I saw a production of "The Royal Family."
(Not the production of "The Royal Family" playing on Broadway, but hopefully that will be forthcoming.)
I saw a very good production of "The Royal Family"...or did I?
It seems like there are certain plays that need the hand of a strong director, a good cast, and/or amazing concepts and ideas. Whereas others just need you to not fuck them up.
Over the summer, I read a review for a play. I mean that literally. The review was of the play (actually, the musical) and not the production. The reviewer loved the musical, but didn't like the production. The production then proceeded to use the quotes the reviewer used to praise the musical--again, not the production--on its posters.
Does this make any sense?
I think a lot of people, including myself a lot of the time, have trouble separating the show from the work itself. In some cases it's not a question of--"Wow, what they did with that show was amazing." Sometimes it's just--"Wow, they didn't fuck that up. Good for them."
I should mention that I'm not trying to demean not fucking something up. Not fucking up is a huge undertaking a lot of the time. I've seen some people work REALLY hard at not fucking up, and fail miserably all the same.
To take a show like "The Royal Family," however, or other great works--and give the production credit that's really due to the invincible nature of the play, just doesn't seem right.
I think it's important to separate the two--This is what I think of the show, and this is what I think of the production.
Okay, what do you all think?
(Not the production of "The Royal Family" playing on Broadway, but hopefully that will be forthcoming.)
I saw a very good production of "The Royal Family"...or did I?
It seems like there are certain plays that need the hand of a strong director, a good cast, and/or amazing concepts and ideas. Whereas others just need you to not fuck them up.
Over the summer, I read a review for a play. I mean that literally. The review was of the play (actually, the musical) and not the production. The reviewer loved the musical, but didn't like the production. The production then proceeded to use the quotes the reviewer used to praise the musical--again, not the production--on its posters.
Does this make any sense?
I think a lot of people, including myself a lot of the time, have trouble separating the show from the work itself. In some cases it's not a question of--"Wow, what they did with that show was amazing." Sometimes it's just--"Wow, they didn't fuck that up. Good for them."
I should mention that I'm not trying to demean not fucking something up. Not fucking up is a huge undertaking a lot of the time. I've seen some people work REALLY hard at not fucking up, and fail miserably all the same.
To take a show like "The Royal Family," however, or other great works--and give the production credit that's really due to the invincible nature of the play, just doesn't seem right.
I think it's important to separate the two--This is what I think of the show, and this is what I think of the production.
Okay, what do you all think?
Comments
Post a Comment