Bouton wrote: "You seem to be describing a place where there's all
these wildly-
praised shows, brimming with liberal bromides. Where would this be? "
At the Seattle Repertory Theatre, for one, when David Esbjornsen just
announced he's leaving at the end of the 2009 season -- which is cause
for rejoicing. After seeing what he did to TWELFTH NIGHT, I think the
man should be banned from the theatre for life. The managing director
stated, in an interview, that Esbjornsen's seasons had been "edgy".
Now I understand why Meryl Streep laudably answered, when asked her
least favorite word, "edgy". In Mr. Esbjornsen's case, "edgy"
apparently means tediously didactic and theatrically inept. I've
never seen a professional director as incapable of pacing a show or
creating living relation****ps among the characters onstage.
Esbjornsen's one talent, a small one, is an ability to create pretty
stage pictures with lighting and scrims, but actors seem to be for him
so much furniture.
Mr. Bouton, as happens often when I'm writing fast, I get off on a
tangent. My post ended up being about something besides A CATERED
AFFAIR, a show I haven't seen and cannot evaluate. What I said
applies mainly to the non-profit theatres around the country. On
Broadway, economics strictly limits the number of smug preach-a-thons
produced.
An example of what I really object to was a "show" in the mainstage
season at the Seattle Rep last year, a "revue" of period protest songs
sung sanctimoniously by a bunch of pompous self-congratulating actors
dressed as coal miners. The utterly dull and repetitive songs
alternated with sob sister monologues about black lung and the hard-
heartedness of the evil capitalists who run the mining companies.
While anyone's heart goes out to coal miners in the early 20th century
who were exploited, underpaid, and badly treated -- but who in the
audience didn't know this going into the theatre? Did anyone think a
coal minter's life in 1921 was a bowl of cherries? It is even less
clear how this smug, preachy show helped relieve anyone's oppression
anywhere. It was simply an occasion for self-im****tant actors to lay
a guilt trip on affluent audiences.
In a lifetime of theatre-going I have NEVER seen an audience as bored
as the one I saw this show with. Yet at the end, the rose wearily to
their feet to give the cast a standing ovation. Because you see, all
these Prius-driving Seattle progressive liberals approved the ideology
of show and wanted to show they, too, "cared" about the oppressed, and
were willing to endure two solid hours of boredom to prove it. This
is theatre-as-castor-oil, theatre-as-a-hair-****rt. Pretending to
enjoy this kind of **** shows your peers you're a compassionate, right-
thinking person.
The Rep followed this up with an even preachier "theatre piece" about
Hurricane Katrina which even the critics couldn't stomach, although
they heartily approved its laying the blame for a meteorological
phenomenon squarely on Prez Bush and white people in general. They
couldn't give away the tickets ...
BTW, even THE LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA shows the influence of theatrical
Puritanism. The romanticism of the show was disguised by presenting
the more lyrical ****tions in an untranslated foreign language and
Guettel's Richard Straussian harmonies protected him from the
unspeakable charge of sentimentality.
On Apr 19, 8:51 am, New****tsRe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Steve New****t) wrote:
> e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Ed(NY))
> The biggest problem, however, is Fierstein. His character works against
> the fabric of the drama. Judging this musical on its own, I think it's
> enjoyable but flawed.
> -----------------------------------------
> Basically what the out of town reviews sad, so apparently little was
> done. Harvey's conceit?
|
