Theater Reviews

By T

October 26, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this

What an idiot!!!!!!!!!! Wendell Brock is an ebarrassment to theatre critics everywhere. Maybe if there were prettier people in the show, he would like it. I have been reading his reviews for a long while. As a former member of the professional Atlanta theatre community, I can only say one thing…I miss Dan Hulbert. Please help this petty, superficial reviewer another job as a food critic. He makes me ashamed of the AJC.

By Debra Nelson

October 31, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

Let me begin by stating what the vast majority of Atlanta theatre professionals and actors in this town collectively think about Wendell Brock’s reviews. They are most often well-written BLURBS at best, given their limited newspaper space, with a degrading cut-to-the chase grading system, completely unprofessional personal and petty attacks, sardonic, sadistic, and caustic- and many times disturbing diatribes against the whole spectrum of the Atlanta theatre scene: Plays, Playwrights, Players, ….. and now Playhouses. And to that point, I offer this missive in defense- in this particular case- of Jewish Theatre of the South and their current production “Comparing Books”. They have been given short shrift at the hands of his offensive review and deserve much better.

I enjoyed this world premiere whole-heartedly, as did my entire family, who are not in Show Biz like myself. Evidently, Mr. Brock was not there on the Thursday night that I was, when the crowd went wild, loving all the misspoken words and the situations. I have attended TV sitcoms as an audience member and those rolls of laughter were like the ones I heard that night at the JTS show. The only reason I refer to sitcom laughter is because he does mention in his review that a couple of the characters come off as “sit-com caricatures”. Gloriously TRUE, guiltless laughter is still laughter in my book. By the way, I actually know some of the performers in the play and they all said that they literally laughed out loud when they first read the script, sensing then that the audiences would enjoy its humor. I also know as an actor that, unfortunately, sometimes an audience may not respond the same way to the material every night. I don’t know if this happened to him when he attended or if he simply decided not to indulge in laughter while others around him did. But I also know although an audience may not always be vocal, this does not necessarily mean that they didn’t ENJOY the show. Some laughter is the “inside kind”.

Anyway, I think it is time to review his review.

Below is Mr. Brock’s latest offing- I mean offering. MY REVIEW IS IN ALL CAPS.

‘Comparing Books’ @ Jewish Theatre

By Wendell Brock | Thursday, October 25, 2007, 04:41 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

THEATER REVIEW. Grade: C-

Dominic — the preening gangster at the heart of Marc Goldsmith’s play “Comparing Books” — is equally inept at low-level crime and major assaults on the English language.

Charles Dickens, he says during his bungled attempt to collect a college kid’s gambling debt, was a “prophylactic writer,” and he himself has friends and associates of “semantic” descent. Watch your back, Mrs. Malaprop.

WELL, SO FAR, IN 2 PARAGRAPHS, MR. BROCK HAS SUCCINCTLY MANAGED TO GIVE HALF THE PLOT AWAY WITH THE “BUNGLED ATTEMPT” COMMENT AND HE’S DISPLAYED A COUPLE OF THE FUNNIER “MAJOR ASSAULTS”, WHILE ALSO GIVING A WARNING TO THE CHARACTER MRS. MALAPROP FROM SHERIDAN’S “THE RIVALS”, WHOSE LINES ARE STILL PRETTY FUNNY WHEN READ OR ACTED TODAY.

By the looks of this Jewish Theatre of the South world premiere, Goldsmith is a lover of bad wordplay, revolving-door farce, last-minute reversals of fortune and the kind of squishy, 11th-hour sermonizing typical of after-school specials. This isn’t necessarily a good thing.

OK, ANOTHER PARAGRAPH JAMMED WITH ATTITUDE. BY THE LOOKS OF THIS STATEMENT, I THINK WE CAN PEG BROCK AS A LOVER OF BILE, AND- SINCE HE IS NOT ADVERSE TO DOING CROSS-CRITICISM WITH STAGE, TV, AND FILM- A STRONG DISLIKE FOR “BUNKERISMS” AS WELL. HE DOES NOT CARE FOR FARCE EITHER, ALTHOUGH IF “COMPARING BOOKS” IS THE “REVOLVING DOOR” KIND, HIS HEAD MUST SPIN DURING “WHAT THE BUTLER SAW”. ALSO, THE READER NOW KNOWS, THROUGH MULTI-HYPHENATED WORDS, THAT THERE’S A FAIR AMOUNT OF SENTIMENTALITY AND “SERMONIZING”, AND MR. B. INDICATES THAT HE DOES NOT THINK AFTER-SCHOOL SPECIALS ARE SO SPECIAL. AND HERE HE INITIATES HIS CROSS-COMPARISONS, WITH AN OPENING SALVO COMPARING STAGE TO TV. NOT STAGE TO STAGE, LIKE A THEATRE CRITIC. HE’S ALREADY LOWERING HIS BAR A BIT AS A REVIEWER.

