Another CT review.
BG--
Review: ‘Rosencrantz' is complex but entertaining
TONY KISS • TKISS@CITIZEN-TIMES.COM • PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 22, 2009 12:15 AM
There are some shows that require total concentration while watching, and even then, it's difficult to grasp just what's going on. The absurdist comedy “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead” is like that, but it's well worth seeing, because of the superb acting in this cast. And as puzzling as it can be, there is a payoff.
Playwright Tom Stoppard has taken Shakespeare's “Hamlet” and given it a very odd twist, pulling two minor characters from the classic, putting them in the spotlight and dropping them into a weird “Twilight Zone” like setting. And there is no Rod Serling to step out from behind the curtain to explain what's going on.
So unless you've seen this one before, or really understand “Hamlet” or Stoppard, don't feel bad sitting there, scratching your head. It's not supposed to be easy.
Director Angie Flynn-McIver has assembled an amazing cast, fronted by two familiar faces: Hans Meyer as Rosencrantz and Willie Repoley as Guildenstern, loyal but mostly unimportant friends of Prince Hamlet (Chris Allison).
The two have been cast into an odd world that they don't understand and have no way of escaping. They while away the hours tossing coins or playing back-and-forth word games, trying to remember who they are and how they came to be there. Rosencrantz is more of a simpleton and Guildenstern poses as the more knowledgeable of the pair, but it's a sort of Laurel and Hardy set-up.
Through the course of the story, they meet a traveling band of actors led by The Player (Michael MacCauley), who comes in and out of their world but offers little help in sorting it out. Our boys sometimes find themselves where they belong — as characters in “Hamlet” — as the King and Queen (Joe Sturgeon and Lauren Fortuna) seek their help in understanding the madness of the Prince.
And so it goes. But there is a point in the show — as in its title — where it become obvious, even to non-Shakespeare readers, and to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern themselves, what lies ahead. They are on a journey to which there is no good end and no escape.
There are two intermissions here, and while they are 10 minutes each, that lengthens this evening to just short of three hours. In the second intermission, the audience must leave the theater, so that a mighty set change can be made. We won't spoil the surprise, but it is worth it, although the second intermission found much of the sold-out crowd jammed into the lobby, hands in pockets, with others puffing their cigarettes outside the theater on Stage Lane, filling the air with an unpleasant smell.
As for the performances, Repoley gives a masterful turn as the smug Guildenstern, proving again why he is among the finest actors in Asheville. There's fine chemistry with Meyer, equally impressive as the more naïve Rosencrantz. It's a rare chance to see Meyer act, as he usually directs.
Coming close to stealing the show is MacCauley as The Player, who gets some great scenes. And it is good see Allison as Hamlet, sinking into madness, although he has less to do than the others.
24 February 2009
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I have been disappointed by the critical response to local theatre for some time now. When I discovered this blog, I hoped it would do something to elevate, or at least to change somehow, the type of non-critical reviewing I had come to expect from the local press, and while some of that has happened, it has not been a big change.
I recently noticed a blog post at WBEZ Chicago (http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=1593) that got me thinking again about the importance of critics, and how reviewers I have followed in different (admittedly larger) cities have had varying but generally satisfying ways of responding to theatre. I have been trying to articulate my thoughts for myself, and now for the larger community.
So I’m going to respond to Tony Kiss’s review of “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead,” but I don’t mean to criticize this review or Mr. Kiss in particular. I think it is fairly typical of local reviewing, and might serve as a good jumping-off point. I have not seen this production (although I am familiar with the script), so I will respond only to the review. And let me begin by saying that I found it to be erratic, lacking a coherent argument, and without a satisfying conclusion.
But what most bothered me was that while the reviewer apparently did not like the show, he was doing his best to hide his displeasure. Perhaps he felt like he should have gotten it, or maybe he felt like he should give glowing reviews to the play out of some sort of obligation to someone. Or maybe I’m completely mistaken, but for the sake of argument let’s assume not.
The headline sums up both the review and one of my chief concerns about it, declaring the show, “…complex but entertaining.” So, to be clear: the play is entertaining despite its complexity, not, at least in part, because of it. From the very first line, Mr. Kiss uses phrases like “difficult to grasp,” he complains that there is no one to “explain what is going one, and warns “it’s not supposed to be easy.” Which seems fair: the play is indeed notoriously complex. But having read the play more than once, I’d have to disagree wholeheartedly with the basic assumption that this complexity is a bad thing; it seems to me an opportunity to parse out multiple layers of meaning, and discover a full range of dramatic (and comedic) possibilities. But based on the review, I don’t know whether to think that the reviewer just didn’t “get it” (although maybe other people would), or if he thought the production actually fell short of achieving something artistically.
