3 posts tagged “critics”

The reviews are in and it appears that we pulled it off!

Time Out enjoyed us. Though I'm still trying to figure out what he means by "unexpectedly winning". Did he see my name on the cast list just assume that I was going to be my usual, expectedly loosing self? Maybe he means the character? I'm not going to give it too much thought though. It's the sort of thing that can keep you awake nights.

The Reader had nice things to say as well. As did New City.

The one naysayer in the batch was the Loyola Phoenix. Even though it's a bad review of the show, it is some fine collegiate writing. It is also obvious that this particular "critic" has a very strict vision of what theater is and how it is to be performed. I don't want to spoil it for you, but I promise, you won't be disappointed.

Of course, if you'd like to form your own opinion there's still plenty of time. We don't close until December 22nd. (There are no shows next week for Thanksgiving.)

Another day another review. This one is from Time Out:Chicago, so it must be legit. Or carry more weight. Or be "right". Right? I don't think so.

I'm all right with people not enjoying this show. You can't please all the people all the time, or something like that. What I can't seem to wrap my mind around is why the critics seem so hard on it, yet the majority of paying customers seem to enjoy it and even relate to it. I mean, I have my theories, which is what one does to occupy the mind so it doesn't dwell on all the negatives.

Like the theory that the reviewers are just bitter writers who felt the show hit a little too close to home for their liking. I mean, Ms. Daly holds a PhD in English Lit, yet she's reviewing storefront theater for a living. And then she has to sit through a show about a writer who never seems to write anything. Ouch. And Mr. Williams, who's grandmother took him to see a touring production of Peter Pan when he was a little boy, I'm sure he didn't identify with anything in the show either.

But that sort of talk is just my knee-jerk reaction to reading what these people have written. I want to defend myself. I want to defend the show. Come on Ms. Daly, Nathan doesn't quote Shakespeare "a lot". He does it once. Maureen, on the other hand seems to using the Bard's lines every time she opens her mouth. And it isn't done in an effort to come off as "deep", but rather to rekindle a connection that she shared with Nathan. But to understand that you would have to, well, pay attention to the show.

What's funny is that as I was reading this review, my friend Katie called to tell me how much she and her companion "loved the show" on Sunday. Now, I know that friends are often times not the best critics, but I also trust my friends to tell me the truth about how they feel about something. Katie is a writer herself and understands that empty compliments don't help anyone. Of course, she's also an actress, so maybe she was playing the part of someone who loved a show, but I doubt it. She had brought a friend with her who isn't necessarily a frequent theater-goer, and he too enjoyed himself quite a bit. He even mentioned that the show seemed to really capture what "being a guy" is like.

This is where I think people start to part ways when it comes to liking this show. Nathan isn't the most flattering of characters. He's afraid of just about everything in his life and is afraid to do anything to change it. He's someone who just goes with the flow and hopes not to rock the boat. I have a sneaking suspicion that there are a lot of Nathans in this world. So people who see themselves in Nathan begin to feel uncomfortable. And not being used to dealing with their feelings, they supress them and get mad at the show for not providing an escape from their lives, but rather reminding them of their own shortcomings.

Now, are there aspects of the show that I will change once it closes? Yes. This is the first production and you are always going to see things on the stage that don't work that weren't visible on the page. But it will mainly be cutting lines and making the show tighter. I won't be changing the tone or revamping any of the characters. Nathan isn't likable and he isn't supposed to be. He's a douchebag. But guess what, we all are at different times in our lives. This just happens to be a moment in his that we all get to witness. Does that mean it's bad theater? Just the opposite. It's theater that asks you to feel something, even if you don't like that feeling, and see where it takes you. It's the kind of theater that, as an audience memeber, I am drawn to more and more. Something that's going to make me squirm in my seat. Something that's going to make me think. Am I saying that this show will change your life and make you a better person? Maybe, just maybe, it will.

But then again, what do I know? I only have a Minor in English Lit.

The show has been opened for a week now. Five shows. And we've had a few "reviews".

Tom Williams chimed in with his two cents and then asked for change. And Don Hall, who claimed to have liked it, had this to say. There were other critics who've seen it, but none of posted their reviews yet.

I'm always torn when it comes to reading reviews. As an actor I never pay them much mind, because, after all, it's just one person's opinion. True, that person is a professional critic and supposedly they know what they're talking about, but you only have to scan the reviews in The Reader to realize that most of the time they're just giving you a run-down of what happens in the show and there's very little critical analysis.

As a writer, I'm a little more curious. I mean, this whole show exists because I put down some words on a piece of paper. So there's a certain sense of responsibility here. Responsibility to the actors to give them a decent product to work with. Responsibility to the audience to give them a show worthy of their twenty bucks. I want people to like it. I want reviewers to love it and tell everyone to come check it out. That doesn't seem to be happening at the moment.

There have also been plenty of people who have come up to me, and others, and said how much they enjoyed it. Just your average, everyday theater-goer. Also interesting, is that it's more women than men who like the show. It seems to be something of a chick-flick. (I have a theory on that which I'll talk about later.) I even have a friend who is interested in joining the theater company's board of directors after seeing the show. And here's someone named Jenny H. who seemed to enjoy herself. I don't know who she is, but I'm glad she took the time to jot down how she felt about the show.

So who do you believe? The critics or the public? In this case, I'll take a serving of each. Because I think there is something in this show for everyone. I think it's fun, funny and well acted. I also think it's a touch too long, Nathan's maybe a bit too mopey and the ending needs a little work. But it's a new show. You're going to have that. I mean, I didn't expect to open my mouth and have Shakespeare fall out.

Well, all right, maybe just a little.