Bartender Special
Seattle, WA 98121
According to Dictionary.com, deus ex machina refers to the ancient dramatic tradition of introducing divine intervention in order to resolve a situation that the playwright couldn't. To my knowledge, this device has never worked to a theater critic's advantage. Until now.
The unexpected collision occurred during last Saturday's performance of Love's Tangled Web at Annex Theatre. I had just witnessed the unsettling unveiling of a particularly pale and flabby ass at the end of Act 1, and dashed out to the ATM during the 15-minute intermission. Upon returning—well within the time allotted—I found the door locked, and anyone who's been to the Annex knows there are two floors separating their door from anyone who might hear a knock from below.
In 20 years of reviewing shows, I had never been so relieved or vexed by a problem. Sure, the show is a steaming pile. But I figure, hey, they've gone to the trouble of putting it onstage, and potential audiences have the right to be warned as consumers. I owe it to all concerned to watch as their ship sinks under its own weight and to report the entire debacle. But just this once, some force greater than me insisted that Enough Is Enough.
So let's tell you what I do know: There's a cute little cottage set designed and constructed by Kit Newman. But what you're more likely to notice is that the scenery is being chewed to splinters by some of the worst-coached actors to trod the boards anywhere within a 50-mile radius. Imagine junior-high kids performing sketch comedy from a really bad episode of Vicki Lawrence's mean-spirited sitcom Mama's Family, and you're getting the picture. Now imagine that the house is well-peppered with pals of the actors, who guffaw every time their buddy tries to steal a scene. The whole mess becomes a sucking vortex with its own will to survive, and you find yourself laughing because you can't believe the people around you are finding this stuff funny.
What's it about, you say? Well, it's about a sadistic blueblood named Sylvia (Kate Parker) who's hiding a secret that enables her to earn not only her late father's sympathy, but his fortune. She can't walk, you see, but refuses a wheelchair on the grounds that she doesn't want to be considered a cripple. Instead she has her male friends carry her around as if she were expensive luggage. She uses her inheritance to bully her bat-brained mother (Laurie Utterback) into becoming her maid, and her effeminate brother (Patrick Walrath) into a henchman for her twisted contrivances. There's a minister (Gerald B. Browning), whose New Hampshire dialect seems to come from watching Pepperidge Farm commercials, and a pair of young lovers, one a clairvoyant (Adria LaMorticella), the other a randy handyman (Daniel Wood) who possesses the aforementioned unveiled rump.
Admittedly, Charles Ludlam's work is something of an acquired taste (Love's Tangled Web dates from 1981), rather like early John Waters films. New Yorker critic Brendan Gill said it well when he wrote, "This isn't farce. This isn't absurd. This is absolutely ridiculous." Ludlam, who died of AIDS complications in 1987, was no shrinking violet or stranger to people not getting or liking his work. Just the same, this play deserves better than director Ed Hawkins' approach, which has all the forethought of opening cans of Silly String onstage. Hamming it up for your buddies sure is fun at a party, and yes, it can be amusing to watch Seth Rogen, Steve Carell, or Will Ferrell turn it up to 11 in bloopers, too. But don't call it art.
On the other hand, maybe Act 2 is terrific.
http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/2009_Theater_Hall_of_Fame_Inductess_Announced_20010101
Seems like Kevin Phinney wasn't in the mood for a little rump and romp. Which is too bad for him. I had a great time at the show, laughing at things that were charming and things that were startling. It was crazy, campy, and funny. You know, now is a really good time to laugh. And that jiggly toosh was hilarious and...I think...honest. One of the women I went with knew the writer personally; she thought the tone of the piece was spot-on. I guess I'd believe her more than Mr. Phinney. I've been thinking a lot about the role of a reviewer lately. Is s/he the arbiter? The record-keeper? The match-maker? What's okay? What's mean-sprited? What enlightens? Reading this review has helped me understand how wrong it is for reviewers to go all Addison DeWitt. Deciding for all what is good or what is bad just seems wrong, especially since this whole world of art is so subjective. Of course we reviewers have our own preferences, and of course we should share those. But let's also talk about what the production is trying to accomplish; how this fits in the artists' oeuvre; why the director sees this approach as interesting or evocative or right; and what s/he may have missed, or--and this can be hard for some people--what s/he may have done just right.