And why, if the play is so difficult, does he recommend the show? He says that it is “well worth seeing,” and describes the performances as “superb,” praising a few actors in particular. But he never actually recommends the show purely on the basis on the performances.
So it seems to me that he feels obliged to say that he liked the show, even though he didn’t. Which is nice (and who doesn’t want to be nice?), but is that really the relationship we want between critics and producers? Does that help the reader of the paper and the ticket buyer at the theatre, or does it just let the critics and the producers continue a pleasant relationship? It felt like he was trying to walk a fine line: to be kind to a theatre he likes, while describing a production he didn’t. This can be done, of course, but I believe that it should be done boldly.
It would be much more rewarding to me, as a patron, to read a review that was honest in its contradiction. I don’t want to read a so-called glowing review that is interspersed with negatives, ranging from the complexity of the text to the smell of cigarette smoke from outside (what a passive-aggressive insertion!). I want a review that comes right out and takes a stand, even if the reviewer is conflicted.
I don’t want to have to read between the lines to figure out what the critic really thought. Come right out and say, “I have great respect for this company, and I thought the acting of this particular play was excellent, but I found the dialogue too complex, and the central themes of the play too obscure.” Or “although the actors held my rapt attention throughout, I could not ultimately make sense of the larger play.” One could then go on to say something about why the play did not make sense. Were the actors good moment-to-moment, but unable to make a larger sense of it? Was the direction too focused on the details and not on the story? Is the script just too complex and clunky to be worth reviving at the present time?
Additionally, does the design of the play -- the set, the costumes, the sound, lights, et cetera --does it help to tell the story, or does it hinder it? Or does is contribute at all? How so? Or why not?
Those are details I am interested in. I may agree with the reviewer, I may not, but how can I form an opinion based on a review that takes no strong stances, and does not really back up what positions it does take?
I would like very much to see this production because I admire the script, the playwright, and the producing theatre. But all that was true before I read the review, and, more importantly, my ideas about what I am likely to see in this particular production of the play were not informed by the review. Of course I expect a complex script: it’s Tom Stoppard. Of course I expect excellent performances: North Carolina Stage Company is a professional theatre. So the only new piece of information I got out of the review was that there is a set change, and people smoke during intermission.
Ultimately, I don’t care if a review lays out why I should see a play, why I should stay away, or why the reviewer is conflicted about wholeheartedly recommending either course. But please, give me your honest and informed opinion. That will ultimately help me, the reader, to form a sophisticated opinion of my own.
I, too, saw that blog post by the critic in Chicago.
(http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=1593)
While it was silly of the Robert Falls from the Goodman to call a critic at home, the blog-response of the critic, Kelly Kleiman reveals much about the substantively inconsequential nature of theatre reviewing generally.
Ms. Kleiman says that her "primary obligation" is to audience members to make sure they "get their money's worth" and that if she dislikes a production, she is "furious". She goes so far as to say that a poor production in which a director uses "shabby tricks" is the equivalent of doping on the part of Alex Rodriquez. Comparing ineffective directing at a non-profit theater to outright fraud in a multi-million dollar industry is simply an specious attempt at self-aggrandizement on the part of Kleiman. Apparently, her passionate emotions in defense of unsuspecting ticket buyers amount to critical perspicacity. After such hyperbolic pronouncements, I for one would be unlikely to put much faith in her reviews.
Clearly, Kleiman is more outspoken in her reviewing than the local reviewer cited here, but what is common to both is an presumption that a theatrical performance is a consumer product rather than a
cultural artifact that reflects the larger cultural conversation of which the critic could be an valuable part.
In larger markets, like Chicago and New York, critics generally cast themselves in the role of judge. Generally speaking, the longer their tenure and the more prominence they attain, the more pithy and extreme their reviews become. And even the most balanced critics fail to connect a particular production with observations about the state of the art or the relationship of theater to the culture at large. Most never write about the process of making theater, or the interpretive problems that theater artists attempt to assail, based on an understanding of the craft.
In smaller markets, critics tend to be more ambiguous and kinder, understanding that the relationship between producer and journalist is more closely interdependent. They are also likely to be less specialized, covering a broader range of "arts and entertainment."
I'd much rather that the press took a more proactive interest in the arts in the form of preview articles and historical and contextual information that might help to enrich a theater-goers' experience. This would be closer to real journalism than the usual after-the-fact observations by a few individuals, outspoken or otherwise.
I find it interesting that we're getting a smattering of people speaking to shows or reviews of shows that they've not actually seen, while we still have a pretty severe dearth of varied reviews of shows people actually HAVE seen.
