| I had the same response. I might feel more forgiving if the reviewer were a high schooler writing for their school paper, without resources to go theatre, someone who is trying out what it means to be a critic. It also seems to me to mimic the language of other kinds of critics (like Kael, etc.) where the supposed bon mot substitutes for actual knowledge about the theatre--in the cases of Kael and others, they had earned the right to some degree of shorthand, as they had proven their bonfides as people who knew the art form about which they were writing. This just feels puerile. |
