Another Reason to Hate the French?
So once again the critics are proving that I have absolutely no taste. I've read the reviews and the one thing they all agree on is that I'm wrong. Across the boards, everyone hated 'A Spanish Play' by French playwright, Yasmina Reza at CSC. Well, everybody except me. In fact, I rather enjoyed it. I'm not saying it was a transcendental evening of theatre, but contrary to what most felt, I wasn't bored. Frankly, if so many people are so off-put and incensed by a play, there must be something to it.
Maybe it's because I work in the theatre and understand more personally what was being presented, but according to the critics, I'm a total idiot for being able to sit through such a piece of crap. Forgive me for wanting to see Zoe Caldwell on stage for the first in over a decade or watch Larry Pine, who, in my opinion, is one of the greatest stage actors alive (he certainly saved that hodge-podge of a production of 'The Seagull' in Central Park a few years ago). Not to mention the tremendous force of Linda Emond or the comic powerhouse of Denis O'Hare. I even thought Katherine Borowitz held her own again those stage geniuses.
I'll concede that the play had its problems and was not conventionally 'entertaining', but I also don't think it was meant to be. Sure, there isn't much plot to speak of and I can understand how a play within a play within a play can confuse an average theatergoers (Lord knows it ain't no 'Beauty and the Beast'), but for Pirandello's sake, cut John Turturro some slack. Every critic mentioned that 'A Spanish Play' is a rehearsal, which means what's being presented is not supposed to be a performance (even though it is). Anyone who has even been involved in any production knows that actors, even at the final dress, don't give it their all until there is an audience. At least from my perspective, this was very clear. When the actors would stumble over a line or look up at the director or 'shake it out', it was meant to indicate that this wasn't the final product.
We were being given a glimpse into the process of creating a play, which clearly is something critics aren't interested in see. Their job is to sit in judgment over a finished mass-consumable product, once again showing their blatant disregard for the work that actually goes into making a piece of art. Yes, I know it's their job, but it's a shame we live in a society where these people get paid and most artists don't. To be honest, critic is just another word for censor. If people buy into what they say, whether they love it or hate it, just goes to show that Americans want to be told what to think. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but valuing or believing another person's over your own is exactly what Orwell or Huxley warned us against.
P.S.- The only thing that struck me as contrary and out of place was why this ‘contemporary’ play was being produced by the ‘Classic’ Stage Company. I suppose, once again, the ‘vehicle’ overtakes the ‘mission’. Turturro and Caldwell say, ‘Jump’, Kulick and the board say, ‘How high?’.
Maybe it's because I work in the theatre and understand more personally what was being presented, but according to the critics, I'm a total idiot for being able to sit through such a piece of crap. Forgive me for wanting to see Zoe Caldwell on stage for the first in over a decade or watch Larry Pine, who, in my opinion, is one of the greatest stage actors alive (he certainly saved that hodge-podge of a production of 'The Seagull' in Central Park a few years ago). Not to mention the tremendous force of Linda Emond or the comic powerhouse of Denis O'Hare. I even thought Katherine Borowitz held her own again those stage geniuses.
I'll concede that the play had its problems and was not conventionally 'entertaining', but I also don't think it was meant to be. Sure, there isn't much plot to speak of and I can understand how a play within a play within a play can confuse an average theatergoers (Lord knows it ain't no 'Beauty and the Beast'), but for Pirandello's sake, cut John Turturro some slack. Every critic mentioned that 'A Spanish Play' is a rehearsal, which means what's being presented is not supposed to be a performance (even though it is). Anyone who has even been involved in any production knows that actors, even at the final dress, don't give it their all until there is an audience. At least from my perspective, this was very clear. When the actors would stumble over a line or look up at the director or 'shake it out', it was meant to indicate that this wasn't the final product.
We were being given a glimpse into the process of creating a play, which clearly is something critics aren't interested in see. Their job is to sit in judgment over a finished mass-consumable product, once again showing their blatant disregard for the work that actually goes into making a piece of art. Yes, I know it's their job, but it's a shame we live in a society where these people get paid and most artists don't. To be honest, critic is just another word for censor. If people buy into what they say, whether they love it or hate it, just goes to show that Americans want to be told what to think. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but valuing or believing another person's over your own is exactly what Orwell or Huxley warned us against.
P.S.- The only thing that struck me as contrary and out of place was why this ‘contemporary’ play was being produced by the ‘Classic’ Stage Company. I suppose, once again, the ‘vehicle’ overtakes the ‘mission’. Turturro and Caldwell say, ‘Jump’, Kulick and the board say, ‘How high?’.
posted by THALATTA! Theatre International at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home