t bad, but the second and third clearly show that just because you are in theater, you have the talent to be a critic.
Ergh. I meant “don’t necessarily have” the talent.
The problem with this concept is that anonymity precludes the reader from knowing what standard the “critic” is using to form his/her opinion. Even with all the complaints about Joe Adcock or (fill in the blank) you did get to the point where you could predict his reactions to a production. He had a standard against which his opinions were tested, even if these weren’t written down or announced. Because these reviews are anonymous they can only be regarded as opinions, and as such are valid in the same sense that gossip is valid. It may be “true”, it may not be “true”, but in that these reviews lack any acknowledged critical standard with which the productions can be compared to, they are only opinions at best, and gossip at worst.
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.
So do we get to guess? I’m going with Anderson, O’connell, Manning.
(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.
boom was such a piece of shit…I’m going to do some research to see if the playwright is a college sophomore.
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.
I’m curious MissPennyCandy…Did you actually go and see Oz, or are you just irritated that SCT isn’t producing some psycho-sexual, art house piece of mind-fuck theatre involving mechanical snakes and nude tap dancing? That’d educate and stimulate the kiddies!
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.
Of course I saw OZ.
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.
Of course I saw OZ.
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.
Wow, MissPennyCandy, you may well be The Stranger’s brooding chic aesthetic personified.
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.
Comte’s experiment proposal is just as annoying / gimmicky / charming as the current “Team ARSE”. No thanks. Please relegate it to a college course or the internets, thankyouverymuch.
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.
Your ARS is a fascinating examination of the present state and continuing relevance of contemporary theartre criticism. Seriously–if it has legs, there’ll be a class in Savannah paying close attention this spring.
A critic is always a divided person;
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
Regarding Othello – I almost missed this because of your review. But I went anyway. I am not a fan of Shakespeare – or at least, I wasn’t, until I saw Othello. The actors were amazing, hilarious (yeah, I laughed out loud, pretty much all through it), and very emotive. While I find the language often inaccessible, I didn’t have any problem working out what was going on here. I think you should take a step back, you might be verging on “pretential.”
holy shit. anonymous theater professionals? the only reason they’re anonymous is to save themselves the embarrassment they would certainly endure given their complete lack of literary skill. any moron or monkey with a typewriter can regurgitate the plot of show. then these “critics” pull their review straight from their own opinions of the show. It was too this, and that didn’t blah blah blah.
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.
THANK YOU LARRY BALLARD! It is critical to keep in mind that opinions must matter, but to weigh their importance to the art form. The critique should always be a service. Not a detriment.
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.