This reviewer shirked his responsibilities and ran an errand instead of doing his job. He should be embarrassed, not gloating about it while disparaging a play he didn't watch. Also, it's extremely irresponsible for the Weekly to publish a theatrical review from someone who didn't even see the entire play. That's bad journalism. You wouldn't publish a film review if the person fell asleep during the movie or have a sports columnist only write about the first five innings of a Mariners game. Pathetic. p.s. I saw this play. And, I liked it.
I wonder, did any of the folks flaming the reviewer, actually see this play? Because I did. I sat through both acts tonight. Poorly directed actors? Check. Plot that completely fell apart in the second act? Check. Nice set. True. And I believe that the actors must have inumerable friends because they were there again tonight laughing at what? I have absolutely no idea. This was if anything a subversion of comedy. It was beyond painful. Althoug kudos to the actress that played the mother, she was a beacon of understatement after two mortal hours of being assaulted by the production that would not end.
I am disappointed Mr Phinney. I actually persisted and read the whole six hundred odd words of your review (?) though I really don�t think your screed is worthy of the description of review. The analytic component of it could easily be written in ten to twenty words. I saw the rest as unprofessional petty sniping to fill out a shallow article. It�s a pity you didn�t do Mr Hawkins the courtesy of witnessing the whole play. Your feeble excuse about missing the completion of the show is laughable and indeed I would regard your leaving the environs of the theatre as very unprofessional conduct. Mr Hawkins talent and work are well known in Australia and New Zealand as well as in his native United States of America. I can�t say the same about Mr Phinney. In fact who the heck are you? Mick Brannigan, Rockhampton, Australia.
Yep, I'd be perfectly okay with a negative review IF the reviewer (again using the term loosely) had seen the whole show. I've had my share of bad reviews over time and you take them for what they are: an opinion. My issue is with the fact that the WEEKLY published a review on half a show. I'd love to see a review of a gallery opening after seeing half the art or giving an opinion of a Monet after only seeing half of it. Or perhaps commenting on how well a car drives after only sitting in it. I was there when the reviewer came in after the show and complained of being locked out and he was as nice as pie to everyone's face. Management of the theatre even offered to let him come again for free (even if he wasn't going to review the show). I think, perhaps, he got angry at his stupidity and took it out on the production. Just an observation. We are all entitled to our own observations, aren't we?
Well, glad to hear it's business as usual at Annex, a theater I stopped going to for the very reasons cited in this review. But, oh, how I love the righteous indignation of the theater community! I suppose if the man had made it back in for Act Two THEN savaged the play, everyone would be fine with the negative review? Riiiiiiight.
"This is not a review. It's a vindictive and personal attach that fails to see the work on its own terms. It makes your paper look very unprofessional. And what's wrong with Vicki Lawrence?"
Many of the comments already have listed many of the severe problems with the review of "Love's Tangled Web", but I just had to add that I really feel the major error with the piece belongs squarely with Mark D. Fefer and Mike Seely for wasting paper and ink. It's one thing to publish a bad review, but it seems entirely pointless to publish a piece which doesn't even cover the entire play. I saw the play on opening night and LOVED it. I have recommended it widely and hope it has a long and prosperous run. Way to go Annex!
On the other hand, you could have been a journalist... Wow. What an embarrassing review, Mr Phinney. I hope the next time that you take the risk to produce art for public consumption, that your audience's reaction is more respectful and empathetic to your efforts than the example that you have shown us here. Good luck.
