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
Tue, 4 July 2000, 11:19 amWalter Plinge
Dear Squirrel
If that is in fact your real name!
It is a pity that your responses dont even make it to barely adequate so we await your next gem with no interest whatso ever.
By the way Sarcasm was good enough for Shakespeare, so it should be good enough for anyone else in a theatrical context.
Also in the Post Modern era (ie now) I seem to remember that all people who act on stage are actors so whatever your gender is, it is still indeterminate by definition.
So in closing and I am sooo tired of this, if you cant conform to the established (although informally) rules and etiquette of this board the take your grubby, self serving, weasly, pretentious and thoroughly boring (read ho hum ^ 5) so called opinions and insert them where the sun doesn't shine.
By the way this is called a "Flame" and is usually sent by people who are annoyed by another poster. You see you should be aware of newsgroup etiquette and follow some of the mores that have been established.
Psuedonyms are a really convenient way of hurting peoples feeling without having to argue back. I was actually teasing you above (Squirrel that is). I mean just think how the opinion of an uneducated person, like yourself in the ways of theatre (although you own a dictionary) is regarded. Stop wasting our time moron, unless you can contribute to this groups discussion without stooping to personal abuse (oops - I may be guilty of this myself {Jarrod please revoke my membership in the theatrical community immediately})
Tada - I have spake and thus am prepard to wear the consequences. Some of you know me, so tell me off if you want (Because you can - you see my name and email address are at the top of the mail).
Maybe you could follow the dictates of your nom de plume and actually keep your opinions SECRET, I mean we dont really care.
Isnt theatre great - I mean I dont even have to be consistent (unless I am reviewing something - oops straying back to the subject matter again - my apologies)
Best Regards to all and sundry
Gary Barnes - (You can sometimes find me at KADS)
If that is in fact your real name!
It is a pity that your responses dont even make it to barely adequate so we await your next gem with no interest whatso ever.
By the way Sarcasm was good enough for Shakespeare, so it should be good enough for anyone else in a theatrical context.
Also in the Post Modern era (ie now) I seem to remember that all people who act on stage are actors so whatever your gender is, it is still indeterminate by definition.
So in closing and I am sooo tired of this, if you cant conform to the established (although informally) rules and etiquette of this board the take your grubby, self serving, weasly, pretentious and thoroughly boring (read ho hum ^ 5) so called opinions and insert them where the sun doesn't shine.
By the way this is called a "Flame" and is usually sent by people who are annoyed by another poster. You see you should be aware of newsgroup etiquette and follow some of the mores that have been established.
Psuedonyms are a really convenient way of hurting peoples feeling without having to argue back. I was actually teasing you above (Squirrel that is). I mean just think how the opinion of an uneducated person, like yourself in the ways of theatre (although you own a dictionary) is regarded. Stop wasting our time moron, unless you can contribute to this groups discussion without stooping to personal abuse (oops - I may be guilty of this myself {Jarrod please revoke my membership in the theatrical community immediately})
Tada - I have spake and thus am prepard to wear the consequences. Some of you know me, so tell me off if you want (Because you can - you see my name and email address are at the top of the mail).
Maybe you could follow the dictates of your nom de plume and actually keep your opinions SECRET, I mean we dont really care.
Isnt theatre great - I mean I dont even have to be consistent (unless I am reviewing something - oops straying back to the subject matter again - my apologies)
Best Regards to all and sundry
Gary Barnes - (You can sometimes find me at KADS)
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···