I dont think it is at all. After it is explained that the near miss is what set up the meeting of the two characters, and therefore the play itself. I think it is saying this play is the best thing for them.
Most of the time, I tend to disagree with the headlines. I had a conversation with a critic once about one really misleading one and the critic told me that the title is generally written by the editor or someone else. Yeah, this one is strange.
We talked about that in Coffee and Conversations yesterday. About how the headline is not written by the critic. Susan Haubenstock (from RTD) even said something to the effect of "it's a completely different skill [writing a headline]".
I can recall (and this is horribly bitter of me...hahaha): "Bridge Under Construction".
But I respect that it's whatever grabs the eye and gets one to read the piece.
I don't think a lot of the general public really reads the reviews in depth. So the title is a pretty big deal. This one seems a little misleading, but I have seen worse. Who does come up with the titles?
I always write or at least suggest a headline and subhead for my reviews. Maybe that's unusual. Often I'll come up with a headline before I start writing the review; I find it helps me focus on what I want to convey in the review. Of course, sometimes my headlines aren't used -- and that's a good thing. Brandon at Style came up with one of my all time favorite headlines: "The Great White Cope" for Spinning into Butter. One of my favorite headlines that I came up with was "Hal-apalooza" for Henry IV, Part 1.
And I'll cop to "Bridge Under Construction," BC. That was me and you may certainly disagree but I thought it reflected pretty clearly where I thought the play was at the time. But that's all water under the Bridge, right?
Oh, how "Bridge Under Construction" makes me want to go down the path, (this is me taking a moment to ponder...)
It seemed...for an audience member...that there were so many greater things there: a beautiful story, many terrific performances, a very creative set...
Similar to how I felt about Ms. Haubenstock's review of RD. Was the overall experience that of a piece not yet ready or did it make for nice theatre?
The shortage of new works in Richmond, I guess, makes it difficult to put the reviews of the new works that are produced hard to put into perspective. It's important for the playwright (and composer, lyricist, director, producer, etc.) to know where the faults lie, but I just wonder if it encourages/cultivates the attractiveness of producing new work here.
It probably stung most because it was work that I felt incredibly proud of for my own part. But it's virtually impossible to be objective and absolutely impossible to see the show through the audiences eyes when one is part of the cast. A lot of comments about reviews seem to be from the actors in the shows and I'll admit to that inability to know what the audience experienced.
So, if the piece needing work is what the show left you with, I can't fault that. I won't be less sad about having a biting headline (:]) but I'll respect it nonetheless.
For whatever it's worth, Austin's Bridge was one of my favorite shows from last year. I'm a very tough audience member and am generally pretty critical, but I thoroughly enjoyed the show. I had a few quibbles with the staging and the script, but overall I was thrilled. Interesting story, beautiful voices, defined characters, creative stage pictures, and compelling relationships.
There are so few shows I feel that way about that I love to talk them up whenever I can!
10 comments:
The sub-title made me think it was going to be a bad review...but then it wasn't. Strange way to lead off the review. Anyone else feel the same?
I felt the same. Misleading title.
I dont think it is at all. After it is explained that the near miss is what set up the meeting of the two characters, and therefore the play itself. I think it is saying this play is the best thing for them.
Most of the time, I tend to disagree with the headlines. I had a conversation with a critic once about one really misleading one and the critic told me that the title is generally written by the editor or someone else. Yeah, this one is strange.
We talked about that in Coffee and Conversations yesterday. About how the headline is not written by the critic. Susan Haubenstock (from RTD) even said something to the effect of "it's a completely different skill [writing a headline]".
I can recall (and this is horribly bitter of me...hahaha): "Bridge Under Construction".
But I respect that it's whatever grabs the eye and gets one to read the piece.
I don't think a lot of the general public really reads the reviews in depth. So the title is a pretty big deal. This one seems a little misleading, but I have seen worse.
Who does come up with the titles?
I always write or at least suggest a headline and subhead for my reviews. Maybe that's unusual. Often I'll come up with a headline before I start writing the review; I find it helps me focus on what I want to convey in the review. Of course, sometimes my headlines aren't used -- and that's a good thing. Brandon at Style came up with one of my all time favorite headlines: "The Great White Cope" for Spinning into Butter. One of my favorite headlines that I came up with was "Hal-apalooza" for Henry IV, Part 1.
And I'll cop to "Bridge Under Construction," BC. That was me and you may certainly disagree but I thought it reflected pretty clearly where I thought the play was at the time. But that's all water under the Bridge, right?
...and the "Groaner Foul" goes to Mr. Timberline...
Oh, how "Bridge Under Construction" makes me want to go down the path, (this is me taking a moment to ponder...)
It seemed...for an audience member...that there were so many greater things there: a beautiful story, many terrific performances, a very creative set...
Similar to how I felt about Ms. Haubenstock's review of RD. Was the overall experience that of a piece not yet ready or did it make for nice theatre?
The shortage of new works in Richmond, I guess, makes it difficult to put the reviews of the new works that are produced hard to put into perspective. It's important for the playwright (and composer, lyricist, director, producer, etc.) to know where the faults lie, but I just wonder if it encourages/cultivates the attractiveness of producing new work here.
It probably stung most because it was work that I felt incredibly proud of for my own part. But it's virtually impossible to be objective and absolutely impossible to see the show through the audiences eyes when one is part of the cast. A lot of comments about reviews seem to be from the actors in the shows and I'll admit to that inability to know what the audience experienced.
So, if the piece needing work is what the show left you with, I can't fault that. I won't be less sad about having a biting headline (:]) but I'll respect it nonetheless.
Clever points for "water under the Bridge".
For whatever it's worth, Austin's Bridge was one of my favorite shows from last year. I'm a very tough audience member and am generally pretty critical, but I thoroughly enjoyed the show. I had a few quibbles with the staging and the script, but overall I was thrilled. Interesting story, beautiful voices, defined characters, creative stage pictures, and compelling relationships.
There are so few shows I feel that way about that I love to talk them up whenever I can!
Post a Comment