I was at the very same performance you were, and I could not disagree with you more. The type of comedy Ludlam writes is extremely difficult to play, and this company pulls it off expertly. Never outrageous for the sake of being outrageous, every choice made by the actors and director furthers the story and is grounded in the richly absurd inner lives of these characters. It is uproariously funny, and a fine showcase for some supremely talented actors. Please don't make the mistake of believing you can get away with being both lazy and vindictive in the future.
Sir, you�re free to dislike the part of the show you saw, but what you�ve written is more suited to a blog site than the Seattle Weekly arts section. This is not the review of a show; it�s a puff piece about yourself posing as a review of half a show, and going out of its way to insult not only the production, but also the paying audience. Does the Weekly have no more respect than that for its own arts scene and community? If this is the fruit of �20 years of reviewing shows,� I�m not anxious to sample more.
I saw LTW on Saturday, and laughed throughout both acts, thankyouverymuch, despite not having "buddies" in the show. In fact, the entire crowd seemed to have a great time-- and the show was crowded, both before AND after intermission. If the show was so terrible, wouldn't people who WEREN'T being PAID to be there flee? Yes, I also enjoy John Waters movies, and I try to value art for what it attempts to do, on it's own terms. This critic seems to be faulting a barn dance for not being a ballet. I might also enjoy watching "junior-high kids performing sketch comedy from a really bad episode of Vicki Lawrence's ... sitcom Mama's Family," actually. But if I want "mean-spirited," I'll re-read this guy's review.
It's fine if a particular show is not your cup of tea, that's to be expected sometimes. But a skilled reviewer should be able to look past personal preference and analyze the faults and successes of a piece of art. Why exactly didn't you like it? What about the staging or the acting or the dialogue didn't you like? That would be a helpful review. However, this is a pretty sad excuse for journalism.
You're not very good at your job are you? Perhaps you should consider a career in telemarketing or something equally douchebaggy.
Agreed with above. In this economy I don't know of anyone who keeps their job by admitting they only worked for 4hours and billed for 8. To the public. Plus, you're a writer. If you're going to trash something at least go somewhere with it and make it entertaining or newsworthy. Otherwise you're not only just being mean, you're chopping the legs off of the industry that enables you to have this job you're so gallantly half-assing. ReviewerFail.
This doesn't seem much like a review, but however a description of your personal experience trying and failing, I might add, to review this show. I hope that going forward, Seattle Weekly would do a better job of choosing who they let review these types of shows. Someone who can't seem to make their way in the building for the 2nd Act, sounds like a person that probably shouldn't have a job doing this for a living. Unfortunately I don't know much about this show after reading this pathetic unsightful review. Well, I guess I�m just going to have to go see it for myself. Next time when it comes to half-hearted and lazy reviews like this, Seattle Weekly, send it back and make the person show up for at least Act 2.
I'm not associated with the play. But as a theatergoer, I'm none too pleased with this review either. No, Kevin, a Higher Power didn't spare you from the play; you just chose not to get your act together sufficiently enough to do your job.
When did Brendan Kiley start writing for The Weekly?
I happen to be one of the actors "reviewed" (and I use the term, review, loosely) and I must tell you that this is a disgusting display of extremely bad journalism. I recently relocated to the Seattle area from Washington, DC and let me tell you no self respecting journalist or newspaper in DC would ever publish such a half ass review. Seattle Weekly must have absolutely no journalistic standards if they are willing to publish a review of only half a production. I've been in the business long enough to accept a bad review, but I can't accept the thoughts of someone who only saw half a production. And, I must ask, why was going to an ATM during the intermission so pressing for the reviewer? Also, the intermission actually ran past 15 minutes on Saturday night, so one can only wonder what exactly the reviewer was really doing outside the theatre? Perhaps he should buy a new watch, or better yet, maybe he should think of finding a new job. And, please god, don't let this man write any news or feature articles because I'm not sure that I would only want to hear half the story. Shame on you Seattle Weekly for publishing this review. I know I certainly won't be reading your rag anytime in the future.
Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...
Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...
More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience
Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info
Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips
Log in or Sign up
Social Connect:Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.
Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:
Sign Up or Log in
Social Connect:Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.
Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:
