Threaded Order Chronological Order
| NEW - THE PRICE OF THOMAS SCOTT - Talkin' Broadway's Review | |
| Posted by: T.B._Admin. 07:00 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Michael Portantiere takes a look at The Price of Thomas Scott: "It's Footloose, except John Lithgow wins." My theater companion and I almost simultaneously uttered this glib but not inaccurate short-sentence precis right after the final moments of a recent performance of The Price of Thomas Scott, by Elizabeth Baker, as revived by the invaluable Mint Theater Company. . . . |
|
| Link | THE PRICE OF THOMAS SCOTT Review |
| reply to this message | |
| I know it's a 100+ year old play, but that's a big spoiler | |
| Posted by: Ann 07:26 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
| In reply to: NEW - THE PRICE OF THOMAS SCOTT - Talkin' Broadway's Review - T.B._Admin. 07:00 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| I was surprised by the ending, but I'm glad I didn't know how it was going to turn out until we got there. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, but that's a big spoiler | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 10:35 am EST 02/21/19 | |
| In reply to: I know it's a 100+ year old play, but that's a big spoiler - Ann 07:26 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| The review is reasonably accurate. Mr Conner is indeed great in the lead role - but sadly this character sacrifices his wife's happiness, his daughter's prospects, and his son's education, as well as the financial security of his family for a 'moral' conviction which was stupid then and is stupid now. And he gets some support from his daughter for him being a man of convictions, even though they hurt her. This is a story that I can find any relevance for in 2019, when we are bombarded every day with restrictions being proposed in our country by bigots. I have no idea why the Mint, which I love, would revive a play that in its time 'honored' a man of conviction, no matter how wrong or destructive that conviction is. An orthodox Jew in the desert with no food of any kind other than pork, would eat the pork, and live. The 'hero' of this play would starve to death. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, but that's a big spoiler | |
| Posted by: WWriter 06:28 pm EST 02/21/19 | |
| In reply to: re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, but that's a big spoiler - NewtonUK 10:35 am EST 02/21/19 | |
|
|
|
| STILL SPOILER-ING HERE I don't think that Baker was supporting his decision. I think she was showing us that there are many ways of looking at something. For me, I was actually glad that he made the stupid, destructive decision he made, because he did it 100% honorably. I was much sadder at his family's response; they could have respected his honor without enabling his short-sightedness. I was particularly sad that the daughter decided not to go to the dance. |
|
| Link | The Price of Thomas Scott Review |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, and more spoiler talk | |
| Posted by: Ann 10:42 am EST 02/21/19 | |
| In reply to: re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, but that's a big spoiler - NewtonUK 10:35 am EST 02/21/19 | |
|
|
|
| Do you mean Mr. Corren? I agree with you, I was ultimately surprised by this choice. I know we shouldn't always just be presented with things we agree with, but destructive and restrictive is right. Different from the Mint's usual fare, in which we are shown the relevance of older plays (even if aspects can be recognized as dated - just not usually the denouement). Food for thought anyway. I would have liked to have been able to attend one of the talkbacks. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, and more spoiler talk | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:08 pm EST 02/21/19 | |
| In reply to: re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, and more spoiler talk - Ann 10:42 am EST 02/21/19 | |
|
|
|
| "I know we shouldn't always just be presented with things we agree with, but destructive and restrictive is right. Different from the Mint's usual fare, in which we are shown the relevance of older plays (even if aspects can be recognized as dated - just not usually the denouement)." I'm not going to comment on criticisms of my review that have been posted here, but I have to say, I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Are you saying you feel this play should not have been revived because the main character's actions are destructive and restrictive? Is it your impression that the playwright supports that decision? (If so, I completely disagree.) And how is showing someone in power making destructive and restrictive decisions NOT "relevant" to what's happening in the world (and this country) today? On that same note, as for NewtokUK's comment "I have no idea why the Mint, which I love, would revive a play that in its time 'honored' a man of conviction, no matter how wrong or destructive that conviction is" -- all I can say is, I don't think it's at all clear that the playwright intended to "honor" that character, and I'm very surprised that anyone would be so sure this was her intention. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, and more spoiler talk | |
| Posted by: Ann 02:50 pm EST 02/21/19 | |
| In reply to: re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, and more spoiler talk - Michael_Portantiere 01:08 pm EST 02/21/19 | |
|
|
|
| I never said it shouldn't be revived. After seeing it, I did not feel the acknowledgement of the destructive and restrictiveness of the decision was that clear. I saw more acknowledgment of someone sticking to their religious convictions. But, as I said, it's all food for thought, and I'm willing to think more about that. I'm glad you brought it up. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, and more spoiler talk | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 12:12 pm EST 02/21/19 | |
| In reply to: re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, and more spoiler talk - Ann 10:42 am EST 02/21/19 | |
|
|
|
| Yes - Mr Corren - so sorry ...! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Yep. Spoiled it for me. | |
| Posted by: Genealley 08:37 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
| In reply to: I know it's a 100+ year old play, but that's a big spoiler - Ann 07:26 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Not going now. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yep. Spoiled it for me. | |
| Posted by: Ann 09:33 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
| In reply to: Yep. Spoiled it for me. - Genealley 08:37 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Well, I don't think that's necessary. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The whole review is a spoiler | |
| Posted by: Genealley 10:01 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Yep. Spoiled it for me. - Ann 09:33 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| There's no more surprise left after that review. He basically tells the whole story and all the shadings. Why bother buying a ticket? Less is more, 'member? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Huh? | |
| Posted by: summertheater 10:36 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
| In reply to: The whole review is a spoiler - Genealley 10:01 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Let me come to this reviewer's defense. The only thing anywhere near a "spoiler" I can see is the sentence: "Following the play's downbeat ending, in which repression and conservatism seem to triumph..." I have literally no idea how the play is supposed to end based on that. For those who think the play is "spoiled", I guess the review can be edited to say that "some people may find some things below to be spoilers"? So nobody here complained about a theater reviewer posting a blatantly political opinion here a few months ago in a review (which I believe belongs on the opinion page of a newspaper, not in a theater review), but we hear a complaint about this?? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Huh? | |
| Last Edit: Seth Christenfeld 11:49 am EST 02/21/19 | |
| Posted by: Seth Christenfeld (tabula-rasa@verizon.net) 11:47 am EST 02/21/19 | |
| In reply to: Huh? - summertheater 10:36 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Literally, the first sentence of the review spoils the whole damn thing--unless, I guess, you don't know the plot of Footloose, which is always a possibility. Seth, baffled that someone wouldn't know the plot of Othello, either |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Yeah | |
| Posted by: Genealley 11:08 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
| In reply to: Huh? - summertheater 10:36 pm EST 02/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| We do. Plus I had to rummage through all the plummy verbiage, so there's that - another type of spoiler, I guess. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.040949 seconds.