another review
The L.A. Times review is up, and it's good. Enjoy.
The Variety review is up, and it's not good. So I'm not linking to it. Take that, Variety.
I'm actually watching the show again tonight -- something I don't always do. But I'm in the building to conduct the first of two post-show audience discussions. The second one is tomorrow night.
Most specifically, tonight I'm watching the show because we have a substitute actress going on. Not an understudy -- we didn't hire any understudies for this show. But the actress who normally plays one of the roles had a family situation arise that requires her to miss tonight's performance. Because we had about a week's notice on this, we were able to recruit one of the other performers who works with us regularly, to prepare for and do just this one show that the regular actress has to miss.
So tonight I'll do a curtain speech preparing the audience for that (I'm couching this as a "special occasion,") then I'll watch the show and pop back onstage after bows to do the audience discussion.
All of which means I must now go brush my teeth, fix up my face, and be backstage in 13 minutes. Au revoir, y'all.
posted by meeegan @ 7:10 PM
2 Comments:
Why do these reviews never mention you? Is that par for the course?
Er, I suppose I answered my own question there... maybe my real question is, "Why is that par for the course?"
Nice review, tho I have to wince a bit at "quirky radiance"...
It would be extremely hard for a reviewer to identify my work precisely enough to mention it in a review.
I sometimes use the following homespun simile to explain this:
dramaturgy is like red wine in spaghetti sauce. You don't want to taste the wine once the sauce is done, but if the wine isn't there the sauce won't be as good.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home