Hip-Shot: “Thousands of Years—Rome”
Thousands of Years—Rome
Flashpoint – Mead Theatre Lab
Remaining performances:
July 24, 9:30 p.m.; July 25, 6 p.m.; July 26, 1 p.m.; July 27, 12 p.m.
They say: “Thousands of Years—Rome takes a Roman Legionnaire and a Senator’s daughter from their 1st Century parting in the Roman Forum to their 21st Century reunion there. They participate in the Roman conquests of Britain and Spain, the Renaissance, Unification of Italy, Nazi occupation of Rome, and the Iraq war.”
Ted’s take: Like the rape of the Sabine women or the reign of the Emperor Otho, this is an hour and change that I will never, ever get back. The accompanying wherefore, however, is hard to peg. Calling the play historical romance is an insult to that already debased epithet; calling the whole thing a vacuous cliché would be an insult to vacuums.
Take Dead Again, mix it with a little Forrest Gump and a touch of Quo Vadis, then toss in the “never let go” moment from Titanic, and you’ll have a good sense for this piece. Spanning twenty centuries (and making each look at its watch and squirm), Thousands of Years traces the ill-starred love of Octavia and Marius (or, after 800 A.D., Mario) through various pitfalls and entanglements including but not limited to:
- war
- sickness
- poverty
- bad luck
- “Daddy don’t approve”
and, last but not least,
- a toothsome, barely-clad Boadicea, to whose military superiority, leather undergarments, and general sexiness Marius eventually responds by making lotsa whoopee…
…thus spawning future hordes of Marii for the reenactment ad nauseum of said pitfalls and entanglements. The acting is difficult to watch, not merely because of the technical glitches in a technically spare show (before every gunshot scene, the audience hears whisper-shouts of “Two shots or three?” “It’s three.” “Three gunshots?” “Yes, three.” “Okay! Three gunshots”…and then the effect),* or even because the term doesn’t necessarily apply—it’s difficult to watch because one likes and feels for the actors nearly immediately, as one never can for the characters in whose service they toil.
The Washington Post, in its rather mindless promotion of this piece, exhorts readers: “When in Rome, Love as Romans Do, Over Again.” The proper epithet for my money? “Sic transit gloria…over and over again.”
See it if: You’ve always wondered why “bodacious” means what it means.
Skip it if: You believe, as I do, that reading a facing-page translation of Livy might provide a more titillating, better staged, and adequately lit experience.
*It bears acknowledging that the reviewer saw the show on opening night, and that these glitches may well right themselves in successive performances.
16 Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
12:52 pm
why are you so disturbed that this play was featured in the post? at least that article discussed the political metaphor which it seems you entirely missed, that this play was equating modern times with ancient rome, nazi europe, et al.. although considering your sheer delight over the nipple twisting play its not surprising that aspect eluded you….
1:35 pm
Dear u missed the point,
Not sure metaphor is involved here. Hammer-to-the-skull parallelism, yes (”perhaps I was once a Roman legionnaire…it was just like all other wars,” to quote Mario); but metaphor (”she is my east, my west, my compass”—always a good one), no.
And just as a preemptive clarification (while we’re operating under the premise that this play has a serious POLITICAL message at its core), here are a few other dramatic conventions with which it has nothing to do:
-allegory
-parable
-satire
-a beginning, middle, or end
Do I care that the play is lacking in these departments? With the exception of the last bullet point, of course I don’t. Still, I ask: should a play get extra points for having a heavy message? Should such a message offset poor execution?
As for nipples, sir: all I can say is that the emotion Horatio & Gary communicated during that excruciating scene outweighs the pathos of this whole overwrought…shebang, for lack of a better word.
