Saturday, October 19, 2013
Stage review: CMU's polished yet simple 'Crucible' shows Miller's skill
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: This Carnegie Mellon student production of "The Crucible" is the second Arthur Miller play here this season. The Pittsburgh Playhouse Rep presented "All My Sons" last month. The two are bookends to Miller's masterpiece, "Death of a Salesman," and seeing them back to back, I appreciated how far the playwright had grown from the 1947 melodrama to the morality play of 1953.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I like this review a lot because I all together agree with it. The simplicity of the directing and the set, as we'll as lighting definitely let the show shine through of its own accord. Then sound and media were, on the other hand, very complex, but in a background-ish sort of way, so the complexity fit in perfectly. I am not a big fan of The Crucible the show, so I have to admit I was falling asleep through portions of it. The simplicity of the directing definitely didn't help, but my friend, who is not a theatre person but is a big fan of The Crucible, really enjoyed the show, and I suspect that If I were an Arthur Miller fan, I probably would've enjoyed it. So although our production was definitely geared towards a narrow audience of Arthur Miller fans, I applaud its simplicity and clarity.
Overall I agree with this review for the fact CMU had very talented people working to put together a good production. As a design and production student I felt that this aspect of the show was incorporated well and gave the show a different view from what you expect from simply reading the play. I really enjoyed the look of the non-traditional trees and the affect they had on the production as a whole. This in combination with the lighting, media, and sound made a well designed production. The show as a whole can be a bit boring and some parts were more drawn out then need be but I am glad I got to see the show.
I thought that this review could have been better, I enjoyed the overview of the author's intentions and also a quick review of the show, but it could have been more substantial. I thought it was pretty generic review that was laking some critical substance. It was a summary of the play and I thought it could have used some more criticism. Bob Hoover strayed off from the intent of the review multiple times when he was talking about other plays in the area, but who cares about that if this is a review of the CMU production? There is also a typo when Hoover says, " The performances of Brian Muller and Bridget Peterson as the Proctors and Taylor Rose..." There should be no "s" in Proctor. Overall, this article could have used more concrete direct feedback on our production of the Crucible rather than typing background information of the play and author that you can find on Wikipedia.
I didn't feel like this was an actual review at all, rather than a dramaturgical synopsis of the show. There were parts added about Thomas Constantine Moore's character and other little bits, but overall, I felt that the author of the article could have provided even more personal insight into the show that they just saw. The article is whole-heartedly well-written, but I think that there could be more substance put into it. I do agree with the author's take on Tony McKay's direction in that I also found myself caught up in the subtleties of the characters and of the show in and of itself. I also thought that it was strange, yet justified that they mentioned Our Town. It's a brilliant show, yes, and it does relate, but its placement in a review of a different show confused me. Overall, I enjoyed reading this article, but I thought it was a bit bland.
I didn't know that our shows got reviews in the Pittsburgh Gazelle! That's so cool!Yes, I know I am probably the last person to realize this, don't judge me. Like this critic, I really enjoyed this production, the direction was really well done. I thought the tree set was super appropriate, and I do not know any other way media could have been incorporated into the show, and to be honest I do not even think the set needed it. The style of the platform really worked with the show, but if it were at all possible the platform may have been more affective if it were larger because the blocking seemed to be pretty restricted. I don't know if that was done from a set designer point or I directing standpoint.
I saw our production of the crucible and loved the performances in the show. I however do not think that they were overacted or overplayed, the performances I think reflected well the emotion and magnitude of the events.
I think this review does a very good job of describing our production of The Crucible. I completely agree with almost everything it said, especially about the straightforward approach of the directing. The first time I read this play was in the 8th grade, and I've read it twice since then. At first I didn't like it, but after the third time I read it, I realized that if done correctly, this play could be pretty great. After watching this production, that's exactly how I felt. What I liked most was the way the set only suggested things. There were only clues of where we were and what was happening without much being explicitly spelled out and I loved that the audience had to draw conclusions about what was happening the way the characters were.
This review, although it didn't really feel like a review, does a good job describing CMUs production of Miller's play. I read the play before seeing it, and after seeing the show I definitely liked it a lot more than when I just read it. I think that the trees made a great set for the show, and it was really cool how media was projected on to them. I think that it's cool that our shows get reviewed, but overall this review didn't really seem like all that much of one, and it lacked substance.
This review was barely a review, it was more of an review on Arthur Miller.
I worked this show backstage so I didn't see much of the acting but I agree that the set was brilliantly done and I like the surrealistic trees that sort of clash with the very realistic costumes.
I think that the acting on the show was brilliant, yes it was very dramatic, but I think that it was special this way.
Post a Comment