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, 05:54 pmWalter Plinge
Hi Tracey (and everyone else),
Just thought I might add a few new points. Firstly I do not agree that the identity of the reviewer is important at all, as after all art is "purely subjective" and one does not need years of training to know what one likes.
If a particular piece requires years of training to enjoy then its creator has totally missed the point. Alienating your audience
(i.e. the general public) will do little good as in reality a great part of success in any art is to be able to be both passionate and commercially successful. We all do it for love but wouldn't it be great to be able to do it all the time and for money!!!!
We all beg for bums on seats yet some of the past posts suggest an elitist attitude where we are happy to take the publicÂ’s money and would be equally happy to disregard their opinion as they're not educated. Perhaps if we listened to their views we could work out why amateur theatre has such a bad rep in the wider community
AND, more importantly, work out how to make them come!!
Hang in there SS, I'm interested (but maybe try to be a little bit nicer).
Just thought I might add a few new points. Firstly I do not agree that the identity of the reviewer is important at all, as after all art is "purely subjective" and one does not need years of training to know what one likes.
If a particular piece requires years of training to enjoy then its creator has totally missed the point. Alienating your audience
(i.e. the general public) will do little good as in reality a great part of success in any art is to be able to be both passionate and commercially successful. We all do it for love but wouldn't it be great to be able to do it all the time and for money!!!!
We all beg for bums on seats yet some of the past posts suggest an elitist attitude where we are happy to take the publicÂ’s money and would be equally happy to disregard their opinion as they're not educated. Perhaps if we listened to their views we could work out why amateur theatre has such a bad rep in the wider community
AND, more importantly, work out how to make them come!!
Hang in there SS, I'm interested (but maybe try to be a little bit nicer).
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···