First off, Screen Plays production of The Entertainer is not perfect. And the play is clunky in parts (most of Osbornes plays are). But there were many beautifully executed and acted scenes throughout the evening. I applaud the company for staging Osbornes rarely performed in this country -- masterpiece. With that stated, what strikes me most about Leah Stacys review is all the missed opportunity. Does she analyze the plays interpretation? No. Does she consider why someone as savvy as Jean Gordon Ryon would mount a production of the play in America in 2017? No. Does Stacy applaud any aspect of the piece in clear, concise detail? No. Is she specific about the artistic choices that are not successful in the production? No.
I would like to know what Stacy thinks a theatre critics duty is to the public. She does not write reviews; she writes off topic summaries. Her lack of interest, or maybe insight, adds nothing to the public dialogue about theatre.
Stacys summary is littered with misinformed head scratchers. She argues that, the addition of musical numbersseemed unnecessary and did not compliment the strengths of the cast. Though Andrew Links composed new musical arrangements, John Osborne, the playwright, wrote the lyrics. The musical numbers are an intricate part of the narrative. They are not an addition. Does Stacy bother to read the program notes? No. The songs reflect the music hall turn as the play moves forward. They are sung a bit off key because they are being sung by broken-down music hall performers. Stacy later takes an empty, crowd-pleasing stand when she writes, the barrage of racist and sexist slurs and slang throughout the script felt unintelligent and outdated, rather than contextual. The use of that language is supposed to be unintelligent and outdated. It is being spoken by the unintelligent and the outdated. The only characters to use it are the older generations, not the young. The oldest member of the family, Billy, uses it the most. It is also contextual because this ugly language used by the old order is also present in Archies empty, unfunny music hall routines. The world is moving on. But does Stacy even ask herself why Osborne would use such language in context? No.
Stacys summary of The Entertainer is a pitch perfect example of all Osborne is criticizing about the death of culture and country. In the play Phoebe states, You like a nice play. But I cant sit for long; Id rather have a spot of pictures. Stacy begins her summary stating she cant sit for long if the plays context is off and then makes reference to a film. Archie Rice makes empty jokes to a clapped out crowd; Stacys review contains a joke about the length of a middle school relationship and the old chestnut about Rochesters brief summers. The play is riddled with empty political posturing directed at the ill-informed. Refer to the earlier example of Stacys take on foul language or how she states that the plays subject matter, probably hold[s] more meaning for a British crowd.
Re: “Theater review: Screen Plays' 'The Entertainer'”
First off, Screen Plays production of The Entertainer is not perfect. And the play is clunky in parts (most of Osbornes plays are). But there were many beautifully executed and acted scenes throughout the evening. I applaud the company for staging Osbornes rarely performed in this country -- masterpiece. With that stated, what strikes me most about Leah Stacys review is all the missed opportunity. Does she analyze the plays interpretation? No. Does she consider why someone as savvy as Jean Gordon Ryon would mount a production of the play in America in 2017? No. Does Stacy applaud any aspect of the piece in clear, concise detail? No. Is she specific about the artistic choices that are not successful in the production? No.
I would like to know what Stacy thinks a theatre critics duty is to the public. She does not write reviews; she writes off topic summaries. Her lack of interest, or maybe insight, adds nothing to the public dialogue about theatre.
Stacys summary is littered with misinformed head scratchers. She argues that, the addition of musical numbersseemed unnecessary and did not compliment the strengths of the cast. Though Andrew Links composed new musical arrangements, John Osborne, the playwright, wrote the lyrics. The musical numbers are an intricate part of the narrative. They are not an addition. Does Stacy bother to read the program notes? No. The songs reflect the music hall turn as the play moves forward. They are sung a bit off key because they are being sung by broken-down music hall performers. Stacy later takes an empty, crowd-pleasing stand when she writes, the barrage of racist and sexist slurs and slang throughout the script felt unintelligent and outdated, rather than contextual. The use of that language is supposed to be unintelligent and outdated. It is being spoken by the unintelligent and the outdated. The only characters to use it are the older generations, not the young. The oldest member of the family, Billy, uses it the most. It is also contextual because this ugly language used by the old order is also present in Archies empty, unfunny music hall routines. The world is moving on. But does Stacy even ask herself why Osborne would use such language in context? No.
Stacys summary of The Entertainer is a pitch perfect example of all Osborne is criticizing about the death of culture and country. In the play Phoebe states, You like a nice play. But I cant sit for long; Id rather have a spot of pictures. Stacy begins her summary stating she cant sit for long if the plays context is off and then makes reference to a film. Archie Rice makes empty jokes to a clapped out crowd; Stacys review contains a joke about the length of a middle school relationship and the old chestnut about Rochesters brief summers. The play is riddled with empty political posturing directed at the ill-informed. Refer to the earlier example of Stacys take on foul language or how she states that the plays subject matter, probably hold[s] more meaning for a British crowd.
Dead behind the eyes indeed.