Butterflies Are Free
Mon, 19 June 2000, 10:12 amWalter Plinge21 posts in thread
Butterflies Are Free
Mon, 19 June 2000, 10:12 amOK, no-ones been doing any reviewing lately, which is a bit frustrating/disappointing, so I'm going to jump right in and give the usual 2 cents worth!
"Butterflies are free" is, thankfully, a short play, focusing on a day in the life of blind teenager (we assume, his age is never given) Donny. The play opens quite slowly, and the first 15-20 minutes left me wondering if it was worth staying for the rest. The pace drags becuase we have to "learn" the Don is blind by watching him navigate his apartment a couple of times, which I felt was a bit unnecessary. Playing a blind role is obviously a challenge for a "seeing" actor, but I think Tom Milton pulled it off with a reasonable amount of conviction and believablilty - with a requisite amount of overplaying the disability to highlight it for the audience (and a lot of fortuitious props placing). The play starts to falter, however, on the entrance of "Mrs Benson", Colette Winchester's character - a been-there-done-that free love girl. Her accent unfortunately has serious problems, being only occasionly recognisable as American and often slipping into rather "occer" (spelling?) Australian which jars completely. Indeed, Colette seems miscast in the role, failing to relate any kind of "free spirit" the character calls for- A disappointing performace. The final two characters, Don's Mother and supposed "Rival" (an off-broadway director) played thier thin characters well. Don's mother brought a touching third dimension to the traditional domineering mother figure, precipiating a pleasingly emotional scene towards the end of the play, while Shenandoah's character ("Ralph" I think it was) was merely a plot device and thus difficult to portray with any real depth. His off-hand manner worked well though, although again, the accent could do with some work. Set was detailed and appropriate with un-obtrusive lighting. Overall, "Butterflies" is a mediocre play, done to the best of the cast's abilities. A trite, sentimental comedy which belongs in the period it is set.
anyway - don't take offense anyone - I just want to get other people reviewing things and hearing the "truth" about their performances - not just what their friends and family compliment them with!
Bye =D
SS
"Butterflies are free" is, thankfully, a short play, focusing on a day in the life of blind teenager (we assume, his age is never given) Donny. The play opens quite slowly, and the first 15-20 minutes left me wondering if it was worth staying for the rest. The pace drags becuase we have to "learn" the Don is blind by watching him navigate his apartment a couple of times, which I felt was a bit unnecessary. Playing a blind role is obviously a challenge for a "seeing" actor, but I think Tom Milton pulled it off with a reasonable amount of conviction and believablilty - with a requisite amount of overplaying the disability to highlight it for the audience (and a lot of fortuitious props placing). The play starts to falter, however, on the entrance of "Mrs Benson", Colette Winchester's character - a been-there-done-that free love girl. Her accent unfortunately has serious problems, being only occasionly recognisable as American and often slipping into rather "occer" (spelling?) Australian which jars completely. Indeed, Colette seems miscast in the role, failing to relate any kind of "free spirit" the character calls for- A disappointing performace. The final two characters, Don's Mother and supposed "Rival" (an off-broadway director) played thier thin characters well. Don's mother brought a touching third dimension to the traditional domineering mother figure, precipiating a pleasingly emotional scene towards the end of the play, while Shenandoah's character ("Ralph" I think it was) was merely a plot device and thus difficult to portray with any real depth. His off-hand manner worked well though, although again, the accent could do with some work. Set was detailed and appropriate with un-obtrusive lighting. Overall, "Butterflies" is a mediocre play, done to the best of the cast's abilities. A trite, sentimental comedy which belongs in the period it is set.
anyway - don't take offense anyone - I just want to get other people reviewing things and hearing the "truth" about their performances - not just what their friends and family compliment them with!
Bye =D
SS
Don't take negative reviews so well do we !!
Thu, 22 June 2000, 12:42 pmWalter Plinge
An interesting issue .... no ?
The responses seem to hint that those of us are more closely linked to the production find it harder to accept/absorb criticism, while others that are not involved and haven't seen the show are less critical of our anonymous reviewer. Hey ... we're all emotionally driven creatures!
Hopefully, we would all agree that any reviewer is entitled to their opinion.
We do not always share a reviewers opinions, as is clearly the case here, yet we seem less able 'hear' these anonymous opinions, BUT THEY ARE NO LESS VALID.
I feel that the reivewer themselves hit the nail on the head with their earlier comments. In a case like this, the upset readers only have the opinion itself to 'take offense' at, not a person. Their regular coping/defense mechanisims of dismissing this opinion because the reviewer is young or inexperienced, or because we know they 'don't get on with that company/director etc' are not available.
An anonymous review leaves us with only one alternative .... Read the opinion, and agree or disagree WITH THE OPINION.
Very few of the angered respondees to our anonymous reviewer gave examples or justified their offense to her/his opinion with intelligent response, but rather, with outright dismissal and accusations of cowardice.
It all boils down to our ability to take criticism. Our reviewer believed what they were saying, took the time to see the show, and had the courage to review honestly. If they feel they had to make an anonyous review to avoid the type of retributive response we have seen, then thats up to them, and only reflects how difficult it is, both to give an honset negative review and receive one.
If this Reviews forum is to be healthly and survive, we all have to grow thicker skins and be prepared to 'hear' others opinions, positive and negative and anonymous. As Leah said :
"Isn't it amazing that two people can see the same play yet see such utterly different things. "
Cheers,
David
The responses seem to hint that those of us are more closely linked to the production find it harder to accept/absorb criticism, while others that are not involved and haven't seen the show are less critical of our anonymous reviewer. Hey ... we're all emotionally driven creatures!
Hopefully, we would all agree that any reviewer is entitled to their opinion.
We do not always share a reviewers opinions, as is clearly the case here, yet we seem less able 'hear' these anonymous opinions, BUT THEY ARE NO LESS VALID.
I feel that the reivewer themselves hit the nail on the head with their earlier comments. In a case like this, the upset readers only have the opinion itself to 'take offense' at, not a person. Their regular coping/defense mechanisims of dismissing this opinion because the reviewer is young or inexperienced, or because we know they 'don't get on with that company/director etc' are not available.
An anonymous review leaves us with only one alternative .... Read the opinion, and agree or disagree WITH THE OPINION.
Very few of the angered respondees to our anonymous reviewer gave examples or justified their offense to her/his opinion with intelligent response, but rather, with outright dismissal and accusations of cowardice.
It all boils down to our ability to take criticism. Our reviewer believed what they were saying, took the time to see the show, and had the courage to review honestly. If they feel they had to make an anonyous review to avoid the type of retributive response we have seen, then thats up to them, and only reflects how difficult it is, both to give an honset negative review and receive one.
If this Reviews forum is to be healthly and survive, we all have to grow thicker skins and be prepared to 'hear' others opinions, positive and negative and anonymous. As Leah said :
"Isn't it amazing that two people can see the same play yet see such utterly different things. "
Cheers,
David
- ···
- ···
- ···