Our review in the Reader came out today. I'd post it, but it's not online yet -- though if it were super positive you can bet I'd go to the trouble to retype it.
Anyway, he didn't hate it. His main complaint is that the plays themselves aren't that great. They're "interesting primarily because of who wrote them" and "are just too pat to be credible." I can see his point somewhat. I was describing them the other day to someone as more like "sketches." Not in the comedy sense -- more like impressionistic, in that, if not fully formed, they do reveal a lot of the themes and archetypes that Williams would later become known for. But I also think the language in parts is as beautiful as in any of his masterpieces, and for that alone they're worth seeing. Plus it's only 12 bucks and an hour -- a pretty reasonable investment of time and money for a rare glimpse into Tennessee Williams as a young man.
As for the acting, the "ensemble of journeymen and fresh faces generally does good work." I'm guessing I'm not one of the fresh faces. Journeyman. So my work is basically reliable yet unexceptional. Oof. He did at least highlight one actor's performance: "only Rebecca Prescott really cracks Williams' source code." Good for Rebecca -- she's my scene partner in one of the plays and deserves the praise.
I know reviews aren't supposed to matter. And as an "artist" I'm supposed to dismiss them entirely as I hear actors and directors do all the time. But I always think, however much they may just represent "one person's opinion," there's something to be learned from them, some kernel of truth to take away. They also matter, of course, in terms of marketing.
So we'll see what the others have to say, when and if they come out ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment