An Ideal Husband
Mon, 21 June 2004, 03:47 pmWalter Plinge14 posts in thread
An Ideal Husband
Mon, 21 June 2004, 03:47 pmI recently went to see Playlover's latest production, "An Ideal Husband" and, unfortunately, was rather disappointed. There were a number of elements to the play, and individual performances, that I enjoyed, but as a whole I found myself more than a little bored - which I heard someone remark, was surprising for an Oscar Wilde play.
My first impression of Playlover's "An Ideal Husband" before the curtains even opened was "Great set!" I know it can be a theatre faux pas to praise a play's set following the production but it was truely exquisite. The antique furniture, chaise lounges, carved fireplace and sweeping ballroom floor were delightful. A lot of time, effort and attention to detail had gone into the set, and I honestly felt that it was well worth it.
However, while I loved the look of the set, setting any action on the ballroom floor and not on the stage, while good in theory DID NOT work due to the lack of teired seating. When the actor's first descended the stairs I could see their shoulders and heads. When they sat down to carry on conversations, I could see nothing. I wasn't sitting far from the front and for 15-20 minutes I could only hear voices.
I liked the hairstyles but I thought the costuming was a little mish-mashed. Some of the costumes in the initial ballroom scene looked more like a Southern Belle's party attire, and I don't think sequins played a large part in the Wilde era. However, I understand the time, convenience and monetary restrictions on costuming a large cast, especially in regards to a period play. It was just a shame that the costumes added an artificiality to the opening scene, especially when the set was so authentic.
I felt that greater attention should have been paid to the English diction of the cast. I never realised how important proper English diction could be in a Wilde play until I had a director constantly impressing on me that it is "orften" not "often", and "orf" not "off". Posture, especially in the female cast, was another area I noticed. Many of the women in the play tended to "sway" across the stage - hips swishing, shoulders back, stomachs out, and with a distinct "sway" in their bodies. This is a rather modern means of movement and from what I understand, women strapped into corsets in those days rarely "swayed" - they had impeccable posture. These may seem like small points but I really felt that they would have added that extra level of sophistication to the play. It's amazing what can be "lorst" in an actor's performance simply through their lack of diction and appropriate carriage in posture.
In terms of casting, unfortunately, I thought that the age difference onstage between Mrs Cheveley and Lady Chiltern was too wide for it to be convincing that they once went to school together. And Sir Robert Chiltern seemed a little young to have been a 40-something man, who had been building his career in politics for years.
I enjoyed the performance of Lord Goring - who bears an uncanny resemblance to Oscar Wilde. He had a beautifully languid delivery. Many of the play's most amusing lines, unfortunately, lost a great deal of their humour from actor's groping for lines, running their lines too fast, not being visible, or delivering them as if they were a joke. The lines may be humorous but I remember someone once told me that some of the best humour in Wilde's plays comes from the characters' serious deliver and genuine belief in what they are saying. Lord Goring had that wonderfully serious delivery of some ridiculous statements that always made the audience laugh.
I thought that Sir Robert Chiltern needed to build his emotions more slowly. His jumps from one emotion to the next were a little too extreme - especially in Act 2. I also noticed he had a habit of very suddenly placing his hands on his hips and then dropping them down a split second later, which was more noticeable when he was angry. This was very distracting at times.
My first impression of Miss Mabel was that she was extremely pretty but she moved much too much. She was one of the biggest "swaying" offenders, which became even more noticeable when she was in the presence of Lord Goring. I also thought her delivery was far too animated. She has some very funny lines during her conversations with Lady Chiltern, which received a few laughs but I could see that she would have gotten many more if she had toned her performance a bit - it was just a little over the top.
Lady Chiltern - aside from her age gap with Mrs Cheveley - played her character a little too unlikeable for my tastes. I sat in the audience thinking "of all the snooty, self-righteous people!" I had no sympathy for Lady Chiltern when her husband accused her of ruining his life. I thought "Good, got what she deserves!" Which was a shame because I really felt her character should have the audience's sympathy - Lady Chiltern should be idealistic and naive, not self-righteous and unlikeable.
Also, Lady Chiltern was a little wooden in her body language. She had a very expressive face but none of this seemed to reach the rest of her body, particularly in the more dramatic scenes. Although she was one of the women with the best posture onstage.
The Vicomte gave a wonderful performance - he even upstaged at times. It's not a huge role but he played it wonderfully - great characterisation.
I thought that the character of Mrs Cheveley needed more of an edge to her - particularly in those initial scenes. And needed to put a little more variance of emotions in her speeches. I found myself tuning out in the scene where she was blackmailing Sir Robert.
I also didn't like the "ballet" scene change. While the dancer was very talented, not only was it a little out of left-field but a lot of the dance may have been lost on the audience because unless you were in the front row, all you could see was her shoulders and head moving. So, the dance was a little wasted, although I understand that it was done to detract attention from, what I'm assuming was, a long scene change.
Sadly, I was very disappointed with the play. I found myself bored, which made the play seem even longer than it actually was. This was such a shame because Wilde should never be boring, and I was really looking forward to seeing "An Ideal Husband". But as I said, there were individual performances and elements that I did enjoy and some that I didn't, but it's all subjective.
K. Wallace
My first impression of Playlover's "An Ideal Husband" before the curtains even opened was "Great set!" I know it can be a theatre faux pas to praise a play's set following the production but it was truely exquisite. The antique furniture, chaise lounges, carved fireplace and sweeping ballroom floor were delightful. A lot of time, effort and attention to detail had gone into the set, and I honestly felt that it was well worth it.
However, while I loved the look of the set, setting any action on the ballroom floor and not on the stage, while good in theory DID NOT work due to the lack of teired seating. When the actor's first descended the stairs I could see their shoulders and heads. When they sat down to carry on conversations, I could see nothing. I wasn't sitting far from the front and for 15-20 minutes I could only hear voices.
I liked the hairstyles but I thought the costuming was a little mish-mashed. Some of the costumes in the initial ballroom scene looked more like a Southern Belle's party attire, and I don't think sequins played a large part in the Wilde era. However, I understand the time, convenience and monetary restrictions on costuming a large cast, especially in regards to a period play. It was just a shame that the costumes added an artificiality to the opening scene, especially when the set was so authentic.
I felt that greater attention should have been paid to the English diction of the cast. I never realised how important proper English diction could be in a Wilde play until I had a director constantly impressing on me that it is "orften" not "often", and "orf" not "off". Posture, especially in the female cast, was another area I noticed. Many of the women in the play tended to "sway" across the stage - hips swishing, shoulders back, stomachs out, and with a distinct "sway" in their bodies. This is a rather modern means of movement and from what I understand, women strapped into corsets in those days rarely "swayed" - they had impeccable posture. These may seem like small points but I really felt that they would have added that extra level of sophistication to the play. It's amazing what can be "lorst" in an actor's performance simply through their lack of diction and appropriate carriage in posture.
In terms of casting, unfortunately, I thought that the age difference onstage between Mrs Cheveley and Lady Chiltern was too wide for it to be convincing that they once went to school together. And Sir Robert Chiltern seemed a little young to have been a 40-something man, who had been building his career in politics for years.
I enjoyed the performance of Lord Goring - who bears an uncanny resemblance to Oscar Wilde. He had a beautifully languid delivery. Many of the play's most amusing lines, unfortunately, lost a great deal of their humour from actor's groping for lines, running their lines too fast, not being visible, or delivering them as if they were a joke. The lines may be humorous but I remember someone once told me that some of the best humour in Wilde's plays comes from the characters' serious deliver and genuine belief in what they are saying. Lord Goring had that wonderfully serious delivery of some ridiculous statements that always made the audience laugh.
I thought that Sir Robert Chiltern needed to build his emotions more slowly. His jumps from one emotion to the next were a little too extreme - especially in Act 2. I also noticed he had a habit of very suddenly placing his hands on his hips and then dropping them down a split second later, which was more noticeable when he was angry. This was very distracting at times.
My first impression of Miss Mabel was that she was extremely pretty but she moved much too much. She was one of the biggest "swaying" offenders, which became even more noticeable when she was in the presence of Lord Goring. I also thought her delivery was far too animated. She has some very funny lines during her conversations with Lady Chiltern, which received a few laughs but I could see that she would have gotten many more if she had toned her performance a bit - it was just a little over the top.
Lady Chiltern - aside from her age gap with Mrs Cheveley - played her character a little too unlikeable for my tastes. I sat in the audience thinking "of all the snooty, self-righteous people!" I had no sympathy for Lady Chiltern when her husband accused her of ruining his life. I thought "Good, got what she deserves!" Which was a shame because I really felt her character should have the audience's sympathy - Lady Chiltern should be idealistic and naive, not self-righteous and unlikeable.
Also, Lady Chiltern was a little wooden in her body language. She had a very expressive face but none of this seemed to reach the rest of her body, particularly in the more dramatic scenes. Although she was one of the women with the best posture onstage.
The Vicomte gave a wonderful performance - he even upstaged at times. It's not a huge role but he played it wonderfully - great characterisation.
I thought that the character of Mrs Cheveley needed more of an edge to her - particularly in those initial scenes. And needed to put a little more variance of emotions in her speeches. I found myself tuning out in the scene where she was blackmailing Sir Robert.
I also didn't like the "ballet" scene change. While the dancer was very talented, not only was it a little out of left-field but a lot of the dance may have been lost on the audience because unless you were in the front row, all you could see was her shoulders and head moving. So, the dance was a little wasted, although I understand that it was done to detract attention from, what I'm assuming was, a long scene change.
Sadly, I was very disappointed with the play. I found myself bored, which made the play seem even longer than it actually was. This was such a shame because Wilde should never be boring, and I was really looking forward to seeing "An Ideal Husband". But as I said, there were individual performances and elements that I did enjoy and some that I didn't, but it's all subjective.
K. Wallace
Walter PlingeMon, 21 June 2004, 03:47 pm
I recently went to see Playlover's latest production, "An Ideal Husband" and, unfortunately, was rather disappointed. There were a number of elements to the play, and individual performances, that I enjoyed, but as a whole I found myself more than a little bored - which I heard someone remark, was surprising for an Oscar Wilde play.
My first impression of Playlover's "An Ideal Husband" before the curtains even opened was "Great set!" I know it can be a theatre faux pas to praise a play's set following the production but it was truely exquisite. The antique furniture, chaise lounges, carved fireplace and sweeping ballroom floor were delightful. A lot of time, effort and attention to detail had gone into the set, and I honestly felt that it was well worth it.
However, while I loved the look of the set, setting any action on the ballroom floor and not on the stage, while good in theory DID NOT work due to the lack of teired seating. When the actor's first descended the stairs I could see their shoulders and heads. When they sat down to carry on conversations, I could see nothing. I wasn't sitting far from the front and for 15-20 minutes I could only hear voices.
I liked the hairstyles but I thought the costuming was a little mish-mashed. Some of the costumes in the initial ballroom scene looked more like a Southern Belle's party attire, and I don't think sequins played a large part in the Wilde era. However, I understand the time, convenience and monetary restrictions on costuming a large cast, especially in regards to a period play. It was just a shame that the costumes added an artificiality to the opening scene, especially when the set was so authentic.
I felt that greater attention should have been paid to the English diction of the cast. I never realised how important proper English diction could be in a Wilde play until I had a director constantly impressing on me that it is "orften" not "often", and "orf" not "off". Posture, especially in the female cast, was another area I noticed. Many of the women in the play tended to "sway" across the stage - hips swishing, shoulders back, stomachs out, and with a distinct "sway" in their bodies. This is a rather modern means of movement and from what I understand, women strapped into corsets in those days rarely "swayed" - they had impeccable posture. These may seem like small points but I really felt that they would have added that extra level of sophistication to the play. It's amazing what can be "lorst" in an actor's performance simply through their lack of diction and appropriate carriage in posture.
In terms of casting, unfortunately, I thought that the age difference onstage between Mrs Cheveley and Lady Chiltern was too wide for it to be convincing that they once went to school together. And Sir Robert Chiltern seemed a little young to have been a 40-something man, who had been building his career in politics for years.
I enjoyed the performance of Lord Goring - who bears an uncanny resemblance to Oscar Wilde. He had a beautifully languid delivery. Many of the play's most amusing lines, unfortunately, lost a great deal of their humour from actor's groping for lines, running their lines too fast, not being visible, or delivering them as if they were a joke. The lines may be humorous but I remember someone once told me that some of the best humour in Wilde's plays comes from the characters' serious deliver and genuine belief in what they are saying. Lord Goring had that wonderfully serious delivery of some ridiculous statements that always made the audience laugh.
I thought that Sir Robert Chiltern needed to build his emotions more slowly. His jumps from one emotion to the next were a little too extreme - especially in Act 2. I also noticed he had a habit of very suddenly placing his hands on his hips and then dropping them down a split second later, which was more noticeable when he was angry. This was very distracting at times.
My first impression of Miss Mabel was that she was extremely pretty but she moved much too much. She was one of the biggest "swaying" offenders, which became even more noticeable when she was in the presence of Lord Goring. I also thought her delivery was far too animated. She has some very funny lines during her conversations with Lady Chiltern, which received a few laughs but I could see that she would have gotten many more if she had toned her performance a bit - it was just a little over the top.
Lady Chiltern - aside from her age gap with Mrs Cheveley - played her character a little too unlikeable for my tastes. I sat in the audience thinking "of all the snooty, self-righteous people!" I had no sympathy for Lady Chiltern when her husband accused her of ruining his life. I thought "Good, got what she deserves!" Which was a shame because I really felt her character should have the audience's sympathy - Lady Chiltern should be idealistic and naive, not self-righteous and unlikeable.
Also, Lady Chiltern was a little wooden in her body language. She had a very expressive face but none of this seemed to reach the rest of her body, particularly in the more dramatic scenes. Although she was one of the women with the best posture onstage.
The Vicomte gave a wonderful performance - he even upstaged at times. It's not a huge role but he played it wonderfully - great characterisation.
I thought that the character of Mrs Cheveley needed more of an edge to her - particularly in those initial scenes. And needed to put a little more variance of emotions in her speeches. I found myself tuning out in the scene where she was blackmailing Sir Robert.
I also didn't like the "ballet" scene change. While the dancer was very talented, not only was it a little out of left-field but a lot of the dance may have been lost on the audience because unless you were in the front row, all you could see was her shoulders and head moving. So, the dance was a little wasted, although I understand that it was done to detract attention from, what I'm assuming was, a long scene change.
Sadly, I was very disappointed with the play. I found myself bored, which made the play seem even longer than it actually was. This was such a shame because Wilde should never be boring, and I was really looking forward to seeing "An Ideal Husband". But as I said, there were individual performances and elements that I did enjoy and some that I didn't, but it's all subjective.
K. Wallace
My first impression of Playlover's "An Ideal Husband" before the curtains even opened was "Great set!" I know it can be a theatre faux pas to praise a play's set following the production but it was truely exquisite. The antique furniture, chaise lounges, carved fireplace and sweeping ballroom floor were delightful. A lot of time, effort and attention to detail had gone into the set, and I honestly felt that it was well worth it.
However, while I loved the look of the set, setting any action on the ballroom floor and not on the stage, while good in theory DID NOT work due to the lack of teired seating. When the actor's first descended the stairs I could see their shoulders and heads. When they sat down to carry on conversations, I could see nothing. I wasn't sitting far from the front and for 15-20 minutes I could only hear voices.
I liked the hairstyles but I thought the costuming was a little mish-mashed. Some of the costumes in the initial ballroom scene looked more like a Southern Belle's party attire, and I don't think sequins played a large part in the Wilde era. However, I understand the time, convenience and monetary restrictions on costuming a large cast, especially in regards to a period play. It was just a shame that the costumes added an artificiality to the opening scene, especially when the set was so authentic.
I felt that greater attention should have been paid to the English diction of the cast. I never realised how important proper English diction could be in a Wilde play until I had a director constantly impressing on me that it is "orften" not "often", and "orf" not "off". Posture, especially in the female cast, was another area I noticed. Many of the women in the play tended to "sway" across the stage - hips swishing, shoulders back, stomachs out, and with a distinct "sway" in their bodies. This is a rather modern means of movement and from what I understand, women strapped into corsets in those days rarely "swayed" - they had impeccable posture. These may seem like small points but I really felt that they would have added that extra level of sophistication to the play. It's amazing what can be "lorst" in an actor's performance simply through their lack of diction and appropriate carriage in posture.
In terms of casting, unfortunately, I thought that the age difference onstage between Mrs Cheveley and Lady Chiltern was too wide for it to be convincing that they once went to school together. And Sir Robert Chiltern seemed a little young to have been a 40-something man, who had been building his career in politics for years.
I enjoyed the performance of Lord Goring - who bears an uncanny resemblance to Oscar Wilde. He had a beautifully languid delivery. Many of the play's most amusing lines, unfortunately, lost a great deal of their humour from actor's groping for lines, running their lines too fast, not being visible, or delivering them as if they were a joke. The lines may be humorous but I remember someone once told me that some of the best humour in Wilde's plays comes from the characters' serious deliver and genuine belief in what they are saying. Lord Goring had that wonderfully serious delivery of some ridiculous statements that always made the audience laugh.