Anyway, that said, I disagree with several of Jackson37's assessments and points. First I don't think it is as clear as s/he seems to feel that Kiss disliked the show. He says you have to concentrate and that you may get confused if you are not familiar with Hamlet or Stoppard, but nowhere does he say that he was put off by his having to figure things out on his own. I think, Jackson37, that you are placing value judgments on factual statements, and factual statements that you say you agree with (e.g. that the play is complex). You may be correct, but I don't think what you are putting forth is inarguable.
Second, you say that "he never actually recommends the show purely on the basis on the performances." The very first paragraph states that, "it's well worth seeing, because of the superb acting in this cast." I don't know how much clearer a recommendation based on the show's acting could be. Unless you mean to say that you would have preferred he disparage all aspects of the show but the acting, since you are under the assumption that this is the only part of the show he found worth seeing.
All THAT said, I do agree that it would be nice to have more varied criticism being published, but as we've seen from the fruits of this blog, very few people are willing to put such criticism out there. I write shows up here and there, but I certainly understand the reticence to do so if you are also trying to produce, write, direct, or act in local theatre, as you don't want to create bad blood between yourself and any potential co-artists. So what's left are the audience members who don't otherwise actively participate in theatre, and there's not much we can do to get them to come forth other than to welcome them.
Ron, I think that, typically, the theatre critic's -- just like the film critic's -- job IS commonly accepted to be that of judge. Not infallible, almighty judge, but the average theatre-goer and critique reader is wondering, "Should I see this?" / "Should I spend money on this?" Discussion of the work's overall place in the grand conversation of art and theatre might be interesting to a sub-sect of this population but I think most people who are reading reviews are looking for "Is this 'good'?" rather than information about and evaulation of process and obstacles. A potential audience member does want to know what "product" they are likely to see if they go to the theatre.
P.S. I think this topic (purpose, structure, content of play reviews) was brought up a while back on this blog, based on an article in the Guardian, but I don't recall anyone really engaging in the topic at that time.
(P.P.S. Sorry we're getting off-topic again within a show's thread.)
Jamie,
I agree with you that the typical purpose for reading journalistic theatre criticismis just as you say. But I so rarely find what critics write about to be particularly interesting that I'm usually left to make my own decision anyway--which I do anyway, regardless. I think if critics wrote with more nuance and context, and were less concerned with a blunt thumbs up or thumbs down (or watered down version thereof), that people would still read reviews with the purpose of deciding what to see, but the critics would be tackling a more substantive objective, too. I'd like to know more about what is out there and I'm less interested in critic's opinions per se. They will offer them because they are critics, but as journalists I often feel they have an obligation to do more and to do it better. Most movie critics don't do an especially better job, though most of them in smaller towns have seen more films than the theatre critics have read and seen plays. Of course this is probably true of all of us.
Mea culpa. Mr. Kiss did, as Jamie Shell pointed out, recommend R&G based on the acting.
Which leaves me to ask, so what?
It seems that most reviews from the Citizen-Times praise the amazing acting of one or more cast members. This may be because the Asheville area is blessed with a community of extraordinarily talented actors. It may be because the Citizen-Times reviewers are unable to distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary acting. It may be that they simply don’t know what else to write about. It may be all three, or neither.
My point is, what does it matter? Good acting at North Carolina Stage Company is no more news-worthy than good beer at Barley’s Tap Room. But I would be very interested to know how a particular actor’s interpretation of a role added (or detracted) from the particular story being told on that particular night.
With no further nuance, with no way to know precisely what a reviewer means by “suburb,” (for example) it does nothing to help me understand why this particular actor or ensemble’s approach to this particular play is rewarding.
Isn't it an open secret that there is no critical response to theatre in Asheville?
We all agree to pretend that the reviewers are actually reviewing plays, because, frankly, any press is better than no press at all, and we need the pull quotes to put on our posters and in our ads. We're terrified that theatre coverage will be cut even further (and in fact a few years ago the Citizen-Times proposed eliminating performing arts coverage in Take5 because it didn't skew young enough).
Of course Jackson37 is absolutely correct. If every performance is superb, the word loses all meaning.
I'll never forget the review of a community theatre production in which the reviewer said that the lead actor gave a tour-de-force performance - despite forgetting his lines! In the words of Gob Bluth, COME ON!
I just wanted to reiterate that I wasn't disagreeing with Jackson37 in general about the nature of theatre reviews in the C-T, just some specific things he'd said about this particular review.
I'd hope that, if people are dissatisfied with what they're reading, perhaps they will try to add their own voice to the discourse, thereby encouraging others to do the same, and we can work towards having more real critical response.
The other side of that is being able to accept criticism; sometimes I question how much people really want something other than the "book reports" they complain about in the C-T. But if you're really wanting to grow as an artist, a review saying you were brilliant, just like the show/person you saw last week that you know was decidedly not brilliant, is not terribly helpful. The affirmation is nice, but not when it's indiscriminate.
Post a Comment