6:02 pm
really, america as rome? crumbling empire? not clear enough metaphors for you? well they seem to be pretty widely discussed in general these days, so im sure you’ll come across them eventually…. and given the political nature of this city- yes, i do think that companies attempting to make a political statement should be praised… especially when the majority of their peers are simply exploiting sexual politics for cheap laughs… additionally, you may not enjoy explorations of love lost and found but, the reason that you find these themes so prevalent is because they represent a basic and fundamental part of the human experience… s&m? not so much.
furthermore, i dont feel it’s the critic’s role to interject their own prejudices into a discussion of others’ work but, rather to try and help audiences understand the nature of artists’ work so that they might more fully enjoy it… a discipline your self-absorbtion clearly prevents you from achieving.
7:38 pm
What decayed and post-imperial sense of the word “critic” are you (u missed the point) operating with when you say that it isn’t the critic’s role to “interject their [sic] own prejudices into a discussion of other’s work”? Your sentence, to me, seems to overlook the fact that the critique is a critic’s work, not a reflection of yours. You may simply have been looking for a review, which Ted certainly provided, if in a way unflattering to your preference. A critic ought to be a voice for thought, reflection, and additive philosophical content to the cannon; (s)he must often take the occasion of a piece of theater devoid of any significant thematic, artistic, philosophical, or executional content to bring the significance of his (her) own thought to bear on an unworthy subject, or a subject of little bearing on the worthless piece. I do not claim that height or nobility for Ted’s piece, merely that for you to debase the position of the critic is tantamount to his debasing of you and your piece.
9:36 pm
To add- not only was it opening night at 9pm on a Sunday, but the show is actually supposed to be 1.5hours, it ended early due to technical glitches.
Sure, the tech was sloppy and messy, and the actors were certainly thrown by their tech people messing everything up, but give it a day. There’s promise there, under the tech problems.
9:49 pm
Greetings, my Fringe babies! I have missed you all this year, but know that I am always with you in spirit.
Beautifully said, TD. From your mouth to My ears, even. I think there are at least 300 other spots on this blog where they would do well to post that eloquent statement.
U Still and Ted, it’s time for you two to hug and make up. May I suggest you both make a date to attend Diamond Dead at Warehouse, the zombie rock musical from the composer of Rocky Horror. It combines cheap laughs with serious commentary on pop culture trends, religious extremism and politics – all set to stirring metal music. What’s more, it has a beginning, middle and end (in that order)! It’s like having Nuts on your Nipples for a MILLION Years in Rome! U Still can stew all night about the sheer mundanity of it all, and Ted can write an absolutely SCATHING review (the band won’t even snap back because they are already dead, and well, it don’t get any worse than that).
Yours in Me,
Jesus H. Christ
Carpenter, Messiah and Amateur Rocker
c/o landlesstheatrecompany.org
10:16 pm
you know i’d like to point out that i totally agree, that the critic’s work, “ought to be a voice for thought, reflection, and additive philosophical content,” that’s exactly my point.
mr. scheinman’s review was neither professional, phylisophical nor analytical. it was simply bitter and vitriolic.
the fact is that just yesterday these reviewers were defending themselves for walking out during the intermission of another performance.
they are criticising other artists’ lack of professionalism, while failing to exercise it in their own work. that is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy.
this performance was not my work, let me repeat that- not my work- i have however seen it and i feel as if his review trivialised the effort that went into it.
as has been stated before, opening night flubs should be expected. obviously, there will be flaws in the material as well- this is the fringe festival after all, not the royal shakespeare company.
if mr. sheinman is not up to objectively reviewing these performances, than he should step aside. his contributions do not warrant the attention that this forum has provided him with. personal screeds have many outlets in today’s world.
10:55 pm
I am an actor in this show and I have put much of my effort into this. I understand Ted’s point of view but at the same time this was opening night and of course there were technical difficulties but considering everything that happened all these actors did over and above to give people a great performance. Some of this should have been recognized. When I read a review I like to know all aspects not just the bad ones. I know it wasn’t the greatest but again i believe there were some great moments there.
10:16 am
Yo sheinman, Don’t worry – you’re not the first person to see the history of the world played out on stage and miss the point. It happens every day – just read the local daily newspapers.
2:17 pm
she-in-man… now offering a pound of cure for an ounce of prevention. The next show will go much smoother that we have all seen the space (for the first time)… and know the facility better…. why do you guys always show up on the wrong nights? Put on a disguise and come again!
5:51 pm
The biggest problem that performers have, especially actors, is this: is what I am doing conveying to the audience what I want it to convey? Sometimes, despite all our attempts to convey a message/emotion/action/thought, it just doesn’t get there. This may occur for many reasons, but much of it has to do with the insularity of the rehearsal process; quite often, what the performers and the director think is really great in rehearsal turns out to be, for the audience, an inside joke that they’re not party to, and that’s a big turn-off for anyone.
So Ted didn’t like it. Big deal. Ultimately, you have to find a way to believe that what you’re doing is the “right” way to do it, or you have to step back, take stock, admit your mistakes, and fix it. We can never improve as artists unless we’re willing to blame ourselves for what we may fail to convey rather than blaming the audience for what they fail to “get.”
My 2 cents.
(Disclaimer: have not seen the play.)
6:59 pm
Goodness gracious! How to begin?
A roundup of sorts:
To “u [still] missed the point”: I appreciate your comments (really, I do), but we will have to agree to disagree.
To “TD”: I much appreciate your apologia on my behalf, and agree that there’s not much “height” or “nobility” involved in this reasonably hasty blog post.
To “theatregirl”: Agreed.
To “Jesus”: I’m a big fan.
To “karma”: Ba-zing!
To “better to have loved n lost?”: I rejoice to hear that all goes smoothly, but I must respectfully decline a second viewing. Side note: have you really found that F&P has a tendency to review on unfavorable nights? If a play flops in a forest and no critic’s there to pan it….
To “Rodney” and “Ally”: Both of your comments are on the mark. A critic can’t very well apologize for not liking a piece…but his response ought to be SPORTING, at least, especially when the artists clearly care so deeply about the production.
I apologize, then, for the distinctly unsporting nature of my review. It was indeed a “hip-shot,” and I fired it off without bitterness but also without too much thought. If any member of the cast would like to discuss it with me further, I’m good for a beer at a place of his or her choosing.
I do stand by the verdict, though. Which is why, disguise or no, I will not be seeing the play again.
7:15 pm
In response to Rodney. Rodney is completely right. Maybe some things were lost but there is still plenty of week left. I think this weekend is going to rock.
8:12 pm
Scheinman wrote
” calling the whole thing a vacuous cliché would be an insult to vacuums.”
• adjective 1. a vacuous expression
synonyms: vacant, blank, expressionless, deadpan, inane.
See vacant 6.
2. he seems to be completely vacuous
synonyms: unintelligent, brainless, vacant, inane, stupid.
I treid really hard but can’t understand exactly what you ment by this above comment…. or was is a vacuous comment…YES I got it!!
9:34 pm
While Ted had no interest in seeing it again, I certainly intend to. There was something there in the performance, and I can’t quite place what it was, that told me that it had serious potential. Seeing the review of their prior performance just cemented that for me. So I’ll buy another ticket for the weekend and hope Ally and company can pull it through to it’s potential.
*disclaimer* I am not a member of the company. I do not know anyone from the company. And I’ve only lived in DC a short time so I have no idea where McClean is.
12:37 pm
I hate to agree with Ted, ever, but this show was terrible. Not just Fringe terrible, junior high terrible. The only people that seemed to enjoy it were folks who knew the cast. The writing was sophomoric, the acting had moments but it was inconsistent. I think whatever moments theatregirl saw in it were the only ones they ever had, sadly. One of the actors clearly didn’t even know his lines.
And my god, do they have a deaf person running sound? Why was it so loud? Why couldn’t the narrator guy find his light? It’s not hard really, if you’re blinded you’re in it.
I’ve seen some bad theatre, and I’ve seen some bad Fringe, but this took the cake.