I thought that Sir Robert Chiltern needed to build his emotions more slowly. His jumps from one emotion to the next were a little too extreme - especially in Act 2. I also noticed he had a habit of very suddenly placing his hands on his hips and then dropping them down a split second later, which was more noticeable when he was angry. This was very distracting at times.
My first impression of Miss Mabel was that she was extremely pretty but she moved much too much. She was one of the biggest "swaying" offenders, which became even more noticeable when she was in the presence of Lord Goring. I also thought her delivery was far too animated. She has some very funny lines during her conversations with Lady Chiltern, which received a few laughs but I could see that she would have gotten many more if she had toned her performance a bit - it was just a little over the top.
Lady Chiltern - aside from her age gap with Mrs Cheveley - played her character a little too unlikeable for my tastes. I sat in the audience thinking "of all the snooty, self-righteous people!" I had no sympathy for Lady Chiltern when her husband accused her of ruining his life. I thought "Good, got what she deserves!" Which was a shame because I really felt her character should have the audience's sympathy - Lady Chiltern should be idealistic and naive, not self-righteous and unlikeable.
Also, Lady Chiltern was a little wooden in her body language. She had a very expressive face but none of this seemed to reach the rest of her body, particularly in the more dramatic scenes. Although she was one of the women with the best posture onstage.
The Vicomte gave a wonderful performance - he even upstaged at times. It's not a huge role but he played it wonderfully - great characterisation.
I thought that the character of Mrs Cheveley needed more of an edge to her - particularly in those initial scenes. And needed to put a little more variance of emotions in her speeches. I found myself tuning out in the scene where she was blackmailing Sir Robert.
I also didn't like the "ballet" scene change. While the dancer was very talented, not only was it a little out of left-field but a lot of the dance may have been lost on the audience because unless you were in the front row, all you could see was her shoulders and head moving. So, the dance was a little wasted, although I understand that it was done to detract attention from, what I'm assuming was, a long scene change.
Sadly, I was very disappointed with the play. I found myself bored, which made the play seem even longer than it actually was. This was such a shame because Wilde should never be boring, and I was really looking forward to seeing "An Ideal Husband". But as I said, there were individual performances and elements that I did enjoy and some that I didn't, but it's all subjective.
K. Wallace
GenieTue, 22 June 2004, 11:36 am
Re: An Ideal Husband
I could mention a few inaccuracies with this review....but I won't at this point. After all, it is only one person's opinion.
Will be interesting to see how "Importance" goes next month.......
Will be interesting to see how "Importance" goes next month.......
Walter PlingeTue, 22 June 2004, 12:18 pm
An Ideal Earnest
Just a reminder to everyone out there that the first production of a Wilde play to be actually scheduled for this year is auditioning on 3 July
That's right...
It's Roleystone Theatre's "We Actually Got in First Damn You!" production of Oscar Wilde's
"The Importance of Being Earnest"
Directed by Rory Cornelius.
Season is in September sometime...
I don't know, the details are around this site somewhere...
As to K. Wallace's review, who cares how accurate it is.
It is reasoned and well written, and that is what I ask for in a review.
[or should I say half a review? ;-) ]
Paul Treasure
(Not yet involved in any of the Wilde's, but hoping to be...)
That's right...
It's Roleystone Theatre's "We Actually Got in First Damn You!" production of Oscar Wilde's
"The Importance of Being Earnest"
Directed by Rory Cornelius.
Season is in September sometime...
I don't know, the details are around this site somewhere...
As to K. Wallace's review, who cares how accurate it is.
It is reasoned and well written, and that is what I ask for in a review.
[or should I say half a review? ;-) ]
Paul Treasure
(Not yet involved in any of the Wilde's, but hoping to be...)
Walter PlingeTue, 22 June 2004, 12:25 pm
Re: An Ideal Husband
You're very correct, Genie, it is only one person's opinion, and I more than welcome any one to point out any inaccuracies. I am quite willing to listen to another's opinion. I realise that often there is more to a story than meets the eye, and every reviewers opinion is subjective.
And although I may not have enjoyed the play or an actor's performance, I do remember, and am always appreciative of the time, effort and dedication that both the cast and crew put into a prodcution. It takes guts to put oneself on public display and subject oneself to an audience's criticism.
However, whether it be good criticism or bad criticism, I have always found both to be constructive in their own way.
I would be very interested to hear what others thought.
K. Wallace
P.S. Yes, it will be interesting to see how "Importance" goes ... fingers crossed :)
And although I may not have enjoyed the play or an actor's performance, I do remember, and am always appreciative of the time, effort and dedication that both the cast and crew put into a prodcution. It takes guts to put oneself on public display and subject oneself to an audience's criticism.
However, whether it be good criticism or bad criticism, I have always found both to be constructive in their own way.
I would be very interested to hear what others thought.
K. Wallace
P.S. Yes, it will be interesting to see how "Importance" goes ... fingers crossed :)
SidselTue, 22 June 2004, 04:05 pm
Re: An Ideal Husband
Well, I was not bored! I was there on opening night and although there were a few glitches, especially in the "library scene" I'm willing to make allowances on the first night performance. I do agree with some of Wallace's comments but thought some of them unnecessarily harsh. I thought the ballroom costumes were beautiful and that the women wearing them moved well. I agree that it was difficult to believe Lady Chiltern and Mrs. Cheveley went to school together and also that Lord Goring had once been engaged to her, but it is often extremely difficult to fit in the age difference or the lack of it when perhaps you have a limited number of people auditioning. I did find it difficult at times to catch all of Sir Robert Chiltern's lines as he has a very fast delivery, also the hands on the hips gave him a slightly feminine posture. I enjoyed the small piece of ballet, gracefully executed, certainly more interesting than just sitting there waiting for the next act to commence. As a community theatre production I congratulate Playlovers and hope you have good audiences.
Walter PlingeWed, 23 June 2004, 01:10 pm
Re: An Ideal Husband
YAY Kim!!!!!!!!! What a well thought out and courageous review! I haven't had a chance to see this as yet, but I do hope I can get there. When a script has been penned by the likes of Wilde or Coward or Shakers or Sondheim, there is always something wonderful to experience, no matter how flawed a production may be.
So often the rest of us (me!) shy away from truthfully reviewing AmDram plays we see, particularly when we have friends in the cast or crew. I know too well the misery inflicted apon a hapless reviewer when a cast member of a show has been Greatly Offended by comments made. (in this case the comments that caused offense were actually meant as a joke) Won't be making THAT mistake again!!
Subsequently, I've been ever so careful since and either do not review anything or post a review of a show I cannot fault. Sad innit??
I may be spineless and piss-weak, but Ms Wallace has some balls and I applaud her for it!! Top work Lovely!
J x
So often the rest of us (me!) shy away from truthfully reviewing AmDram plays we see, particularly when we have friends in the cast or crew. I know too well the misery inflicted apon a hapless reviewer when a cast member of a show has been Greatly Offended by comments made. (in this case the comments that caused offense were actually meant as a joke) Won't be making THAT mistake again!!
Subsequently, I've been ever so careful since and either do not review anything or post a review of a show I cannot fault. Sad innit??
I may be spineless and piss-weak, but Ms Wallace has some balls and I applaud her for it!! Top work Lovely!
J x
Walter PlingeFri, 25 June 2004, 03:13 pm
Re: An Ideal Husband
Have much to say, but no time to write it.
Watch this space ...................................
Watch this space ...................................
Babar's SisterWed, 14 July 2004, 07:40 pm
Re: An Ideal Husband
We're still watching...
...I can't hold my breath for much longer!
Walter PlingeFri, 16 July 2004, 02:22 pm
Re: An Ideal Husband
Here here! The space is still there, we're anxious to have it filled!
Walter PlingeFri, 16 July 2004, 03:44 pm
Re: An Ideal Husband
Slightly amused that you want your space filled ! ;-)
Walter PlingeSat, 17 July 2004, 12:02 pm
Re: An Ideal Husband
It's a curse!
I am amused by your amusement.
I am amused by your amusement.
Walter PlingeSat, 17 July 2004, 11:01 pm
Re: An Ideal Husband
I must say I disagree with the "ballet interlude", I found it extremely irrelevant and inappropriate for a character that had dialogue in the previous scene to take on such an act. Going beyond the length of time it took for the set to be re-arranged, it detracted from the play itself. In all honesty it was incredibly cringeful...sometimes it is better to just sit in the dark.
Walter PlingeMon, 19 July 2004, 09:18 am
Re: An Ideal Husband
Don't mention the curse !
Just a seasonal thing, that's all.
One will never know unless the nectar from fallen fountains is first consumed and accepted as reality, within this melancholy world of illusions.
Just a seasonal thing, that's all.
One will never know unless the nectar from fallen fountains is first consumed and accepted as reality, within this melancholy world of illusions.