Bumpy Angels
Sun, 2 July 2000, 12:07 pmWalter Plinge27 posts in thread
Bumpy Angels
Sun, 2 July 2000, 12:07 pmHello everyone! Well, lets see if we can cause some more controversy!(not that that's what i set out to do)
Bumpy Angels is a strange mish-mash of song, personal revelation (and even) game show. Unfortunately I was put off from the beginning with the intolerably long procession of "brides" which had no relevance to any later scenes - merely some sort of masque to get us in the mood (and failing). Firstly the backstage crew were laughable - taking ages just to move a cupboard and later making mistakes (coming in and off in half light) and then very audiblely chastising/discussing backstage - to was so bad the audience couldn't help but giggle. Mind you, we were already in a bemused state after being subjected to various snatches of song which are incredibly cheesy and I think lent nothing to the play - they could all be cut and play would lose nothing (might even gain a bit of dramatic credibility). By the interval I was pleased with the dramatic tension set up between characters and the audience was certainly emotionally involved - some of us rather uncomfortably so! But then it just kept coming! Coral and Felicity-Elizabeth's monologues were quite touching and well performed - but then everybody had to get in on the act, confessing every dark secret and troubled soul. Destroying most of the poignancy and subtlety of the play we were sledgehammered with emotion until the unsatisfying conclusion. High praise must goto the Mother Superior, who showed excellent charactisation and crystal clear vocal technique. Singing numbers were a little ragged and out of time and of course not all of us can be singers (Angela and Amy's song certainly made us long for a chorus number) but Your CHeatin' Heart was an absolute delight. All in all an emotion packed and interesting show, which cheapens itself through lack of any subtlety and its silly songs.
Bumpy Angels is a strange mish-mash of song, personal revelation (and even) game show. Unfortunately I was put off from the beginning with the intolerably long procession of "brides" which had no relevance to any later scenes - merely some sort of masque to get us in the mood (and failing). Firstly the backstage crew were laughable - taking ages just to move a cupboard and later making mistakes (coming in and off in half light) and then very audiblely chastising/discussing backstage - to was so bad the audience couldn't help but giggle. Mind you, we were already in a bemused state after being subjected to various snatches of song which are incredibly cheesy and I think lent nothing to the play - they could all be cut and play would lose nothing (might even gain a bit of dramatic credibility). By the interval I was pleased with the dramatic tension set up between characters and the audience was certainly emotionally involved - some of us rather uncomfortably so! But then it just kept coming! Coral and Felicity-Elizabeth's monologues were quite touching and well performed - but then everybody had to get in on the act, confessing every dark secret and troubled soul. Destroying most of the poignancy and subtlety of the play we were sledgehammered with emotion until the unsatisfying conclusion. High praise must goto the Mother Superior, who showed excellent charactisation and crystal clear vocal technique. Singing numbers were a little ragged and out of time and of course not all of us can be singers (Angela and Amy's song certainly made us long for a chorus number) but Your CHeatin' Heart was an absolute delight. All in all an emotion packed and interesting show, which cheapens itself through lack of any subtlety and its silly songs.
RE: Secret Squirrel
Mon, 3 July 2000, 02:15 amHello everybody
I have for some time been following with anticpation the 'exploits' of he/she who call themselves 'secret squirrel'. I am reluctant to admit that I find the controversy generated from his/her comments to be quite exhilarating and interesting. While I respect, and to some extent even admire, what you, secret squirrel, hope to achieve through anonymity, I feel there are certain problems associated with it.
For example, you claim that your approach is designed to confront people with the 'truth' of their performances (Butterflies are free review). Let me disregard for the moment the problems associated with defining the 'truth' of any performance through the eyes of one person and instead turn to other issues.
