Author: Jo Willard (not verified)
Date: 22/10/2007 - 14:33
Hi RRR
If you cannot accept that any members of your audience could walk out of your show with a negative opinion of the directorial vision, then I don't think you are in the right person to be directing Assassins, one of Sondheim's most controversial, and audience-opinion-splitting shows.
Life is all about differences. Many different opinions, many different options.
YES, I didn't like some things about your production.
YES, I *did* like some things about your production.
Should I have patronised your cast and myself by writing that I thought you were excellent, when I don't think that you were? I simply disagreed with Theatre_Buff's opinion, as you disagree with mine.
Should I forgive what I saw as lacklustre performances from most of the cast, because it was for charity?
Ultimately, any review posted about ANY production that has ever been performed, of any show in history, is 100% personal opinion. That's what a review is. One persons personal opinion of their experience. For anyone to expect otherwise is naive.
If you have an issue with the STYLE of the post giving my opinion, that, alas, is also your personal preference.
How I can speak for the collective audience? I AM PART of the collective audience. I am the one that paid money, sat facing that dark cramped stage, and waited to be WOWed. I so wanted to be wowed. I love the show and the emotional journey that it is designed to give an audience. I believe that a lot of directorial and chorographical decisions prevented these emotional triggers from being picked up by the audience, as did the members of the groups I saw the show with, and other friends that saw it on other nights.
I believe that in ANY production of RENT, be it for charity or otherwise, that Mark, Roger, Mimi and Angel have to be very, VERY strong. They are the main emotional crux of the show. My opinion of your shown may have been a little strong, but I believe it is because I have seen so many different productions of Rent, and feel I have a good basis to compare the different 'interpretations' that each one had.
Would you like me to go into further detail about what I though of the performance of each of these 4?
Yes I might prefer RENT to be staged/directed a particular way, but this is because I think that it works, when done a particular way, the way it was done on Broadway. When anyone changes what I expect RENT to be, I don't like it. Might come across as arrogance, but it is my personal preference.
I don't see anyone trying to repaint the Mona Lisa and still pass it off as brilliant...
Here's what I think Penny Presents should do... and please remember that this entire post is just my personal opinion.
If the aim of Penny Presents is to make as much money for charity as possible, they should stage the old bums-on-seats shows, such as the Gilbert and Sullivans, Rodgers & Hammersteins, the Kander & Ebbs. They can take as much directorial and chorographical licence as they like, because these sorts of shows lend themselves to re-interpretation, and could possibly have new life breathed into them.
RENT does not. It's a snapshot of a year in time from the mind of a man who lived with it all around him. I believe that if Jonathan Larson was still alive, he would either decline for the show to be performed by amateurs, or have it written into the contract that it be staged and danced a particular way. This show is still running on Broadway for a damn good reason, because the way it is presented is close to perfection.
Your production made me which that they still waited decades to release shows to amateur. With the professional production still so fresh in my head, and the many clips and photos of it available in this digital world, your production came off as second best - and let's face it, if if was up to the same quality, then the performers and creative team would be doing it as their full time job, not in the amateur arena.
This is just my opinion.
Reply
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
Date: 22/10/2007 - 14:33
Hi RRR
If you cannot accept that any members of your audience could walk out of your show with a negative opinion of the directorial vision, then I don't think you are in the right person to be directing Assassins, one of Sondheim's most controversial, and audience-opinion-splitting shows.
Life is all about differences. Many different opinions, many different options.
YES, I didn't like some things about your production.
YES, I *did* like some things about your production.
Should I have patronised your cast and myself by writing that I thought you were excellent, when I don't think that you were? I simply disagreed with Theatre_Buff's opinion, as you disagree with mine.
Should I forgive what I saw as lacklustre performances from most of the cast, because it was for charity?
Ultimately, any review posted about ANY production that has ever been performed, of any show in history, is 100% personal opinion. That's what a review is. One persons personal opinion of their experience. For anyone to expect otherwise is naive.
If you have an issue with the STYLE of the post giving my opinion, that, alas, is also your personal preference.
How I can speak for the collective audience? I AM PART of the collective audience. I am the one that paid money, sat facing that dark cramped stage, and waited to be WOWed. I so wanted to be wowed. I love the show and the emotional journey that it is designed to give an audience. I believe that a lot of directorial and chorographical decisions prevented these emotional triggers from being picked up by the audience, as did the members of the groups I saw the show with, and other friends that saw it on other nights.
I believe that in ANY production of RENT, be it for charity or otherwise, that Mark, Roger, Mimi and Angel have to be very, VERY strong. They are the main emotional crux of the show. My opinion of your shown may have been a little strong, but I believe it is because I have seen so many different productions of Rent, and feel I have a good basis to compare the different 'interpretations' that each one had.
Would you like me to go into further detail about what I though of the performance of each of these 4?
Yes I might prefer RENT to be staged/directed a particular way, but this is because I think that it works, when done a particular way, the way it was done on Broadway. When anyone changes what I expect RENT to be, I don't like it. Might come across as arrogance, but it is my personal preference.
I don't see anyone trying to repaint the Mona Lisa and still pass it off as brilliant...
Here's what I think Penny Presents should do... and please remember that this entire post is just my personal opinion.
If the aim of Penny Presents is to make as much money for charity as possible, they should stage the old bums-on-seats shows, such as the Gilbert and Sullivans, Rodgers & Hammersteins, the Kander & Ebbs. They can take as much directorial and chorographical licence as they like, because these sorts of shows lend themselves to re-interpretation, and could possibly have new life breathed into them.
RENT does not. It's a snapshot of a year in time from the mind of a man who lived with it all around him. I believe that if Jonathan Larson was still alive, he would either decline for the show to be performed by amateurs, or have it written into the contract that it be staged and danced a particular way. This show is still running on Broadway for a damn good reason, because the way it is presented is close to perfection.
Your production made me which that they still waited decades to release shows to amateur. With the professional production still so fresh in my head, and the many clips and photos of it available in this digital world, your production came off as second best - and let's face it, if if was up to the same quality, then the performers and creative team would be doing it as their full time job, not in the amateur arena.
This is just my opinion.