It's amazing what one actor can do for a show.
My second English class took another trip into the city today, this time for Peter and the Starcatcher. Some readers will know that I have already seen this show (my previous blog post is linked to; I'm always surprised by how much of a pretentious ass I sound like when I re-read posts...) and they'll know that I loved it. Or they just refreshed their memories. Either way, Peter and the Starcatcher was awesome the first time around. Not so the second time. I mean it was good. It was very good. It was still quite funny. But some of the humor is a little blunt. The puns are somewhat obvious. I hadn't realized that because Christian Borle played them so subtly. He did not ham it up. The new Black Stache is a much campier actor; so the show is still funny, but not in the same way. It felt smarter the last time I saw it.
The staging is still remarkable. Lighting and Sound America did an interesting piece on the show in their July 2012 issue which informed me on a number of interesting factors (I would link to it, but I can't find it). The proscenium arch is decorated with what is essentially gold painted trash, which is an interesting touch. Everything seems a little bit thrown together, like a bunch of people got together in a mostly empty space and decided to put on a play, and the proscenium adds to that. It looks like part of the gilded interior of the theater, but it's made of hundreds of everyday objects. Which is really cool. I'm not sure what that means from a critical perspective, but it's cool.
Perhaps some of my nonplussed reaction to my second trip to the Brooks Atkinson theater stems from my new-found dislike of Peter Pan. The reason this show was on the schedule for my class was that we read the original version of the book (not the play) recently. And you know what? Peter is an asshole. This play references the original material in interesting ways, but I can't escape from understanding those references. In the final monologue, they quote, round-about-ly, the last line of the book "so long as children are gay and innocent and heartless". I understand that reference and it makes me angry. Peter is a dick to everyone. He forgets people and kills people and doesn't care. This is held up as the ideal of the one child who never grew up. Now, I think you need to grow up a little to be humane.
In any event, the production was very different. Was it fun? Yes. Would I still recommend it? Probably not...
My second English class took another trip into the city today, this time for Peter and the Starcatcher. Some readers will know that I have already seen this show (my previous blog post is linked to; I'm always surprised by how much of a pretentious ass I sound like when I re-read posts...) and they'll know that I loved it. Or they just refreshed their memories. Either way, Peter and the Starcatcher was awesome the first time around. Not so the second time. I mean it was good. It was very good. It was still quite funny. But some of the humor is a little blunt. The puns are somewhat obvious. I hadn't realized that because Christian Borle played them so subtly. He did not ham it up. The new Black Stache is a much campier actor; so the show is still funny, but not in the same way. It felt smarter the last time I saw it.
The staging is still remarkable. Lighting and Sound America did an interesting piece on the show in their July 2012 issue which informed me on a number of interesting factors (I would link to it, but I can't find it). The proscenium arch is decorated with what is essentially gold painted trash, which is an interesting touch. Everything seems a little bit thrown together, like a bunch of people got together in a mostly empty space and decided to put on a play, and the proscenium adds to that. It looks like part of the gilded interior of the theater, but it's made of hundreds of everyday objects. Which is really cool. I'm not sure what that means from a critical perspective, but it's cool.
Perhaps some of my nonplussed reaction to my second trip to the Brooks Atkinson theater stems from my new-found dislike of Peter Pan. The reason this show was on the schedule for my class was that we read the original version of the book (not the play) recently. And you know what? Peter is an asshole. This play references the original material in interesting ways, but I can't escape from understanding those references. In the final monologue, they quote, round-about-ly, the last line of the book "so long as children are gay and innocent and heartless". I understand that reference and it makes me angry. Peter is a dick to everyone. He forgets people and kills people and doesn't care. This is held up as the ideal of the one child who never grew up. Now, I think you need to grow up a little to be humane.
In any event, the production was very different. Was it fun? Yes. Would I still recommend it? Probably not...
No comments:
Post a Comment