Friday, October 09, 2009
The Grapes of Wrath
Pittsburgh City Paper: "Consider the horror movie: A group of people ends up stranded. They aren't bad people, just naïve. They've made a deadly choice, but they're oblivious to the danger. One by one, they die off. They're knifed and strangled and electrocuted, and the audience guesses, with gritted teeth, which plucky hero will survive."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I thought it was interesting how this review compared the story to a horror movie, based on the need for survival. I think that the comparison is not very fitting though, because it overlooks the hope of the characters, rather emphasizing the reality of survival. The review also seemed more focused on the story itself, and would have been more interesting if it would have included more of the author's opinion on the specific production.
My biggest problem with this article is that the author seems to be taking this opportunity to give us his opinion of the potential of staged horror rather than giving any information about this production. I'm glad he deemed two actors and the director worthy of note but the article on the whole makes me not really care about his opinion.
This reminds me of the other review where the reviewer spent most of the time talking about the fact that an actor did most of the show with a dislocated shoulder. Yes, the play itself can be compared to a horror movie, but only insofar as both contain a series of seemingly unescapable hardships or dangers for the characters, but once you generalize that far you can compare most movies and plays to horror as well. When that much time is spent on something like that I wonder if the reviewer had 3/4 of the review written before they saw the play and just left a few blanks to fill in about the actors and director.
A failed attempt at comparison. I disagree with the whole horror movie equating idea. Yes, there is death and destruction along the Joads journey, but they ultimately made the decision to go to California knowing that it was perilous. They know they are not equipped to handle the the trek and that likely they all won't survive. I do agree with the obvious claims on the personification of Capitalism in the play and the ultimate downfall it delivers, but don't see this device as a means of horror. Ultimately, the review is just a brief summary of the "depression" of the play, with little focus on the actual production and its merit.
I am not sure if I don't understand theater criticism and reviews, but it seems that every time I read one, I want to know more about the specific production that I am about to go see. Most people know the story of Grapes, but they are unaware of the interpretation and intricacies that the creative and production teams have brought to the story. Discuss the how the specific production changed the meaning of the text. What is the theater company trying to say with their show? At least the critic discussed the directing and two actors of note, but he really didn't go into much detail. Perhaps the author was given a word limit, if so than papers need to dedicate more room to reviews of theater, dance, music and other creative events. If people don't know anything about a performance, the probably won't go.
I have to agree that the author of this particular review spends too much time merely talking about their own interpretation of the play, and not as much about the vision of the production crew and the actors in their performance of the show. While it is good to see that the director and some actors are noted for their outstanding work, I feel more needs to be said about how the play was executed.
it seems like this person dose not talk much about the achale show it self and how it went. they seem to be more give a compassion and summery of the play as the book not the show that cmu put on the stage and how it was and the quality that it was and the people that where involved in the show and how it was exacted to the stage.
The review leaves out exactly that a review of the show. He barely touches on his critique of the play, instead focusing on the story. Only at the end of the article (2 paragraphs) does he mention anything of a critique. Although I agree with that critique- specifically the lack of subtley in the play and the lack of despair felt by the characters, there should have been more about this specific production, rather then the story and how it is like a horror film.
It always bugs me when a critic feels the need to bring up the a point about how CMU actors sometimes have a hard playing very specific roles like elderly men and pregnant women. The article pointed out that the average age on stage was around 21, which undermines the criticism slightly since it provides and out to the issue, but it still is an unnecessary point to even bring up in the first place since Grapes of Wrath was a college drama school performance and not the performance of a theater that can cast people more appropriate for the ages and points of life.
I really don't think this show was a horror story at all. It's more of a drama, than anything related to a horror story. Yes, people died, and fought for their lives and livelihoods, but the show was uplifting. The end of the show left us with a message of hope, strength, and love. Throughout the show, even through all the hardships, the characters were always beacons of hope in a world that was trying to tear them down. This is what people were going through during the depression. This is in no way a horror story. I also got a very different impression of the sets. I never found them "hokey." They were works of art unto themselves. And seeing the actors construct them added to the magic they had.
I would have appreciated a bit more in depth review, but i did agree with one major point of the critique. Though the critique was generally quite favorable, there was a point made of the huge amount of content being forced to cover. I agree that points in the show felt rushed because the show simply had to go on or it would have been 4 hours long. I really enjoyed this production but often moments felt rushed, and at least on this point i can agree with the reviewer.
I completely agree with author in the fact that this story is a horror story. It brings to life te very things that people today fear the most: loss. Throughout the play there is a certainsense of loss and loneliness and that scares most people. But as the article itself, I agree with all the sentiments above: it was not a review. I feel that the majority of the time he spends elaboating on his own ideas and not critquing the actual production. The production was a fantasic one and it deserved more than just a few lines at the end of a anaysis of the play.
It's rare that you see a review that actually gives us a full insight to the production. So, as much as I'd like to see that, we don't, so I'll focus on the writers ill comparison.
I'm not in agreement about comparing this rather depressing show to a horror flick. Sure, there is a sense of running away from misfortune, but it's not scary like a monster. So, in that sense his review is flawed.
I wish he focused more on the design and action in the play rather than his own awkward comparison. His noting of the show length and amount of content is valuable, but I'm curious this author's opinion on HOW it was delivered.
Maybe he didn't really like it so much if he brought up was horror flicks. Perhaps he was dreaming?
I feel like this author spends more time speaking about Stage Horror than the actual production of "Grapes of Wrath". While witty, the comparison between Grapes of Wrath and a horror movie, feels like a complete tangent instead of speaking about the interpretation of the play. If I read this article with the intention of deciding whether or not to see this play, this article would be entirely unhelpful.
I never thought of Grapes as a horror story, but after reading this article it became very clear. It adds a really interesting dynamic to such a well-known story. This review doesn't do a whole lot of reviewing, though; you don't get a sense of the whole production outside of the fact that you could compare it to a horror movie. I think the reviewer got really excited about the horror movie comparison and got too wrapped up in it.
On the whole, I tend to agree with the reviewer, but more often than not, I find most theater reviews to be lacking substance. They speak alot about the production in general, when it was last produced, the history of the show, but little about the specific performance, company, actors, etc. Arguably, the media is not our most accurate, however, often one of the only ways of publicizing our work. Its just a shame most reviews seem to lack specific content, especially over what would seem to be a controversial production of Grapes.
Post a Comment