| Sorry...Jeremy | |
| Posted by: | StageLover 10:28 am EDT 08/05/14 |
| In reply to: | Jereemy Gerard explains why THE VISIT just doesn't work - StageLover 10:28 am EDT 08/05/14 |
|
| |
| . | |
| reply to this message | | |
| Sorry, do not Agee either | |
| Posted by: | actor103 02:20 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
| In reply to: | Sorry...Jeremy - StageLover 10:28 am EDT 08/05/14 |
|
| |
| Mawkish Love story???? Wow, one of the things that I love MOST about the show is how NON mawkish the love story is. They manage to represent their love in a really grand way without resorting to cheap sentiment, suggesting that love is even more powerful and also potentially more destructive than greed. If I am reading it correctly, It also seems that he does not get why Anton has to die??? The woman's life is one of barren loneliness. All she has is her money and the power and influence that money can buy. So she uses that to claim for herself the one thing she felt she was always owed and earned. Justice in her love. He has to die because it is the only way she can truly have him for eternity. She has given up on life. She is sealing the deal for the hereafter. That is my take on it. Sure there are others. Yeah, I know...a little heady but it works for me in a big way as I am sure those who have read my posts clearly know by now. At least he acknowledges that he is commenting on the first preview. Though, I think that is pretty disrespectful to all the artists involved for a journalist to comment on a first public performance. Regardless if he is only referencing the material itself. Having seen it twice, the impact when I saw the show on Saturday was worlds apart from the impact on Thursday. Just a much more fully realized and nuanced interpretation. It totally made a different , more complex kind of sense. At any rate, I will not be surprised if I am in the minority on this show. Not perfect but I think it is still pretty damn brilliant. I know that I am going on AGAIN about how much I love for this show. Please forgive me. I know...enough is enough. Will try and shut up about it. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| "mawkish" | |
| Posted by: | buskins 02:35 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
| In reply to: | Sorry, do not Agee either - actor103 02:20 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
|
| |
| People have really got to stop using that word. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "mawkish" no ... "meh" | |
| Posted by: | bruceb 04:05 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
| In reply to: | "mawkish" - buskins 02:35 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
|
| |
| People have to stop using "meh" when describing what they felt about an entire show. I don't think "meh" substitutes as a fuller description of a show. YES - IT IS A WORD IN THE DICTIONARY | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "mawkish" | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 02:45 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
| In reply to: | "mawkish" - buskins 02:35 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
|
| |
| Why? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "mawkish" | |
| Posted by: | buskins 06:21 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "mawkish" - MikeR 02:45 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
|
| |
| There are certain terms like "mawkish" and "mordant" and "gimlet-eyed" that nobody uses in American English anymore (if they ever did) except in criticism. It's like they're handed down from one generation of critics to another. I realize people are working on a deadline and sometimes you have to reach for a cliche when you don't have time to think, but it's especially glaring in this context where he uses a lame term to describe something lame. I don't know anyone who says "meh." I do own a "meh" t-shirt though that I got on sale from icanhascheezburger.com and whenever I wear it people ask me what "meh" is. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "mawkish" | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 09:31 am EDT 08/07/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "mawkish" - buskins 06:21 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
|
| |
| I think you are confounding verbal American English with the written word (and of course you are still wrong in these three cases). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "mawkish" | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 03:55 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "mawkish" - MikeR 02:45 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
|
| |
| How's this: "People have really got to stop using that word incorrectly." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Sorry...Jeremy | |
| Posted by: | bwaydiva1 01:06 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
| In reply to: | Sorry...Jeremy - StageLover 10:28 am EDT 08/05/14 |
|
| |
| Now I didn't see Fool For Love so I can't speak with the voice of knowledge here but everything I've read said the production is ready for Broadway. (I want Nina Arianda and Sam Rockwell together on Broadway-I can't imagine a more electric pairing. They are both really energetic, charismatic actors. I could only imagine the heat they burned on that stage.) I say MTC could pick it up for their spring selection and pair it with another one act. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Sorry...Jeremy | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 07:17 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Sorry...Jeremy - bwaydiva1 01:06 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
|
| |
| >> I want Nina Arianda and Sam Rockwell together on Broadway-I can't imagine a more electric pairing. agreeance. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Sorry...Jeremy | |
| Posted by: | JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 02:14 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Sorry...Jeremy - bwaydiva1 01:06 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
|
| |
| It's quite possible that with more preparation and rehearsal, Arianda and Rockwell might very well find the chemistry that Gerard feels that they presently lack. Like most summer stock theatres, rehearsal time at WTF is short and runs are even shorter. Another 3 weeks in a rehearsal studio and a few previews may be all they need to get the play firing on all cylinders. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Sorry...Jeremy | |
| Posted by: | robert_j 02:24 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Sorry...Jeremy - JereNYC 02:14 pm EDT 08/05/14 |
|
| |
| I agree with this. But I also think the reviewer is being a bit picky here. Yes, I guess the two could have had more chemistry, now that I think about it, but it did not stand out as a problem. And it could well be that the chemistry will get stronger over a longer run. I also don't think that Fool for Love needs to be paired with another play. Yes, it is a bit short, but not unusually so, especially since 90 minute running times are so common these days. I felt like I got my money's worth. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 0.088949 seconds.