Saturday, October 13, 2007
Three Sisters
Pittsburgh City Paper - Pittsburgh: "Three Sisters, by Anton Chekhov, is about more than three sisters. There are also two lieutenants, a bunch of maids, a new mother, a teacher, a doctor, a compulsive gambler, a troupe of mummers, and a lovesick baron. Over the course of three breakneck hours, we watch the nonstop intrigues of their lives: an engagement, several births, a love affair, an attempted rape, two massive parties, possible arson, and (why not?) a duel. Of the 14 principal characters, a dozen get to monologue about their most heartfelt disappointments and desires. Three Sisters is an overlong Czarist soap opera; it's four hectic acts about an insipid leisure class and its petty little problems. In turn-of-the-century Russia, Three Sisters inaugurated 'realism.' Today, the play feels about as real as Laguna Beach."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I had a great time working on Three Sisters in paints, costumes, and props. This was actually the show I was most involved in so far at CMU. I went and saw it opening night. I would have liked to see it closing night also but the call to homework was too strong.
I ended up feeling kind of neutral about the performance. It wasn't bad but it also didn't do anything for me. I felt the scenery was great on an individual scope, and the costumes were very well done. The acting was very good, there were some characters that just grabbed you and made you totally forget they are a student, and then others where you could see the student on stage, there was just no transformation into their character.
In the production aspect this show turned out very well for being the first of the year. I'm just curious to see how the rest of the season goes.
I forget people outside of Purnell actually come to see the show. It feels strange to hear from other real people's point of views. I think the best line from the article was, "it's four hectic acts about an insipid leisure class and its petty little problems." As he said, the design aspects were great, the actings were amazing. But I feel like there was something missing all throughout the production I can't pinpoint. But overall, it was a great first Chosky season opener.
Although I agree with this review, I cant help but wonder if he really thought it was all that flawless. It seems to me that the role of the critic is to critique, and not just hand out praise. I know it was wonderfully acted and designed, but does he not think that there could have been any kind of improvement? Nothing is perfect, and you can still be complementary while discussing choices that cold have been different.
I don't really know how I feel about this article... the critic kind of spent most of it talking about how annoyed he is that Three Sisters is still being performed today, and how annoyed he is that Chekov wrote it at all. He didn't really critique the performace as much as he gave kudos to the the way they did it. I'm not really sure this was a critical article in the way they should be. I don't really feel like, if I was reading it, I would have learned anything. All in all, I enjoyed the show, even though I've read it before. I thought it was well done except for some elements. Much like most of the shows here, the acting was good, and the rest could be a bit better.
I agree with Chapel that the critic really only criticizes Checkov, but I felt the same way he did. We're reviewing this in foundations, and I'm stuck because when I left the theater I was thinking "yeah, the production was great, but what was the point?"
I think the critic in this instance is spot on, however, i wish that my performance review could be as short as theirs. The show was a good production of a show for which I don't care much for the text. I'm struggling to come up with three pages of interest for this essay. (not that anyone cares about my personal problems) I feel that this was a very strong production and that for the first show of the year it was solid and well put together, but at the end of the day there was nothing that outstanding or special about it.
I have to say that this show was by far one of the least favoites I have ever worked on, however--it is the kind of text where each time you hear it or read it you pick up another connection and the storyline gets more dimensioned the more intellectual you are in your approach to the play. However, my favorite part about our production (and being a DP i am biased) was that it was so beautiful to look at. The costumes and scenery really painted a gentle picture of the period, status, and lifestyle of the production. Coupled with the lighting and sound, the environment established was an easy escape.
It is odd that most of this review was complaining about the actual play, as if it were new to the world. There was really only a small amount of writing surrounding CMU's production of the show, using stock words such as "lavish" and "authentic". I would have liked to see a more thorough analysis of our production and less complaining about Chekhov.
Though it is this guys job to write critical reviews I have to say that I have always thought it difficult to write a review that doesn't give praise or is fairly general. I saw the play 2 saturdays ago and enjoyed it however, whenever a negative review is written we often hear that it is too biased and that there is no base for their claims and then there are reviews which are kinda bland and we say aren't critical enough. though it is this mans job to write a good critical review (and by good i mean well written,) I do think its a lot harder to do than one might think
The play was certainly very well done and it is great to see such a shining review, however: I have to agree with Alana. I don't quite think that "breakneck" would pace the entire play, although it certainly didn't feel as long as it was. There were little pieces that could've been improved but overall it was well done.
Post a Comment