#review critique theatre | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

murfpersonalblog · 5 months

Text

IWTV S2 - Three spicy/spoilery reviews

The reviewers are just saying whatever they want, I guess! O_O

Here's my favorite bits from TheWrap, ComicBook, and IGN.

I've decided to mix and match them, comparing what they each say about similar themes/topics/reveals.

ELEVATING THE SOURCE MATERIAL

TELL IT! It's about adding DEPTH, y'all, not just a 1:1 page-to-screen.

Intellectual horror, instead of psychological horror--fascinating.

An "even more authentic adaptation" -- WE BEEN KNEW!!! I roll my eyes at book stans who hate on the show, acting like the movie was more accurate just cuz it was set during slavery times with white actors. 🙄 Like PLEASE, there's so much missing from the movie, or glossed over, or straight up changed, that the show-antis just demonstrate how shallow they are when their every attack hinges on the timeline/race/age changes. Cry harder.

MORE elevated than Season 1--you love to see it.

Yaaas, bring on the petty melodramatic mess, and fierce performances! 👏

CLAUDIA & MADELEINE

Because Bailey used profanity to convey her agony being a woman trapped in an adolescent's body in S1 too, I'm assuming Delainey will just cuss more? But cussing is all over the show, so I don't get it.

Everyone keeps raving about Roxane as Madeleine, but they've been SO CLOSE-LIPPED about her scenes, and it's KILLING me. 😭

"Deeply willful around Louis"--yeah, we saw a glimpse of that in the trailer; it's what he deserves. Give 'em hell, Claudia!

And yeah, she's PISSED that they cast her as Baby LouLou--imagine, being infantalized, and given the name of the father you've already gone through so much to emancipate yourself from as a "Brother" instead of "Daddy Lou." 😒 Eff Louis--where's Claudia's scythe at!?

LOUIS / LOUMAND

"Nonsense--" TheWrap isn't holding back a single punch huh?

"dating show contestants feigning authenticity to clumsily present themselves in the best light--" oof. 💀

Holy god; "begging the question...if Louis has just traded one abuser for another" GO AWF! 🚩🚩🚩

DANIEL / DEVIL'S MINION

Wow, so this must refer to Episode 5 from the episode titles list released recently. "Genuine horror".... 😈

RIP. 💀 Youngmaniel might see some action, but Oldmaniel's "utterly allergic and adversarial;" OOF. 💀💀

ARMAND

They keep saying petty. 😅 These messy queens are a trip!

"Far more powerful" -- I am SEATED~! I wanna see THE coven master!

Yaaas, come through Children of Satan/Darkness acolyte! 😈

"Scarred and transformed by the same man" -- they sound like war veterans. U_U

LESTAT / LOUSTAT

"the show's primary villain--" say it louder. Book stans need to stop projecting post-IWTV Lestat the hero/protagonist/MC into the narrative that LOUIS is telling, as a guy struggling to get over his ex.

"There to berate him for his poor choices--" this tracks with the trailer released today, too, where the producers said Dream-Stat would "pass judgement" on Louis' pisspoor actions.

PRODUCTION (Sets, Costumes, etc)

Yes, IWTV S1 was absolutely gorgeous; their attention to detail was immaculate. And so far it looks like S2 is gonna be just as nice. I REALLY like what I've seen of the Threatre's aesthetic.

THEATRE DES VAMPIRES & SANTIAGO

I freaking love this. XD

Agreeing with him about WHAT though? 🤨 That Louis & Claudia are hiding things? Or that they deserve to die because of it? (Especially since Lestat is OBVIOUSLY not actually dead, so what "crime/rules" are they actually breaking, Lord Kangaroo Court?)

TALAMASCA & CRITIQUES

Thank you lord god kamisama flying spaghetti monster he's a Talamascan, not another secret vampire.

But now I'm nervous, thanks to the ComicBook review:

Uh oh. The Talamasca feels forced & out of place. 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

The AVENGERS INITIATIVE. 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀

But they say it feels like "Daniel's being recruited--" YES PLEASE. 🙏 If Daniel's not gonna be a vampire, at least let him be a Talamascan. Ain't no way he can return to the mundane world after all this.

My BIGGEST complaint about IWTV as a franchise is its tenuous connection to the Immortals Universe. AMC is dropping the ball hard on creating an ARCU--Anne Rice's Cinematic Universe. There are SO MANY immortals & supernaturals we should've BEEN seen in S1, walking the streets of NOLA. I will say this every time: Oncle Vervain Mayfair should've been brought in from the OG pilot script. We should've seen Louis go to him for gris-gris before the poker game, and introduce Lestat to Vervain as a practitioner of what Louis thought was "European voodoo." Also: we should've seen Lasher. There should've been a scene where the Mayfairs told the vampires to GTFO their territory, and keep their hunting grounds on the other side of town. Like, the Mayfair Witches show sucks like you wouldn't believe, it's so stupid (looks gorgeous though), but the WORLDBUILDING is ripe for the taking! And AMC did squat with it!

Like, tbh, I don't see the point of a whole Talamasca show, and if it's handled by Esta & the gang from MW, then I don't wanna see it--I WILL, ofc, but I won't WANT to. Especially since we haven't seen any ghosts. ISTG, PLEASE have Merrick Mayfair in Ep7 or Ep8--not only will that bridge IWTV with MW, but it can perfectly lead to Blackwood Farm., while keeping the threads between vampires, ghosts, AND the Taltos (if they're determined to do a Lestat/Rowan crossover from Blood Canticle 🤢🤮).

