I did, in fact, see this play last night. I was attracted by the title so I went on a whim. And I loved it! I agree with those that said the reviewer seems inexperienced. As far as I could tell, the show was a satire that also touched upon some very deep issues — faith in a universal benevolence, the function of faith when dealing with terrible life circumstances, and the unique brand of hope offered by our current new age movements. Plus, the show seemed to pack a fun/thoughtful punch with very little in the way of production elements — thus no set or expensive costumes or props. Isn’t this the spirit of Fringe??? It seems like the reviewer just didn’t get it, frankly.

I know that two people can see the same show have TOTALLY different opinions. I also understand, Brian, that the reviewers are people too. That said, they influence people’s attendance at events like this so they should have some knowledge of theater, or dance, or whatever they are reviewing. Not liking a play and saying why is valuable information. Taking pot shots at the theater artists because of the people they thanked in their program is just being mean.

That’s my opinion.

Julia
Also the owner of an MFA (in Dramaturgy)

First off, I would like to make it clear that our unpaid guest reviewers are always noted as such.

Second, with this year’s F&P blog you are witnessing an experiment not unlike a Fringe production. Just as a Fringe Festival attracts a different kind of artist, so does it attract a different kind of audience. Our thought was that perhaps a professional reviewer wasn’t always the right perspective to have on a Fringe blog, and so we tried to capture the diversity of the festival in our stable of guest reviewers. We’ve got a few budding playwrights, a few Fringe fanatics, a woman over 65, a Brit, an MFA in dramatic criticism from the Yale Drama School, and a few who have never reviewed a show before. It is a motley crue indeed–not unlike our readership–and we submit it to you humbly in the hopes that you take our opinions for what they are worth and leave them for what they aren’t. This is “Unjuried, risk-taking” criticism.

To me, this is unnecessary and mean:

“See it if: You are a believer, skeptic, slob, and/or a friend of Laura’s. Skip it if: You are not, and you have other choices.”

Thanks

I must tell you that there is no sick pleasure to be had in writing an unfavorable review. A reviewer at a show is like a director at an audition: he or she wants the performance to be good. After all, in both cases the benefit is mutual–a good review and a good time in the theater.

I am looking at the current first page of our blog right now, and I see 3 negative reviews: this one, Life is a Dream (which I wrote), and Power House. The rest of the posts are positive, and several of them are positively glowing (take, for example, Black Jew Dialogues, MANIFESTO, and Dizzy Miss Lizzie). Not that there is or ever should be a quota to meet in terms of “positive” reviews or “negative” reviews. Our goal–or mine at least–is always to provide a thoughtful critique of the show at hand.

There are real people behind these shows, indeed. There are real people behind these blog posts as well. When you display something you have created, you submit yourself to the world’s critique, be it a critic’s review or a comment on a blog post. There are a lot of shows in this festival (120), and it is impossible to see all of them. For Fringe-goers who wish to spend their time and money wisely, a blog like this–which includes opinions that run the gamut, from professionals, amateurs, and commenting passers-by–can be a very useful tool in parsing out what is worthwhile to them. The comments can also be useful to this end, so if you do end up seeing a show that we have railed on but you happened to enjoy, I encourage you to say so in the comments, and then let the reader filter the information and decide for herself.