Saw this show two years ago at TIP and laughed so hard I almost peed!
Definitely going again!
Yeah, I'm with you, Byron. I've seen true Four Star work in this area, and "Woman In Black" was definitely not it.
Or perhaps just let Zack go entirely. The man doesn't really REVIEW, he comments - and generally is off the mark. I've said this before, but the Indy's reviewing staff is lackluster with regards to Smith and Sobsey. I understand it's hard to review everything out there, but don't send a two-bit reviewer who doesn't really understand or grasp what the actual JOB is. To merely analyze the script is a pitfall. Was the PRODUCTION successful? Did the audiences laugh? Were they along for the journey? If so, then great! Were you, Zack, the only one not laughing? If so, perhaps the problem isn't the show...
The show was never, ever meant to be anything other than what it is: a farce in the style of Monty Python. If you came to the show expecting some sort of commentary on Hamlet, or perhaps an intelligentsia pontification about Shakespeare, then you, as an audience member, clearly did not do your homework on the show, and if you feel let down because of the content - the blame lies solely on you. Theatre In The Park did an excellent job in making sure all publicity for the show explained the the plot entirely. THERE'S A CARTOON MAN HOLDING A SKULL THAT SAYS "MADE IN FUQUAY" ON IT, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!
It's another sub-par review on an otherwise hilarious show (audiences laugh, a good time was had, the show doesn't suck = success!), and Mr. Smith should either stick to reviewing the non-comedic genre, or perhaps find a new path with the Indy.
Do you really think it's kosher to insult the body images of actors? Next time, why don't you insult the costuming as a general choice, and not the actors who have to wear them. Poor choice on your part, Smith.
You're slowly becoming my least-favorite reviewer. Even why Byron trolls on and on about stories that have nothing to do with what he's reviewing, he's a stronger critic than you seem to be.
Low-blows and single-minded views aren't the way to succeed in the critic business, Smith.
In terms of productions, it has not been done very often. You are correct there. And no amount of searching can prove that "Much Ado" is an overly produced work in the Triangle and in outlying areas. Aside from this one, the only staging I can recall is Bare's production in 2001.
I suppose the term "lesser-known" is what I have the most issue with, and perhaps I am completely unfounded in my belief that "Much Ado" is a well-known Shakespeare play. Just because a play is known does not mean it gets produced, case in point with "Much Ado" and many other titles, not just Shakespeare.
I was merely pointing out that to call "Much Ado" a lesser-known work is not entirely accurate in my opinion. Might the opening have read "...take on one of Shakespeare's lesser-produced..." or "lesser-staged..."
But all's well that ends well.
And 2009 for theatre companies and patrons seems to have ended well.
Lesser-known, Byron? Really? You think "Much Ado" is lesser-known than "As You Like It" or "All's Well That Ends Well" or "Pericles"? Shakespeare's most popular comedies are: "Twelfth Night," "Midsummer," "Taming Of the Shrew," "Tempest" and "Much Ado."
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation