Comments for Critical Confabulations

Comment on The Cries from The Cove by Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:52:22 +0000

Funnily enough, I got all teary and pissed off when I saw the trailer! So now I know enough to skip this preachy doc. Not that I am really that into documentary filmmaking as a genre, anyway, but still. What you point out here is very important: a documentary should be interested in exploring topics in a rich, deeper way—with differing points of view, nods toward possible action, and deep questioning into the cultural logic and Western complicity that causes such disregard for the lives of these creatures

Comment on Pixar Gets Political by Pixar soars once again, lifting audiences UP « Critical Confabulations

Pixar soars once again, lifting audiences UP « Critical Confabulations — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:47:11 +0000

[...] The Incredibles. Cars was utterly boring. Ratatouille was cute, but lacked inspiration. And WALL•E, which began with such invigorating promise, quickly devolved into cute-robot-saves-the-day dreck. [...]

Comment on And the Tony goes to… by Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:20:22 +0000

Okay, now I am excited for the Tonys.

Woo hoo! Fun predictions. Thanks.

Comment on Harvey Gets His Chance by Melissa

Melissa — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:35:54 +0000

OK, so I watched this movie tonight and remembered that you had reviewed it. I believe I need to comment!

I had been looking forward to seeing this movie. I enjoyed the premise: love in middle age. However, I have to say that this was one of the worst romantic comedies I have seen in a long time. (Granted, I don’t usually make a habit out of seeing them.) The plot was ridiculously contrived, and completely devoid of any real character development or meaningful dialogue. While they made an attempt at turning it into another “Before Sunrise”, they had no dialogue to propel the development of the relationship. Instead, whiny background music was played during montages, and we were expected to believe their relationship was developing on that basis. I have much more to say about this movie, but I think it’s taken up enough of my time as it is.

It’s rare that I disagree with you about movies. But between this and Wall-E, we have two!

Comment on Knightley’s Duchess Shines in an Uninspired Period Piece by Becca

Becca — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 01:24:49 +0000

So sad, the film was a disappointment… however, I’m happy to hear that Ms. Knightley lived up to her usual excellence. I adore her

Excellent review!

Comment on What a Bunch of [tossers] by lilyseye

lilyseye — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:05:59 +0000

Jay,

I have since corrected the casting in the review above – thanks for pointing that out to me! (That’s what happens when you write a review in the wee hours of the morning at LaGuardia, when you got zero to no sleep the night before and haven’t yet had your coffee. It is also what happens when you don’t edit. I should know better.)

I think you make a very valid point about the “not belonging on Broadway,” so let me clarify what I meant. I in no way want to dictate what kinds of shows make it to the Great White Way. But I am looking at it from a mainly producing point of view: [tos] is a show that has a niche audience. It is not for the vast majority of audiences, and it therefore shouldn’t be in a Broadway house because it has no real chance of filling it night after night. I don’t know why “off-Broadway” is seen here as a dirty word, as though it’s not as great of an accomplishment to have your show running in a small off-Broadway house that is filled to capacity every night! This is a show that needs the small house because, as you pointed out, you need to be able to see those facial expressions: the conspiratorial winks, glances and asides. You simply do not feel as involved in the show and its characters when you are sitting up, up, up and away in the balcony. In a smaller, filled house, everyone feels “in” on the jokes, because of the close proximity to the actors, as well as the more communal feel created by a more intimate theatre. If you’re playing to a niche crowd, wouldn’t you rather do it in that kind of environment instead of the colder, more distant atmosphere of a large Bway theatre? Also, for a show like this, it’s almost a kind of cult following: this show is for “us” (ie the select few who “get” it) – opening it up to the random tourists who just want to see a “Broadway show” in a way taints the appeal of an “inside the industry” show.

All of that aside, I still don’t think it’s a good show, and I’m growing increasingly tired of seeing a lack of quality on Broadway (especially in musicals) — and I’m tired of paying for it. Literally.

Comment on What a Bunch of [tossers] by Jason Smichards

Jason Smichards — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 22:03:52 +0000

First of all, lemme say I love the website and can’t wait til we’re neighbors so I can experience more of your opinions first hand! (speaking of that, where’s The Adding Machine review? No seriously where is it, I don’t quite remember what happened, I was a little tipsy…)

As always Jules, I’m a big fan of your reviews. Your writing style just seems to get better and better and I always find them an extremely thought provoking reflection of the show. I’m a little concerned, however, by a few of the things I’ve seen in certain [TOS] reviews, yours included. I will be the first one to admit that, though I am a big fan, [TOS] is nowhere near the perfect musical. It can be waaaaay to exclusive and inside-jokey, and when I saw it in the upper-upper balcony, I was cursing myself for not seeing the show back when it was being performed in a 100 seat theatre where I would have been able to discern a single facial expression.

Opinions of the show aside though, I think that it’s a little dangerous for anyone to say that any show “doesn’t belong on Broadway”. The Broadway medium, like any other major player in the entertainment industry, puts on shows because they believe that they have an audience that wants to see it, and I think it is the audience themselves who decides whether the show belongs. There were a great many folks who saw a bunch of mermaids on Heeley’s and deemed that the show didn’t belong on Broadway, but since the darn thing plays to 100% capacity and puts a smile on a kids face, who’s to say? [Title of Show] certainly doesn’t play to as many folks as “Mermaid”, but it does have a loyal fan base that wants to see them succeed. A fan base that they built from the ground up through sheer hard work. Even if they only play to a full house for two weeks or even two performances before they begin spinning their wheels, they earned the right to be there! Though the empty handed producers may say otherwise.