It would be great if we lived in a world in which people were mechanical beings who could be confronted with the 'truth' of their performances and feel nothing (neither good or bad). We are however, only human, and whats more humans in amateur theatre. One of the failings (or benefits) of being human beings is that we have feelings and emotions. I always thought that the aim of a good review was not just to try and ascertain the 'truth' or essence of a performance but to present this 'truth' to actors and crew ,imperfect beings, in a way that encourages and offers suggestion for improvement. I have found no trace of suggestion in your reviews, even though you are constantly citing problems. Reviewing is an art form reliant on tact. And tact, as the saying goes, is the ability to tell someone where to go so that they anticipate the journey.
Your anonymity grants you the ability to create a faceless entity who is capable of saying anything about anything without leaving the reader with any idea about how experienced you are and thus how valid your claims are (please refer to 'Brecht' issue). Its a nice thought that in this post-modern world everyone's opinions are equally valid, however, it would be totally ridiculous to assume that the opinion of a person of twenty, unexperienced in amateur theatre, is given the same credibility as say an experienced director of fifty. So when you claim that keeping yourself anonymous will lead to more honest reviews, you forget that people need some idea of who is writing the review in order to judge the review. And judge they must. Just as you judge actors on the basis of their experience and talent.
Anyhow, I dont want to take up anymore space talking about something which is in no way connnected directly to any play I have seen. Although I am a newcomer to the theatre scene, I have been involved in a few wonderful plays and have had a great time doing them with people who have a love for theatre as both a hobby and as something more. But no matter who they are, no-one can withstand being presented with the cold hard truth, or what someone who wont even reveal their name believes to be the cold hard truth, without acknowledging human frailty.
I would love to discuss these issues with you in more detail if I only knew who you were.
PS. I find sarcasm to be an entertaining and clever form of humour usually resented by those who cannot think of anything sarcastic to say.
I have for some time been following with anticpation the 'exploits' of he/she who call themselves 'secret squirrel'. I am reluctant to admit that I find the controversy generated from his/her comments to be quite exhilarating and interesting. While I respect, and to some extent even admire, what you, secret squirrel, hope to achieve through anonymity, I feel there are certain problems associated with it.
For example, you claim that your approach is designed to confront people with the 'truth' of their performances (Butterflies are free review). Let me disregard for the moment the problems associated with defining the 'truth' of any performance through the eyes of one person and instead turn to other issues.
It would be great if we lived in a world in which people were mechanical beings who could be confronted with the 'truth' of their performances and feel nothing (neither good or bad). We are however, only human, and whats more humans in amateur theatre. One of the failings (or benefits) of being human beings is that we have feelings and emotions. I always thought that the aim of a good review was not just to try and ascertain the 'truth' or essence of a performance but to present this 'truth' to actors and crew ,imperfect beings, in a way that encourages and offers suggestion for improvement. I have found no trace of suggestion in your reviews, even though you are constantly citing problems. Reviewing is an art form reliant on tact. And tact, as the saying goes, is the ability to tell someone where to go so that they anticipate the journey.
Your anonymity grants you the ability to create a faceless entity who is capable of saying anything about anything without leaving the reader with any idea about how experienced you are and thus how valid your claims are (please refer to 'Brecht' issue). Its a nice thought that in this post-modern world everyone's opinions are equally valid, however, it would be totally ridiculous to assume that the opinion of a person of twenty, unexperienced in amateur theatre, is given the same credibility as say an experienced director of fifty. So when you claim that keeping yourself anonymous will lead to more honest reviews, you forget that people need some idea of who is writing the review in order to judge the review. And judge they must. Just as you judge actors on the basis of their experience and talent.
Anyhow, I dont want to take up anymore space talking about something which is in no way connnected directly to any play I have seen. Although I am a newcomer to the theatre scene, I have been involved in a few wonderful plays and have had a great time doing them with people who have a love for theatre as both a hobby and as something more. But no matter who they are, no-one can withstand being presented with the cold hard truth, or what someone who wont even reveal their name believes to be the cold hard truth, without acknowledging human frailty.
I would love to discuss these issues with you in more detail if I only knew who you were.
PS. I find sarcasm to be an entertaining and clever form of humour usually resented by those who cannot think of anything sarcastic to say.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···