![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
Andy, Quin, and I went to see the new Broom Street Show this weekend. Sledgehammer Party. Regardless of the promise inherent in the name, the thought that kept running through my head was, "If I were invited to this party I would, um, leave." Quin was pissed that we didn't leave at intermission. I, however, am glad that we stayed. If we had not, I would forever wonder if it had gotten better towards the end. I mean, it had to get better at some point, right? It did not. Now I don't have to wonder.
To rate it on a scale of Good-to-Catwoman: It sucked MORE than Catwoman.
August 15 2005, 18:28:16 UTC 6 years ago
Watch Constantine last night. I was very impressed. :)
August 15 2005, 18:35:41 UTC 6 years ago
August 15 2005, 20:09:41 UTC 6 years ago
August 15 2005, 21:22:39 UTC 6 years ago
I myself think Rob is very talented, but probably won't see it because I'm not into especially violent plays.
"Topdog/Underdog" even kind of squigged me when I subbed for the sound guy at the Rep, and that doesn't even have much blood.
August 15 2005, 21:42:50 UTC 6 years ago
My biggest complaint was that it had holes in the plot that you could drive a bus through. The sort of holes that make it impossible to allow you to suspend disbelief enough to care about the story. Besides that, all of the characters were worthless. The audience was supposed to care that these four people were tearing themselves and each other apart. But hell, they all were sorry excuses for human beings, so deserved what ever bad thing happened to them. Instead of "Gosh, people sure can be evil, how terrible! Boy, that peek into the dark-side of human nature sure was enlightening" The reaction was "The creepy monkeys are fighting, who cares? But I wish that I didn't have to watch it."
August 17 2005, 04:46:49 UTC 6 years ago
September 3 2005, 06:25:20 UTC 6 years ago
Sorry it didn't work for you. Admittedly, I'm curious about what plot holes there were that you could drive a bus through. I kind of knew that the show would have this reaction in some people (we have had some walk outs as well as at least one standing ovation).
I sorta take issue about the complaint that you had to "dig" to get what I was going for, only becuase that was the idea--you sort of have to pay attention.
Let's face it, I just don't like writing shows about nice people doing nice things.
But CATWOMAN bad? Seriously. Fuck you.
It's, at the very least, "Paparazzi" bad.
September 6 2005, 02:02:24 UTC 6 years ago
That kept them from being believable or sympathetic. It seemed like you were trying to set up the scenario where "perfectly normal" people are pushed to logical, if extreme, circumstances by actions beyond their control. Since the characters were never established as sympathetic, their extreme behavior only elicited degust.
The transition also seemed too sudden. As audience members, people had to provide a lot of the narrative continuity with too few cues. We were left guessing as to why these people suddenly flipped out and started behaving so appallingly.
As far as being worse than Catwoman: Catwoman's intended to be dross. It succeeded. SHP had a great concept, but didn't deliver.
September 6 2005, 03:48:15 UTC 6 years ago
And these characters AREN'T "perfectly normal." Most of them are former troublemakers from their college or high school years (which is ALSO explicitly laid out).
And the lack of a bunch of "cues" was the intent--I actually wanted the audience to think for themselves. Too many shows provide WAY too much exposition and over-explaining, and I wanted to nudge the audience towards an idea and let them take it the rest of the way.
Again, it really does seem like your most major complaint is that you had to pay attention.
And the "Catwoman" comparison is just intended to be mean--and I recognised that.
"Dross." I had to look that up.
September 8 2005, 05:48:44 UTC 6 years ago
If the characters are so rotten (mean, unpleasant, irredeemable, yet boring and stupid) that no one cares if they die a fiery death in the end, and there is nothing else to engage the audience's interest, then the show doesn't come off well. A good villain is a beautiful thing. It's tricky to write one that the audience can identify with enough to care about. Hell, Hitler in Blind Spot was a sympathetic villain. Go figure.
The reasons (that they stayed) that were laid out weren't compelling enough to overcome a life-and-death situation. It made no sense. I can stretch disbelief pretty far, but that was too much. The characters do decide to stay, but their reasons seem spurious and unconvincing.
Actually, the Catwoman comment is based on a benchmark. I didn't use it to attack your work in particular. I use Catwoman as the basis for evaluating entertainment offerings. As in: The Tuxedo sucked roughly as much as Catwoman [or] Brothers Grimm didn't suck as much as Catwoman.
It breaks down when something is good. While I could say that Napoleon Dynamite sucked less than Catwoman without feeling like it looses too much, saying that either Psychos in Love or Million Dollar Baby sucked less than Catwoman, really isn't conveying that they were good. I don't have a good top end of the scale at this point. However, since it is for my journal, which I am surprise that people read, it works well enough.
September 8 2005, 06:12:14 UTC 6 years ago
No, no, I'm catching that that's your complaint, but nothing about what you've said truly indicates that you were digging at an early enough stage of the show to indicate that you even tried to see beneath the surface.
"The reasons (that they stayed) that were laid out weren't compelling enough to overcome a life-and-death situation. It made no sense. I can stretch disbelief pretty far, but that was too much. The characters do decide to stay, but their reasons seem spurious and unconvincing."
Two things:
1. I'm sorry, but people stick around ALL THE TIME for things they just shouldn't. Because of denial, or the urealistic hopes that maybe everything will work out (indeed, why did YOU stick around for the second act?).
2. The play is also not meant to be totally realistic. It pretends to be--but only up to a point.
"Actually, the Catwoman comment is based on a benchmark. I didn't use it to attack your work in particular. I use Catwoman as the basis for evaluating entertainment offerings."
This pretty much answers every question I'll ever have about your opinion.
September 8 2005, 06:20:52 UTC 6 years ago
The harder you plan to make it for them, the bigger the hook has to be.
I stayed because Broom Street often pulls off a good show, even if it doesn't look promising at first.
Re: Catwoman: if you find my sense of irony problematic, eh, not much I can do about that.
Best wishes with your future work.
September 8 2005, 06:23:43 UTC 6 years ago
Sigh. Right back at you.
September 8 2005, 06:50:23 UTC 6 years ago
Damned electronic communication allowing for no tone-of-voice references. Especially when dealing with touchy topics.
My apologies for the increasing hostility in the thread.
I was surprised when you, in particular, as the writer/director of the play posted a comment. My intention in responding was to provide honest feedback. It seemed like you wanted feedback, but I misread that as well.
If you feel, as indicated by your comments, that I am a stupid and lazy grazer of entertainment, you are entitled to your opinion.
September 10 2005, 04:05:48 UTC 6 years ago
September 11 2005, 00:09:14 UTC 6 years ago
Psychos in Love was BEAUTIFULLY entertaining. One of the best BST shows I've seen in my opinion.
While I stand by my statement that PIL sucked LESS than Catwoman, please note that the above statement indicated that it was so much better than Catwoman that the statement "It sucked less..." is effectively meaningless.
That was the point of the comment. The scale only works to evaluate things that range from blah to really bad. It is a weakness.
September 8 2005, 06:12:17 UTC 6 years ago
Your intentions didn't come across. When I read it, my mental response was "huh, I can... see... how they tried to... show that. I'd have like to have seen that play." I'm torn between feeling silly about trying so hard to find something meaningful in the play (and being so far off) and general irritation.
I appreciate that you feel that art should stand on its own without excessive exposition. I feel the same way about painting. However, if you let it stand on its own, people will be more likely to misunderstand it.
Being out there doing the work is the main thing. You deserve props for that.
September 8 2005, 06:21:56 UTC 6 years ago
Well, no. You don't.
I guess I just don't see how you missed the theme of miscommunication--it's actually kind of way out there and obvious in the dialogue.
"I'm torn between feeling silly about trying so hard to find something meaningful in the play (and being so far off) and general irritation."
Stick with the irritation. Works for me.
"I appreciate that you feel that art should stand on its own without excessive exposition. I feel the same way about painting. However, if you let it stand on its own, people will be more likely to misunderstand it."
That's basically the idea behind taking a risk. The price you pay is that others won't get it, won't like it, won't even regard it.
"Being out there doing the work is the main thing. You deserve props for that."
That's awesome of you to say, but earlier in the thread you did say to someone explicitly "Don't see it" when they were kind of on the fence.
I totally understand that this is your opinion, and, as you admitted, you just didn't get it. I was, you can imagine, a little peeved that you kept someone else from making that decision on their own.
As far as being suprised that people responded to your post--hey, welcome to the internet. You've just been served.
September 8 2005, 06:32:07 UTC 6 years ago
In my opinion, K (the person to whom the comment was directed) would not have enjoyed your show.
In my opinion, I would recommend against seeing that show. Because I found it to be weak.
I say "go you!" for having the balls to make art. It takes nerve to put yourself out there that way. However, just because you make it doesn't mean that people have to like it, or "get" it.
And yes, I would really have like to see the play you thought that you made.
September 8 2005, 06:35:17 UTC 6 years ago
Thank you for the service.
That's light-hearted sarcasm.
September 16 2005, 15:52:52 UTC 6 years ago
Anonymous
September 5 2005, 05:43:26 UTC 6 years ago
September 6 2005, 01:49:45 UTC 6 years ago
The problem I had with this play is that it FAILED. The concept was smart. The acting was decent. If it had worked, it would have been an interesting comment on the dark side of human nature and the willingness of people to destroy each other if they have the slightest opportunity to do so. I wish that I had seen that play. I appreciate a play that makes me think, especially considering things that are currently happening.
The main problem with the play, in my opinion, was that any of the characters could have LEFT at any time. There was no reason for them stay. This was such a compelling weakness that it ruined any suspended disbelief. It made it impossible to identify with any of them. They weren't stranded. There were no circumstances preventing their leaving. They had driven there. They could drive away. They had no compelling interpersonal connection to each other. The "work" they had to do was superfluous. The marriages were damaged on a base level before the play started. The "friendships" were barely existent.
Sorry man, it just didn't work. Please keep in mind that this is my opinion. I'm not particularly put off by plays that are violent or "deep", so that isn't the problem. I know that a lot of people put in a lot of effort to make the play happen, but it just didn't work for me.
Therefore, it is possible. Catwoman had a crappy concept, and crappier acting. It was ruined in production to make it more mass-marketable. It goal was to be a low-end consumer suck-fest. It hit it's target beautifully. The play had a grand concept that ended up poorly. Therefore, it sucked more than Catwoman.