If for a Broadway show to belong, you need it to have a flying car or Sandra Bullock in the starring role, then we must also kick “The 39 Steps” off of the Great White Way. Like [TOS], “39 Steps” has 4 unknown actors and no set to speak of, yet it was lauded in the papers for it’s ability to fly in the face of more expensive shows. Now the same reviewers are taking [TOS] to task (nice right?) for the exact same thing. [TOS] doesn’t pretend to be anything that it isn’t, and if you’re paying 100 dollars a ticket for a Broadway show, you should do a little bit of research if pyrotechnics are what get you off.

I know that you love a good underdog show as much as the rest of us. It’s just that I’ve seen the “not belonging” phrase in one too many reviews. There’ll always be room for blockbuster shows on The Broadway. I say if a show speaks to any sort of wider audience, and it’s creators have the gumption to get their butts off the couch and actually make it happen, their show belongs no matter how many chairs it has onstage (or taxicabs for that matter. Yech.). Broadway is an ever changing beast just like TV and film, especially in this age of YouTube and reality show casting. Hunter and Jeff may exclude audience members more than they inspire but when we start excluding them from Broadway, I fear that Broadway could stagnate and turn off less established artists.

Alright time to dismantle my soapbox.

Miss ya! Let’s do lunch when you get in!

~~J

P.S. You may have felt otherwise, but isn’t Susan seen as the character actress and Heidi as the powerhouse voice, rather than the other way around? Like I said, maybe it’s a matter of opinion. Personally I think they both sing pretty capably.

Comment on Jeff Daniels’s Singing Cowboy Never Quite Hits that High Note by Trent

Trent — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:25:53 +0000

This is an interesting confabulation we have going here! I find a number of things disconcerting about Mr. Sanville’s recent post. First, he recommends The Complete Works of Harold Clurman to the blogger. If one wishes to assert their higher knowledge of Theatre Arts and suggest we all be better informed please help us along correctly, the book is called The Collected Works of Harold Clurman.
Secondly, I assume what Sanville is referring to with his post in particular is Clurman’s insistence with the critic’s avoidance of value judgments. I am reminded of the September, 1974 issue of The Drama Review containing the article, “4 Directors on Criticism: Bill Eddy, Gilbert Moses, Joseph Chaikin, Harold Clurman,” where Clurman was asked to explain the function of a critic and he responded: “To help create an intelligent, sensible, knowledgeable audience… not to be so anxious to say whether something is good or bad.” I think we can all agree blanket statements such as “good” or “bad,” without qualification or explanation, should be avoided in a criticism designed to increase the knowledge of an audience.
To say someone “doesn’t know what they’re seeing,” [I’m not sure how such a statement could be proceeded by an honest “with all due respect”] however, sounds like a perfect statement from a man worshiping Clurman. In that same TDR article, Clurman explains a discussion he had with a local critic in which he asks the man to sit in on a table reading of a play he was directing, then come back in a few weeks for the blocking, and finally see a final performance. Supposedly, with this knowledge of exactly what he intended the critic would be better equipped to make an accurate critique. Like any sensible, critic the man refused, explaining such knowledge would remove his “amateur status” which one needs if they are going to write for the general public. This infuriated Clurman.
For Sanville to pedantically assert the blogger “doesn’t know what he/she saw” reinforces the idea that to truly grasp a theatrical work one must not only see the final performance but be a part of the rehearsals (and casting? call-backs?) to understand the director’s intentions.
In the post-modern world, the author is dead. There are no intentions outside of the work itself and that is to be the only thing judged, critiqued, reviewed. The blogger knew what he/she was seeing; it just didn’t happen to be the interpretation Sanville fought to create. The blogger could be in the minority but the opinion still exists.
Intelligent criticism is something lacking in modern American theatre. Maybe it is time to stop blindly worshiping critics born before the airplane was invented and welcome well-supported, constructive criticism.

Comment on Jeff Daniels’s Singing Cowboy Never Quite Hits that High Note by lilyseye

lilyseye — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:22:18 +0000

Dear Guy,
I sincerely appreciate your investment in the production and in the art of contemporary criticism. That being said, I do not consider Clurman “our” greatest critic, as I do not consider his writings my model for criticism mostly due to his insistence on critics declaring authorial intention and how effectively a production upholds that intention. Regardless of this personal preference, in your comment above you seem to have done exactly what Clurman and so many other worthy critics advise against: you have given an opinion (“you don’t know what you’re seeing” ) without explaining that opinion (what exactly did I, the spectator and critic, misread in your production? And how is it possible that such a misunderstanding or unawareness might have occurred?).

I thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my thoughts, and I look forward to seeing more of your and Daniels’s work at the Purple Rose.

Best,
Julie

Comment on Jeff Daniels’s Singing Cowboy Never Quite Hits that High Note by Guy Sanville

Guy Sanville — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:44:30 +0000

Suggest you read THE COMPLETE WORKS OF HAROLD CLURMAN. Our greatest critic. The first page lists the 10 things every drama critic should know. With all due respect, you don’t know what you’re seeing. Thanks for coming and good luck, Guy