« The Net Closes Around DeLay | Apparently I'm an Asshat »
I got all excited about The Pillowman, by Martin McDonagh, at ACT. I previewed it. I suggested it.
“So how come there’s no review in the paper?” people have asked.
“Because I want to give other shows some ink,” I have answered. “But if you want to, you can read my two reviews (one for people who’ve seen it, one for people who haven’t) online.”
Enjoy, David! Like I said, there are some problems with the play and with the production, but they're interesting problems, worth seeing and discussing.
Right, folks? Anybody out there see it and think it's flat-out crapola?
Aw man, so not only does it suck, but I'm going to have to discuss problems with the production afterward? I'm attending with a veteran of Seattle theater who has way more education in theater arts than anyone should be allowed. This will be as funny as me trying to describe the qualities of a wine.
I misspoke—it doesn't suck. But it's imperfect. In an interesting way.
To borrow a phrase from Dina, I was just givin' you hard times.
Right. Let me know what you think after you see the show.
I saw the play last night and I enjoyed it very much. The only people that left during intermission were the old folks who slept during the first act.
As far as the play itself, *(SPOILER)*I found it interesting that Katurian wanted to establish his legacy by saving his stories. For most of us who won't have a street or building named after ourselves, or create a piece of work that can last through the ages, having children is the most realistic way common people can keep their names and legacy intact. But most of Katurian's plays were about killing children. I also think he killed his brother out of selfishness instead of compassion (like the play wants you to believe) so that his legacy would remain.
The first act is tedious (except for the guy who plays Topolsky (sp?)). Thirty-forty members of the audience bailed at intermission.
The second act descends into high school level victim drama. That this play is considered good is bad news for theater.
The first act is tedious (except for the guy who plays Topolsky (sp?)). Thirty-forty members of the audience bailed at intermission.
The second act descends into high school level victim drama. That this play is considered good is bad news for theater.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).
Weeza goin on the 8th. On your recommendation. So if it sucks it's _your fault_!