I was wondering why so many reviews were giving it 4/5 or 9/10, like wtf are y'all being so stingy for!? But if this is the problem, then I'm not surprised, I've been complaining about it the whole time.

#interview with the vampire #iwtv spoilers #iwtv season 2 spoilers #iwtv tvc metas #justice for claudia #loumand #loustat #the hype is real #must see tv

25 notes · View notes

nerves-nebula · 1 year

Text

SPIDERVERSE 2 MOVIE REVIEW: BEST FIRST HALF OF A MOVIE IVE EVER SEEN

What

WHAWHST

At the end everyone in the theatre exploded

my only critique is that it isn’t 4 hours long and I’m not joking

#nnstuff #spiderverse 2 #spiderverse 2 spoilers

99 notes · View notes

droughtofapathy · 5 months

Text

"Theatre critic circles are in desperate need of diverse voices, and these old white men cannot be the only arbiters of good and bad in the industry," and "it's not the feminist take you think it is to dismiss a show's negative reviews just because it's men who are raising the valid critiques you yourself see but can and will overlook because you're attached to a show you say is 'written for the girls, gays, etc." are two viewpoints that can coexist.

It might be easy to dismiss a male critic's pan of a show because it's meant for women. That's not feminism. That's gender essentialism. The show may be written for a queer female audience, but should queer women not also demand quality and cohesion in a show's book and score, or must we always be satisfied by the crumbs we are given? We should not be arguing that just because a show is geared towards a female audience, it must be above critique, or that the real and present flaws in the book and score are only important to men, and all women will like it anyway.

As a queer woman of color, had I been a critic, my review would have been mixed to negative just like all those men you dismissed because the problems do not change from a gendered perspective. The book is weak. The score disjointed. The protagonist watered-down. It's like the writers set out to say "it's a queer love story," but didn't do the work to delve any deeper, and hoped to carry the show on that alone. Queer stories deserve to be held to the same high standard as any other show, and boiling it down to "it's queer so you have to like it and critics are homophobic" is a ridiculous, immature, reductive statement.

#lempicka #broadway #this is about lempicka but also my main point stands with many recent pieces of media geared towards women #like the whole “can't criticize barbie” because it's for women and you're sexist if you hate it #or anyone who hates that blonde pop singer is misogynistic #no i just have fucking taste and want something better #and not to dismiss the single positive review (by a female critic) but like...look at the outlet #nytheatreguide isn't exactly where i'd go for quality reviews: it's more of a marketing site/press release than a news outlet #can't talk about this on the discord because it's like lecturing lemmings

16 notes · View notes

steelbluehome · 3 months

Text

Screen Daily

A Different Man’: Sundance Review

BY TIM GRIERSON, SENIOR US CRITIC

22 JANUARY 2024

Seabastian Stan discovers that beauty is skin deep in this ’moody modern fairytale’

"Writer-director Aaron Schimberg’s third feature boasts three remarkable performances, including Sebastian Stan as the self-loathing thespian"

A gutsy satire that eviscerates ’beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ platitudes while sensitively exploring the stigma around facial disfigurement, A Different Man is a moody modern fairy tale in which an aspiring actor who blames his lack of success on his looks unexpectedly gets a new appearance — only to discover that his problems are more than skin deep.

A blistering portrait of identity, authenticity and chronic dissatisfaction

Writer-director Aaron Schimberg’s third feature boasts three remarkable performances, including Sebastian Stan as the self-loathing thespian and Adam Pearson, a British actor with neurofibromatosis. Pearson’s very presence challenges the film to avoid exploitation and, instead, offer a blistering portrait of identity, authenticity (both in the arts and in life), and chronic dissatisfaction.

A24 will release A Different Man in the US later this year, following a premiere at the Sundance Film Festival. Arthouse crowds should easily warm to this funny, thought-provoking existential comedy that might draw comparisons to Charlie Kaufman’s mind-bending, melancholy work. Stan’s stardom could help grosses, and he is also joined by The Worst Person In The World’s Renate Reinsve as well as Pearson, who is well known in the UK for his campaigning work.

Lonely, depressed Edward (Stan) has neurofibromatosis, struggling to land acting jobs in New York as a result. (The only gig he has been able to book lately is a workplace instructional video meant to educate employees not to be repulsed by those who are ’facially different’.) His new neighbour is the beautiful Ingrid (Reinsve), a budding playwright whose warm feelings for him appear to be only platonic. Despondent that she will never love him, Edward volunteers for an experimental drug program that could ‘cure’ his condition, and in short order, his tumours are gone — leaving him looking like the hunky Sebastian Stan. Now calling himself Guy, and informing acquaintances that Edward committed suicide, he happily plots his new existence.

Schimberg, whose 2019 comedy Chained For Life also starred Pearson, has delivered a nervy premise that avoids predictably patronising pleas for tolerance. Instead, the writer-director sharply critiques an insecure, self-pitying actor who comes to understand that changing his face really does not change anything at all.

Edward initially enjoys life as Guy — the random hookups, a killer job as a slick real-estate agent — but when he later sees Ingrid on the streets, he follows her and discovers that she has written a heartbreaking play about him, called Edward, that borrows heavily from their friendship. A Different Man’s twists should not be spoiled, but let it be said that Edward decides to audition for the title role — after all, who knows Edward better than he? — and courts Ingrid, who does not recognise him, only for their romance to be interrupted by Oswald (Pearson), a charming stranger who has neurofibromatosis and visits the theatre during rehearsals, excited to see a play that treats his condition with tactfulness.

A Different Man puts us into Edward’s head, the camera often capturing him as he looks longingly at all the seemingly blissful people around him who are free of the medical condition that he feels is his burden. But despite Oscar-nominee Mike Marino’s superb makeup work, it is telling that, once we see Pearson, we recognise how even the expert prosthetics fail to convey what neurofibromatosis looks like; just one way in which Schimberg questions his and other artists’ attempt to tell stories about disfigurement. Are they inherently exploitative? Insultingly patronising? Can someone without the condition ever fully appreciate what it is like to have neurofibromatosis? Rather than being coyly meta about these questions, A Different Man dissects them with intelligence and humour.

Reinsve shines as a kind soul whose relationship with Edward/Guy evolves in unexpected ways, but it is the interplay between Stan and Pearson that elevates A Different Man to another, more poignant and biting level. Stan portrays Edward as withdrawn and despondent, cannily playing into the audience’s pitying assumptions about a disfigured character. But when Pearson arrives, he explodes them, depicting Oswald as a confident, funny man, which shocks Edward (now going as Guy), who learns too late that his insecurity held him back — not his neurofibromatosis. Stan’s performance as Guy is full of nuanced anguish, the response of a man who thought being handsome was all he needed.

In the later reels, Schimberg sends the film down a dark, bitterly ironic path, consistently confronting our preconceived notions about attraction, beauty and the need to be truly seen. Some people will always want what they do not have, but it is hard to imagine anyone feeling short-changed by such a tonally rich, thematically ambitious film.

Production companies: Killer Films, Grand Motel Films

International sales: A24, [email protected]

Producers: Christine Vachon, Vanessa McDonnell, Gabriel Mayers

Cinematography: Wyatt Garfield

Production design: Anna Kathleen

Editing: Taylor Levy

Music: Umberto Smerilli

Main cast: Sebastian Stan, Renate Reinsve, Adam Pearson

#sebastian stan #a different man #adam pearson #renate reinsve #aaron schimberg

8 notes · View notes

tomcat-reusables · 1 year

Text

Why Asteroid City is Better Than the Reviews, IMDb Isn’t Always Right, and You’re a Shitty Painting - an essay of sorts

Asteroid City (2023), despite what critics would have you believe given it’s rated just a sliver above the 2012 adaptation of Dr Seuss's “The Lorax '', was (to me) genuinely a fantastic movie. For its entire run I sat there in the theatre, thinking “why can’t people appreciate this film!”. I’m sick of the reviews blatantly coming from the place of the critics analysing it from the lens of a science fiction story when in reality, it’s more-so an abstract exploration of the delicate relationship between art, artist, portrayal and probably not aliens.

ASTEROID CITY IS NOT A SCI FI MOVIE AND I'M GOING TO BOMB THE IMDB HEADQUARTERS IF I SEE ONE MORE BIG SHOT MOVIE CRITIC INSISTING THAT IT IS (for all intents and purposes this is a joke, to the fbi agent looking through my webcam I’m a pretentious teenager year old without the technical knowledge to make any kind of explosive device)

Or maybe it isn’t supposed to be understood at all, maybe that movie was simply an excuse to build a fake town in the desert and some puppets. And in a way that’s just as beautiful, postmodernism is more than worthy of critique, but when it looks pretty and makes us feel anything at all, it’s safe to say it’s at least partially doing it’s job

Asteroid city however, is merely an example I used to express my burning personal hatred for movie critics. I actively avoid reading the reviews for anything that brings me joy, because I’m aware at this point that the statements I read are going to contain some of the most insane, infuriating possible opinions anyone could have of a piece of media, and I am beginning to suspect more and more that critics, not just of movies but of genuinely anything in existence that can possibly be critiqued, aren’t expressing their legitimate opinions but rather spewing whatever inflammatory nonsense they believe will cause some kind of controversy or outrage, because outrage sells. If one fact has been proven over the course of human civilization, it’s that outrage gets more clicks, more views, more exposure.

Obviously anyone in their right or wrong mind understands that someone else’s opinion doesn’t at all determine the objective quality of a given ‘thing’, but it can often be hard to NOT give what they have to say a chance. I genuinely resent possessing the empathy to consider the thoughts of others despite how objectively incorrect they seem. But they’re people too! They could have a point! I say to myself as they tear apart something that is personally very meaningful to me. Curse in disguise I guess. But in the end, what is objective quality? if something at its core is bad, but you receive personal enjoyment from it, or it’s even sentimental to you or has made a positive change in your life, does it quality or lack of matter? Does it really matter what some 45 year old man sipping on a glass of champagne as he adjusts his spectacles to spew pretentious nonsense into the IMDb critic reviews, might think about a movie that got you through a rough time, or an album you grew up listening to? Are we allowed to enjoy ‘bad’ art? And most divisive of all, is there such a thing as bad art?

I once read an article about a museum of bad art, submissions would often be rejected for being too good. And yes, the examples of art displayed within this unique exhibition were unnerving, technically poor, but meaningless? I’m not at all one to determine that. Even absolutely meaningless, humorous, random art has a meaning, and that meaning is derived from the fact that no matter how positively offensive to the eyes or ears may be, it was still created. Think about everything that’s ever come into existence within the fabric of our reality, no, think about everything that hasn’t. It’s impossible for us to imagine the magnitude of the things that are possible but simply haven’t been thought of, conceived. Maybe it’s a hit to your self esteem to think your parents could have given birth to the next DaVinci, the next Stephen Hawking, the second coming of Christ! But instead gave birth to you. Do you consider yourself a work of bad art? Does your life have meaning?

All this to simply explain that the interpretations of a few writers put on a pedestal shouldn’t have any place to decide our stance on a piece of media. Yes these reviews can certainly influence the way we feel, or articulate the points we have, but if or when you feel genuinely hurt by the fact that someone disagrees with, misunderstands or dislikes something that’s personally meaningful and enjoyable to you, their opinion doesn’t always matter regardless of the status their name may have achieved (this is of course, excluding when the media in question is blatantly problematic, which poses another debate in itself. Is it still homophobic if I like it? Find out next time on I’m Getting Overly Passionate About Seeing Some Reviews I Disagree With)

In conclusion, it’s ok to enjoy what you enjoy, regardless of the subjective or even objective quality of it, we as the consumers are the ones to truly decide how “good” or “bad” something is. That’s the core concept behind why critics exist, to guide those who don’t wish to form an opinion for themselves, to do the job for us, but when we’ve done said job for ourselves it’s never wrong to disagree with someone over something that is personally meaningful to you. It’s almost guaranteed someone will disagree with the points made in this essay of sorts, but that doesn’t make either of us right or wrong. In the end, these previous 962 words have truly amounted to one encompassing phrase: “you are entitled to your opinion”

#asteroid city #wes anderson #essay #bad art is good actually #fun fact I’m an amateur writer or something #Don’t take this too seriously I wrote half of it in class

27 notes · View notes

widgenstain · 1 year

Text

Alright, almost a week later, here is my review of Vanya and the night I saw it. Autocorrect didn't let me type this on my phone in my grimy bunk bed and that cold got me good, but here are my thoughts! @itsathingialwayssay , @shegottosayit , @illfayted17 this might interest you. Be aware, there are spoilers for the play as well as the production behind the read more.

I saw the play on Monday September 25th, so my opinions are based on that evening, can’t say anything about other nights!

I’ll start with some negatives:

The theatre. Not so much the interior or the personnel, who are absolutely lovely, but why oh why did I have to hear the trains throughout the whole performance?! At first, I thought it was on purpose, with it being the Russian country side, so you might hear some trains here and there, but no, it’s Charing Cross that you hear. Also it’s freaking expensive, but we knew that.

Secondly, I was annoyed by the audience. It was a surprisingly large number of classic elderly theatre goers, who all seemed to enjoy themselves a lot (except for one guy who snored), some teenagers dragged there by their parents (or the promise of seeing Moriarty) and some assholes, like the ladies next to me. One came in after the first act, prosecco in hand, they whispered to each other during weird moments and generally seemed bored and/or disappointed. Which is their prerogative, you don’t have to like everything I do, but with these two it seemed… performative.

Also, about the standing ovations: I get Andrew’s critique, it’s dumb if you feel like you MUST do it, but the fact is, that in a theatre that small, you don’t get to see the person bowing, if you don’t stand up. So yeah, people stood up, I did too (because unlike in Austria where you clap for like 5 minutes if you DIDN’T like it and for like 30 if you did, in the UK they only come out to take a bow once or twice and I wanted to see him), but these two ladies just left with sourpuss faces.

Thirdly the cigarettes. I knew he was going to smoke on stage, what I wasn’t prepared for was them smelling this bad. They’re not normal cigarettes, they’re of the self-rolled, cheap student tobacco kind, that you only really use for blunts. They reeked. If you’re in the first few rows, I’m sorry.

Fourthly, I don’t know if the play really lent itself to a one man show. Don’t get me wrong, I loved what Simon did with it, the way he mostly cut out the love rivalry between Vanya and the doctor, and shifted the focus more on Helena was a great decision. It made the play more cohesive and boiled it down to its message quicker. Loved the modern language and the Britishisms (could have dealt without the name changes, no one is called Vanya in a play named Vanya) and it was truly laugh out loud funny at times, which is great, because I’m depressed enough without listening to depressed Russian people for a full show.

But still, while it all worked in the end, I think there are plays better suited for this treatment. I have spoken to shegottosayit about this, but I also think they kinda expected a familiarity with the play, because it helps you following the plot. I talked to two girls in the queue outside though and they weren’t familiar with the play and understood it well, so what do I know.

Which brings me to the great stuff. The whole thing starts with Andrew just wandering on stage, smiling into the audience, switching off our lights and turning them on on stage. As if to communicate, ok, we’re in the theatre, you’re here to watch a play, I am an actor doing that play, like we’re all in on a joke. He starts with the different characters and they all have an identifier. For example, Vanya has his sunglasses, Helena her chain, Sonya her dishrag and it’s all nice, haha, see the actor is using props, so you know who is who, it’s simple and harmless. That’s how he gets you. Because he doesn’t need them and over the course of the play he starts playing and fucking with them and it’s SO GOOD!

He doesn’t change his voice much between characters, except the two “funny” ones (and maybe Alexander), there he goes a bit into more comical registers, but for the main characters he pretty much uses the same voice. And you still can tell them apart! Because he changes posture, his body language, yes, his tone, but not his voice and the levels of masculinity and femininity (in a traditional sense), yet he never veers into camp or offensive (that aspect really fed into my unpopular opinion on the whole “straight actors in gay roles” discourse, which I will never talk about). It’s incredible to watch how fast and seamlessly he does that and how effortless too. That’s the craziest thing about watching him act, he makes it seem easy, as if it’s nothing to him.

And the faces. The theatre has opera binoculars you can rent for one pound, I forgot my glasses (mild myopia, objects further away get blurry after a long day, especially if they’re an actor I’m watching from the second to last row), so I was super glad to have them and look at his face close up. What did I see? He changes faces. I’ve seen him do it before, but in this it’s instantly and so quickly! I’m not gonna lie, it’s a bit creepy how he can change his facial shape somehow and go from sweet Sonya to hardened Ivan Vanya. It’s not just countenance or expressions, it’s something else and wow is it impressive! But a bit scary too once you think about it. ^^’

Also “zooming in” on him really cleared up something I’ve been wondering about ever since I’ve seen King Lear: One of Andrew’s biggest shortcomings on film can be that he sometimes comes across as too much, as a bit over the top. It is a theatre actor thing and he’s not the only one doing it (especially not in King Lear) and yes, that completely disappears live on stage. He acts for the whole house, but it always feels natural.

The one thing that felt a little bit forced was the singing in the end, he's right, he’s not a good singer (sorry!) and it took me out a little bit. The ending of Vanya is beautiful and heartfelt, I get what they wanted to achieve with him singing “If you go away”, it was a pause, a mood setter, but I think there are better ways to do this than through a musical interlude. That said, I saw A Little Life the other night, which is by the same production company, they made poor James Norton sing too and compared to him Andrew sings like an angel. So maybe I’m just a massive snob (hint: I am).

The other things that took me out a little were the sex scenes. Yeah, sex scenes in a one man play where the original play has none (at least not explicitly so). Damn, it’s been almost a week and my mind is still reeling from them. Did I like them? I have no fucking clue! I seriously need to talk to someone who didn’t have Andrew star in all her lonely sexy fantasies for the past 4 years, because I need to know how they affected someone with a normal, working brain who is not me.

I was torn between “wtf is going on” “JESUS HE TOOK HIS SHIRT OFF” “…you’re watching a dude make out with himself…” “…the sounds…” “don’t look at his naked back while he’s humping the stage, that’s rude, OH GOD YES LOOK AT HIS NAKED BACK, LOOK AT IT MOVE”. The second scene was even worse, because he’s standing up against a door, entangles his fucking impressive arms and moans as the lady while you see him move as the guy. Which was, yes, hotconfusingweird too, but I could have dealt with it, if he hadn’t mimed the penetration literally two seconds before and my brain just short-circuited and disappeared downstairs. The third confusingly hot thing happens in the end, when the doctor says his goodbyes. It’s actually a very good and touching scene, it has been set up that he’s falling into alcoholism and now that all his endeavours are nil, he downs more than half a bottle of vodka. We’ve all seen Andrew chug that beer in The Town and he does it here as well, but it takes a while and it’s so quiet in the theatre that you can hear him swallow and cry all the way through. Yeah. Yeah, I know.

Seriously though, there are more than one moment when the whole theatre is just stock-still. I mean, people laughed and reacted, again, one guy snored, I sighed a lot at Sonya (#ohlookitme), but in the important moments the theatre was dead quiet. Except for Charing Cross, of course.

When I left the theatre, my brain was buzzing and I walked out right into the backstage area. I read “backstage to the right” and was ready to walk to the right, even though no one was there. Except that stupid me HAD to ask the security, who I recognised from pics and the Cyrano backstage, if that was the way to the signings. And no, it wasn’t, that’s literally in front of the theatre (and honestly, probably why there are no selfies allowed this time, if they were, people would block that busy street for hours), I was walking towards the actual stage door. If I had had just one ounce of more self-confidence, I just could have kept on walking into the dressing rooms, God damnit!! (I’m kidding, I would never do that, and it would most likely get me banned for life, but still, it was a funny situation and that security was actually really nice and cool).

As for the signing, it’s a straight-forward affair, you line up, you move forwards, he signs your stuff, you move on (except if you’re an old lady, but more of that later). I soaked him in in all my manic brain overloaded happiness while waiting for my turn though, and the first thing I noticed was that he isn’t as short as people pretend he is. Yes, he wore some trainers with a thicker sole, but with them he wasn’t that much shorter than I am. Perfect height, for eye-contact, just saying.

Second thing was that he’s in the shape of his life, dear Lord! I always read him as wiry, which can look buff on screen, but no, he’s genuinely, proper buff. Those are some serious arms and just generally he’s wider than I would have expected. Other than that, he looks pretty much exactly like he does on screen. Some actors don’t, they’re either plainer or prettier (Anne-Marie Duff, she really was fucked over by some cruel form of unphotogenicness) in fact, the second night I went there I saw Sam Yates (he shook my hand :D) and he does not look like he does in pics for example. Andrew does. He has a fascinating and alive face and looks just like he did in that Vanity Fair video, except without the orange goo.

The first night I saw Simon Stephens coming out the stage door too and I literally hopped over to him, beaming like a loon. He and the people he was with were SO nice and so helpful, he signed my version of Vanya (the German edition) and I could actually voice my thoughts (which I couldn’t with Andrew) and tell him how much his interviews have helped me through the lockdowns and how I admire his writing, bla bla bla.

Anyway, I made him laugh, he shook my hand and said “it was a pleasure meeting you [widge’s real name]” in which moment my jaw literally did that looney tunes thing and dropped to my chest. Night was MADE, you don’t understand how much!

[Here I cut out a large chunk of extra thoughts to allow myself to post this in the tags]

Anyway, back to the old lady, she was the one who made Andrew laugh during the signing (LOVE that laugh), I passed her on the way back to the train and had to talk to her. She was a proper lady, dressed elegantly and she was the first damn person outside the theatre who understood my need to DISCUSS the play! Everyone else in the line was talking about other things, I had to PROCESS what had happened. She and her assistant were so cool, and she said she’d absolutely loved it and had a ton of other well thought through opinions on it. Big fan of her, no idea what her name is, but we all should get some cool older ladies to talk about theatre with, when our brains are buzzing with so many new impressions!

I aimlessly wandered on over the Thames after that, sat down in some red paint on the way, which made my jeans look interesting for the rest of the trip and had to just move for a while to cool down. I did go to the queue the next day too, just to be a little less tongue tied around Andrew (it did not work, whatsoever xD), but that was the day Joe Alwyn and a fox made an appearance, so it was totally worth it. As was the whole international camaraderie in the queue. Honestly, I’ve missed that, just people being excited about something together, I got hugged by a tiny Indian (?) girl and a Russian lady, all because we’re a bunch of excited nerds outside of theatre. It felt fucking great.

#andrew scott #vanya #simon stephens #anton chekhov

21 notes · View notes

fiercynn · 1 year

Text

perspectives on แผลเก่า | plae kao, aka kwan riam or the scar: a summary of analyses in english

so while working on my bad buddy fake dating fic traffic was slow for the crash years, i got interested in learning more about the play that the architecture students put on in pat and pran’s second year: แผลเก่า | plae kao (alternately romanized as “phlae kao” or “plae gow”, and translated into english as “the scar”, “the old scar”, “the old wound”, or “kwan riam”).

i tried to find out as much as i could about the story, and somewhere along the way it stopped being about fic research and more just about my own interest in film – especially when i started reading analyses of two of the film adaptations of the story, and, in particular, the role that the 1977 film adaptation had in thai cinema and history. there's a lot out there about the impact the film had domestically in fostering thai nationalism, and also in presenting a specific view of thailand to international audiences. so i thought i would share what i found for other english-speakers who are curious but, like me, don’t speak thai!

caveat that i've obviously missed the vast majority of analysis on the films from scholars and writers writing in thai, and my sources are overly-reliant on non-thai authors (i believe two out of the six analyses i read are by non-thai authors).

there have been many adaptations of the story, but i've included only the ones for which i could find substantial information in english.

ORIGINAL 1936 NOVEL written by mai muengderm; i unfortunately could not find much in english about the novel.

1977 FILM directed by cherd (also romanized as choed) songsri and starring nantana ngaograjang as riam and “ek” sorapong chatree as kwan, this is the classic version of the story that most people seem familiar with. the film set the record at the time for the highest-grossing thai film and was one of the first thai films to win a major international award. you can read a synopsis of the film on its wikipedia page and watch the trailer with english subtitles, plus you can read about the film’s restoration when it was rereleased in thai theatres in 2018.

it seems fairly well-established by critics that director cherd songsri’s intent in making แผลเก่า | plae kao was to cement an idea of “thainess” that was based in certain characteristics (folk-derived, agrarian) and values (traditional, buddhist, anti-communist, and anti-westernization), and that the film was promoting this image both to thai citizens and to international audiences as an expression of thai nationalism in the late 1970s (which was operating under authoritarian regime). he said this about his intent:

“when i produced แผลเก่า | plae kao, i used the slogan 'we must show thai traditional style to the world.' this produced a great deal of negative sentiment towards the picture, because some people believe that this is not a topic to be shown on film. i am a stubborn person though, and once i set my mind to including this in my films, well it's been in every film I have ever made. the press is always asking me when i will make a contemporary film, but now, no one is asking.”

beyond that, i found a lot of interesting examinations of both the film itself and the larger context it existed in within thai cinema:

"the pastoral romance returns": a 2018 review of the restored film by kong rithdee for bangkok post that discusses cherd’s intent and posits that the film’s popularity with thai audiences came from a nostalgia for a “simpler” past during a time of political turmoil in the 1970s.

"thai cinema since 1970": a 2001 article by anchalee chaiworaporn for film in south east asia: views from the region that characterizes critique of แผลเก่า | plae kao:

“some thai critics see cherd as promoting just the image of thailand that foreigners want to see – an exotic traditional eastern society. but to be fair, it must be said that cherd himself would see his repeated attempts to create a sense of traditional, often rural, pre-modern thailand, as an important work of cultural resistance, an attempt to delineate the thai personality and its basis in rural life and rural traditions, and to examine the importance of buddhism as not only a religion but as an element significantly shaping thai character” (p. 153).

"cold fire: gender, development, and the film industry in cold war thailand": an unpublished 2017 phd dissertation by rebecca townsend (who, i should note, is american and does not appear to be of thai or southeast asian origin herself) for cornell university, which goes further in critiquing แผลเก่า | plae kao, using the lenses of gender and nationalism. the dissertation looks at how thai cinema functioned during the cold war era as a nationalistic tool of thailand’s monarchy and authoritarian governments, as well as of u.s. influence. films like แผลเก่า | plae kao, townsend argues, were used to construct the image of an “ideal thai woman” who was passive, virtuous, traditional, and apolitical – quite in contrast to actual thai women of the time – and this “ideal thai woman” was seen as the bearer of thai authenticity and essential to the national cultural identity and national security during the cold war. riam, in townsend’s analysis, represents the tension in thailand in the 1970s between romanticized nostalgia for a rural, traditional thai heritage and the reality of development, urbanization, and the threat of westernization.

"phantom light: to save and project": a 2020 piece by imogen sara smith for film comment that discusses films shown at a series on lost film hosted by the museum of modern art in new york city, including แผลเก่า | plae kao. interestingly, this piece notes that the film includes a subplot of where a visiting theater company performs a stylized melodrama that echoes the larger story, which i found fascinating given plae kao’s role as a story within a story in bad buddy. so many layers!

2014 FILM directed by m.l. pundhevanop dhewakul and starring “new” chaiyaphol poupart as kwan and “mai” davika hoorne as riam. you can read a summary and watch the trailer with english subtitles. some analyses of this version:

"the romanticization of scars": a 2014 film review by kong rithdee (who also wrote the first piece on the 1977 version linked above) for bangkok post, which compares this production to the 1977 version and finds it lacking, largely because the context in which it was made has a “psychological distance” from the source. kong alleges that the film is “hyper-romanticized”, both in acting and post-production, and hypothesizes that this approach was deemed necessary to reach modern audiences.

"a love idealized and its scars revisited in ‘plae kao’": a 2014 film review by prae sakaowan for coconuts bangkok that has a different take, praising the production for its “vintage appeal” and its “irrational, full-hearted embrace of romantic love”, focusing less on how the film functions socially.

2018 AMATEUR STAGE VERSION not analysis actually, but a half-hour video of a (possibly student? i couldn’t find much information about who put it on) stage version. unfortunately ot does not have english subtitles, but i still enjoyed watching it! there are some elements of it that have been treated ahistorically, as dramatic interpretations of older stories often do, and the scenes of kwan and riam helped me understand their dynamic better.

so that’s what i've learned! definitely curious if others have thoughts, or know more about the story or any of the adaptations.

also yes i did read the entirey of a 283 page dissertation to learn more about this asldkjfldsjfls

#thai cinema #แผลเก��า #plae kao #the scar #kwan riam #bad buddy #fic research #that eventually took on its own life #this always happens #research is so fun #when you're doing it out of interest #traffic was slow for the crash years

37 notes · View notes

thrashntreasure · 1 year

Text

Ep62 The Finn That Makes You Go MMM w/ Mary Testa! (Broadway!)

We are wearing our finest hats- and trousers- this week, because we're joined by the immaculate Mary Testa! Say, what?! With this Broadway legend, the boys will take Van Halen's Women and Children for a test drive, plus revisit the William Finn classic, In Trousers- but has that parakeet learned to fly yet?! Plus we chat diplomacy, casting grievances, shattering wine glasses, and heaps more! Huge thanks to Alison Fraser for being the extra-special guest producer of this episode.

www.instagram.com/marytesta.actress

2 notes · View notes

unissonmag · 6 months

Text

MUSICAL // JUST FOR ONE DAY – ONE-OF-A-KIND

At The Old Vic, our lovely bicentenary theatre, Just For One Day is on until the 30th of March. Here are a few words about this impactful show about… an even more impactful show. Continue reading MUSICAL // JUST FOR ONE DAY – ONE-OF-A-KIND

View On WordPress

#critique #just for one day #Musical #old vic #review #Rock #theatre

0 notes

dizzymoods · 10 months

Text

oou-oou have we got news for you! Black joy was never radical. It was consumption as politics. lol

I feel like critiques of Beyoncé like this are tired. Accurate but unless you’re topping bell hooks “Beyoncé is a terrorist” then…what’s the point? Black twitter has been on this since before formation

“Beyoncé is a very talented artist. Beyoncé is a capitalist” Is it 2014?

and sure beyoncé gets singled out. but be serious. No son of Ham was going to no damn taylor swift movie. And we can’t exactly boycott Rihanna’s new music because there is none. The boycott is for Puma x Fenty shoes anyway bc Puma is on the current BDS list. like, nobody is boycotting Beyoncé just a movie. BDS didn’t say nothing about the movie until yesterday. her fans were calling attention to it when the theatre list came out bc they want better for her. BDS even recognizes that the movie might not be able to be pulled and is just asking for a statement!

The hive is doxxing the writer of that review and going psycho over the most overused critique of beyoncé. i know it hits harder during a genocide but damn. All this for a movie that’s just reheated homecoming bits. like oh girl a match on action between different shows and costumes? ive never seen that before.

8 notes · View notes

amethystina · 1 year

Note

Oh gosh, sorry to hear you’ve been getting lots of critiques recently. Even when it’s valid and solicited criticism can be rough, and the out of the blue stuff is always worse :/ And I say that as someone who works in the arts for a living.

I wish I had something better to say than that every artist you admire has likely felt the same way at one point or another, as even the best of the best of the best get complaints, but I don’t, so know at least that you’re in good company. (In theatre we actually have a saying that the day you can truly call yourself a professional is the day you get your first really bad review, so I always take comfort in the universality of the experience, even if it super fucking sucks lol)

I know I could also tell you that your writing is phenomenal and for every person who has a complaint there’s a bunch more who are having the BEST time (myself included xD), but I also know that doesn’t fix it when someone’s made you doubt yourself. For the record though, I will say it. Your writing IS phenomenal, and it DOES bring both me and others quite a lot of joy. I get very excited every time I see you’ve updated (either fic that I’m reading xD), and I find it genuinely a bonus that this particular story is so long. Because it means that the experience of reading it for the first time doesn’t have to be over yet.

I’m VERY much rambling now, but try and be kind to yourself is I guess at the heart of what I’m saying. Take care of yourself, take your time, and come back to things when you’re ready. You’re allowed to feel hurt, or doubtful, or whatever, and if time is what you need to take care of yourself, then you should take it <3.

To be honest, I would be genuinely surprised if I was somehow able to avoid getting criticism. It's just a natural part of posting online, it would seem, no matter one's skill level or the fandom.

