Thursday, October 25, 2007

Some Style love

I hope you all will take the time to check out Style's 25th anniversary issue. I don't usually hawk the wares of my part-time employer so blatantly but this is really a special issue, with a lot of fun stuff in it (you can check it out online here but that's not the same on holding it in your hand). I like the Headlines of the Future piece the best.

Also, the current issue has Mary B's review on Richard II at Richmond Shakespeare (love that pic of Jen Meharg -- grrrr!). And while I'm at it, big fat congrats to Grant and the RichShakes crew for the Teresa Pollak Prize for Excellence in the Arts, announced in the latest Richmond Magazine, well deserved for their many years of great work. You are a cherished aspect of the local community -- keep it up, guys.

10 comments:

James said...

Tudors?

Elizabeth loved it?

Rock star?

WTF?

Jacquie O. said...

I know! After reading the review and not having scene the play yet, I am fully expecting lots of tight black leather pants to be on that stage! Raww! Rickie Deuce...great rock star name!
You write with flair Ms. Mary!

Jacquie O. said...

God, I am on a role...I meant "seen"!

Mary...you have nothing to worry about regarding spelling and grammar. I am still QUEEN!

To make matters worse I work for a friggin library! I just love to torture myself I guess!

Anonymous said...

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you didn't understand this play at all, went out and read it after the show and THEN wrote your 'review'. Or did you just check in with Wikipedia?

thespis' little helper said...

Wow, anonymous. I think a bitchy breeze just blew through.

I guess I'm contributing to the "love fest" by jumping to Mary's defense, but...

And perhaps I'm admitting my own ignorance here (and feel free to make a snide comment about that as well), but I have never made my way all the way through reading a history play due to lack of understanding and frankly a lack of interest.

I have done my share of Bill's work (actually moved to Richmond initially to take a job in a couple of his plays for Richmond Shakespeare on Tour, then known as encore! Theatre Company), but I'm sure if I encountered Richard II I might be a bit lost as well.

If she didn't understand the show in performance (and I'm not saying this is the case, but if it is) and was able to read it afterward and understand (which is commendable that she went to that measure to write a review that might benefit the reader) then mightn't it be the fault of the production and not the reader that she didn't understand? PLEASE NOTE: I have not yet seen the production and am NOT commenting on the quality of, but merely exploring (anonymous, feel free to sling another my way based on that statement as well).

And, though it may dicsount any intelligible comment that I may have made thus far, I just wanna say (even though others have made similar comments on other posts), the next time you just wanna be an asshole, how about you put your name on it?

Grant Mudge said...

Thank you, David, very much for your tremendously kind words.

Le Synge Bleu said...

i actually prefer the rock star take to the more traditional and trite closeted gay man take on Richard II. i think its quite refreshing not to hear the same hackneyed interpretation. anon, i have no idea what wiki is saying these days, nor do i really give a damn, but mary's rock star take (or maybe that's richmond shakes' take? yes?)actually goes against the majority of hackneyed interpretations. but what do i know? i probably just looked it up on the internets. i certainly did not get the feeling that she didn't understand the play...what specifically in the review makes you say that anon? can you clarify clearly and succinctly? if you can put your money where your mouth is, perhaps an intelligent conversation can ensue. as of right now, what comes across is someone with a giant axe to grind, and i'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt and offer you a chance to engage in a productive discourse rather than a vendetta.

James said...

I agree, anon. You sound kind of angry.
Do you need a hug? A glass of milk?

Anyway, I know I'm not supposed to comment on these things, but I must say I was kind of confused by the 'rock star' thing as well. She refers to him a couple of times as such and even referes to his "appropriate lead-singer smoldering energy". It's kind of confusing, not to mention misleading to a reader who doesn't know what "metaphor" Mary is attempting.

By the way, most of the historical information about the Tudors and Elizabeth at the top of the article is incorrect. Susan Haubenstock made up her own history too.

Not trying to be bitchy. Just letting you know as a nerdy stickler for facts. As journalists, I'm sure you can appreciate that.

Thanks for coming out, Mary...
Sorry we didn't get to meet at the opening.

Andrew Hamm said...

Thanks, Dave!

Andrew Hamm said...

But apparently we are not cherished enough to be included in Style Weekly's Events calendar for three of our four weeks of Richard II.

Grrr! I mean, Jennie Mehargrrr!