I'm going to be harsh right off the bat and say that it's a pity that our first review was written by someone who apparently has no idea about theatre, let alone the purpose of a review. Before we've even hit the bottom of the first column she opines that the script needs updating to suit "today's audience." Firstly, the show is a period piece. I ask you - what is the point of putting on a period piece if the script is modern? Secondly, the script was written in 1997/98, and is as modern as it can be while remaining faithful to the 80's style.
The phrase "Cheesy is not always charming," not unlike a slice of three thouseand year old Gorgonzola, stinks to high heaven. Let me be clear that this is only my opinion (I have not actually seen the song from an audience's point of view since we moved into the theatre, and it has evolved a great deal since then), but in my opinion the song is not cheesy at all, and it is not performed as such. There is a great deal of connection between the two women, and this aspect is accentuated by a backwards glance towards the other as they leave opposite sides of the stage. Towards the end of this paragraph Rosetta Mastrantone yet again expresses her discontent with the script, calling for a "reinterpretation" to keep "the essence of the play." In essence, she seems to have missed it entirely.
Now, at last, she begins to speak about the other members of the cast, giving strong (well deserved) reviews for most of the leading roles (although I think that, in her three-word summation of Bomont, the phrase "strange redneck town" misses the mark somewhat). Most damningly, however, she completely neglects to mention one of the most important and strongest voiced actors in the show - Nicolle Hartnett, who plays opposite Brady Lloyd's excellent Willard. It is apparent to me that Rosetta must have been inattentive for much of the show if she missed even a moment of Nicolle's brilliant performance - particularly if she missed out on that voice. Nicolle's range and power leave many voices dead in the water, and the future has great things in store for her vocally once she grows into her voice and learns to harness its extraordinary range and power.
Not content with calling the script into question twice already, Rosetta subjects it to further bashing as the review draws to a close, calling it an "awkward translation." Yet she does try to make it appear as though she has a clue by giving a backhanded compliment to we who swell the ranks of community theatre, by saying that alot of people got behind the show. How patronising. She then recommends that the readers get along and see the show "if you are a fan of the 1980's and nostalgia is your bag." One suspects from the tone of this final statement that nostalgia is most definitely not her "bag."
All in all this review is somewhat of a non-review. Rosetta Stone manages to fill the bottom quarter of a Sunday Mail page by using an awful lot of words to say nothing much at all. She might as well saved the effort and the ink and left it blank.
No comments:
Post a Comment