And, usually, I can handle it pretty well. It just so happens that everything piled up on the same day and that got a little overwhelming. It honestly felt a bit like the universe was ganging up on me for no apparent reason xD

Thank you so much for your kind words, though 💜 It's true that there are no immediate fixes to the kind of doubts that arise from unsolicited criticism, but it certainly helps to know that there are people who enjoy what I do. Because, in the long run, it's not about writing the most perfect, flawless fic, but rather sharing the joy and excitement I feel over the stories that I write. So thank you so much for taking the time to tell me 💜

And yeah, I'm doing my best to rest right now, partly because I did end up getting sick. So I've mostly been drawing highly questionable Strangers From Hell fanart and, earlier today, I hyper-fixated for hours and randomly did a playlist for Who Holds the Devil. Which is VERY unexpected since I don't really connect music to my writing?

I blame @sofapup17 who made a wonderful playlist for my Strangers From Hell fanfic, which I've been looping while drawing the aforementioned fanart xD (and I also stole three songs from it to my own playlist ;D ) And that of course made me wonder if I could do one, too. Turns out that I can! It's hella long but, uh, that's both on-brand and appropriate considering the fanfic, I guess? I honestly didn't expect to find as much music as I did.

So yeah. While I'm not writing on Who Holds the Devil right now, I'm keeping busy with other creative projects. There never seems to be a shortage of those, somehow x'D

Thank you again for your kind words. The fact that so many people are willing to take time out of their day to cheer me up is so incredibly humbling. Thank you 💜

#Amethystina Replies #wolfandrain #I'm honestly a bit all over the place #I should be editing the next chapter of my Strangers From Hell fic #But it contains a sex scene #And they are the bane of my existence #Editing is a chore in itself #But editing sex scenes is the literal worst x'D #So I'm procrastinating #By drawing and making pointless playlists instead #So yeah #That's where I'm at right now

11 notes · View notes

djservo · 1 year

Note

sending this to you early before i forget (and i will forget), april is OVER. the year really starts zooming past march it's scary! april reads, were there many of them? what did you think? other media interests also what's the spring/summer reading vibe?

april summary

you could probably tell by my lack of goodreads updates but my ass was NOT reading this month omg. 2 books but Barely since the first I started in February and the latter and I only just finished on the 30th WAHHH it's been stupid busy and stressful at work these past few weeks to the point where my free time could only consist of simply hanging out and watching movies/survivor and other thoughtless little things like that 4 my own sanity. in hindsight, absolutely not the best time to take up two meaty theory/cultural criticism books smh!! I was too ambitious, and while I could've just called it quits and picked up a more manageable/digestable read, I thought I'd be able to brave it out eventually... meanwhile my pdf of Man's Rage For Chaos sits abandoned + bookmarked at a measly 50 pages in amongst dozens of survivor screenshots LOL Sigh! it may just have to be another DNF because I don't think I have it in me to absorb another 300+ page long pdf just yet (it was a feat getting thru Little Boy: The Arts of Japan's Exploding Subculture at times)

but OK, onward!

Comfort Me with Apples: More Adventures at the Table by Ruth Reichl — a juicy romantic drama masquerading as just another foodie book. I would've been perfectly satisfied if it'd been the latter (I really loved Tender at the Bone) but when I TELL U I was gasping and clutching my pearls every other chapter, scandalized at every corner!! the book follows her foray into the world of being a food critic, during which she finds herself in two different affairs while married to her longtime husband/companion (who is revealed to have also been cheating on her at the time rip). Somehow she managed not to make herself come off as a victim, so clearheaded and honest with her actions and mistakes, but part of you also can't help but root for her a little -- to flourish in her career, to grow a backbone, to come to the harsh realization that sometimes people just grow apart no matter how much history there is. So much wisdom and heartbreak!!! And, as she was about 30 during this period, my favorite reminder that the intrigue and possibility of Life(tm) isn't nearly over after your mid 20's--it's hardly even begun at all. and then of course all the food descriptions, glorious and sensual as always. Tampopo (1985) instantly came to mind: food + sex + woman's quest for the Meaning of it all, you simply gotta love it

Theatre of the Oppressed by Augusto Boal — I don't think I can add anything substantial to this even if I tried LOL I'll say I'm always tickled by any critiques and callouts of western civilization, and his connection of US presidents defending "reactionary imperialist interests" regardless of "character" (or political party) = the enactment of terror that's natural when it comes to the succession (hah) of oppressive forces... floored babes!! tell it like it is!! ok I lied, one more point -- a lot of this book discusses this radical methodology of theatre that involves the audience, allows them to interact, adjust, implement meanings as a means of revolution and there's this big brained review I read on goodreads that connected it to TWITCH STREAMS of all things, specifically gamers who allow the chat to vote on/make the decisions while the gamer performs these choices. I feel like there's so much Meat there... an analysis of the interactive nature of the internet/contemporary popular media and its influence on the way we perceive free will... anyway.

I started a saucy short story collection that'll hopefully keep me titillated, and I think I'll also treat myself to a fun graphic novel moment after my failed lil scholarly attempts hehe movie-wise I got sucked into this awful franchise The Brotherhood by David Decoteau which is basically college fratboys/hunks who have to fight some killer and/or mystical force of evil in the most homoerotic way possible (the filmic equivalent to trashy little convenience store pulpy softcore erotica methinks).... 6 full films of regurgitated storylines and gratuitous shower scenes and I must admit I had a blast !!! it morphed into a sorority-slasher theme, which then morphed into a broader theme of Tormented Women(tm). It's been a loose goal of mine to keep my letterboxd watchlist number lower than the amount of films I've logged for the sake of staying manageable/realistic, but there's now a scarily small difference of 5 films between the two 😢 so i think I'll try to stick to my watchlist as best I can this month 🫡 and ofc watching survivor as always, nothin new there yeah yeah I'm predictable

#cheesehair #asks #reads

13 notes · View notes