Sometimes I read these things and wonder a) if critic A and critic B went to the same performance, and if so, b) how two very knowledgeable people who are for the most part, fair reviewers, could have such drastically different appraisals of the same performance.
Critic A gushes about the performance, and writes a lovely review, while critic B doesn't write a scathing review, but doesn't seem convinced.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi Anzu,
The Kosman article is strange. His premise that the Ring is about having a solid foundation (lest everything fall apart) is undermined by his argument that the premise of the interpretation (19th c American history) IS sound, but ends up not working anyway.
What?
If only I did not have to work this afternoon...
I take it back. He acknowledges the reversal of the lesson. Oh, Mr Kosman, when WILL you fuck up?
Actually, this review wasn't a 12-click-worthy review imo. He's got a writing style that I sometimes like a lot, but other times (like after navigating a 12-click maze), it requires more effort than I want to dole out.
I guess he was lukewarm about the whole production. Well, I guess if you see that many performances a year, you can't be expected to like everything you see. . ..
Post a Comment