When cocky Ivy Leaguer Brad Feingold (Eric Mendenhall) tries to pay off his bad bets with the “Israel bonds” he got for his bar mitzvah, everything in his parents’ Upper East Side apartment goes haywire —including dramatic logic. As characters arrive unexpectedly, Brad and Dominic (Jeff Portell) scramble to keep their risky business under wrap.

MORE STORY HERE FOR THE READER TO BE PREPARED WITH WHEN HE ARRIVES AT THE THEATRE. AND NOW THE PHRASE “DRAMATIC LOGIC” REARS ITS UGLY HEAD. AS THIS PLAY, HE STATES, IS LOUSY FOR LACK OF IT, SO TOO MUST BE ALL THOSE SHAKESPEAREAN PIECES WHERE WOMEN MASQUERADE AS MEN (“AS YOU LIKE IT”, “THE MERCHANT OF VENICE”) AND EVEN MEN PRETEND TO BE OTHER MEN (“MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING”). AND YOU CAN CERTAINLY FORGET ABOUT “CHARLEY’S AUNT”. BUT WHAT DOES HE MEAN BY PUTTING “ISRAEL BONDS” IN QUOTATION MARKS, AS IF THEY WERE SOMETHING THE PLAYWRIGHT MADE UP? ISRAEL BONDS ARE A VERY REAL THING!

It takes supreme gullibility to believe that Dominic is Brad’s college professor. And as it turns out, Brad’s sister Michelle (Sharon Zoe Litzky) ain’t exactly college material, and his father, Leon (Mark Gray), is loaded on booze and pain-killers after a skiing accident. His mother, Sylvia (Vicki Ellis Gray), is so high-strung that she fails to notice the eccentric behavior transpiring in her own living room.

MORE PROOF FROM MR. BROCK TO GO WITH HIS THESIS ON PROPER PLAY STRUCTURE. “ROOM SERVICE” IS DISCONTINUED. I THINK “BELL, BOOK, AND CANDLE” MUST BE SNUFFED OUT. WHILE WE’RE “COMPARING MEDIA”, BURN ALL THOSE WITCHES ON TV (“BEWITCHED”, “SABRINA THE TEEN WITCH”) AND ALL THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS FOR THAT MATTER. LOGIC TELLS US TO DO THIS. TOSS IN ALL THOSE MUSICALS, TOO. PEOPLE NEVER STOP TO SING TO EACH OTHER IN REAL LIFE- AND WHERE THE HELL DOES THAT MUSIC COME FROM, ANYWAY? TOTALLY ILLOGICAL. AN ACTOR SUDDENLY TURNING AND TALKING IN AN ASIDE TO THE AUDIENCE, OR SPEAKING SOTTO VOCE TO ANOTHER ACTOR WHILE ANOTHER, RIGHT NEXT TO HIM, IGNORES THIS? GOODBYE TO THE CONVENTIONS OF THE STAGE. AND, ONCE AGAIN THROUGH THE MANY-HYPHENATED GEMS HE GIVES US, WE KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT THE CHARACTERS, THEIR ACTIONS AND THEIR PROBLEMS. NO REAL NEED TO ATTEND THE PLAY NOW TO SEE HOW IT ALL SORTS OUT- SAVE ALL YOUR MONEY ON THOSE TICKETS. REMEMBER, THERE ARE THOSE “LAST-MINUTE REVERSALS OF FORTUNE” HE TELLS US ABOUT. BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. I SUPPOSE HE MIGHT AS WELL DIVULGE THE WHOLE STORY BEHIND “SLEUTH” WHICH IS CURRENTLY RUNNING AT THE ALLIANCE THEATRE. IT’S JUST A HAS-BEEN, SHOP-WORN PIECE ANYWAY, ACCORDING TO MR. B.

As directed by Melanie Martin Long, the parents come off as sit-com caricatures, while Portell, Mendenhall and Litzky transcend the inherent weakness of the writing. As Dominic’s boss, Panucci, Barry Stoltze transforms himself into a toupee-wearing, cane-waving, tush-slapping, lasagne-cooking old geezer.

AGAIN WITH THE TV! HERE IS THE “SIT-COM” ALLUSION I ALLUDED TO EARLIER. THE ACTORS WERE FINE, IT APPEARS, ALTHOUGH TWO OF THEM WERE DIRECTED TO BE “CARICATURES”. THE RUNNING THEME OF THE “INHERENT WEAKNESS OF THE WRITING” CONTINUES, ANOTHER REMINDER IN CASE WE MISSED IT IN THE PREVIOUS PASSAGES. BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, MR. BROCK FINALLY GOT ONE FACT DEAD WRONG: MR. STOLTZE WAS NOT WEARING A TOUPEE. I WAS THERE AND SAW IT FIRST HAND. I BELIEVE YOUR PAPER SHOULD RUN A RETRACTION ABOUT THIS. OTHER THAN THAT, WE GET ONE FINAL ROUND OF FOUR, COUNT ‘EM, 4 SUPER-DUPER, EXTRA-ORDINARY, DOUBLE-DUTY, MULTI-TASKING WORDS IN HIS DESCRIPTION OF PANUCCI.

Though you feel Goldsmith straining to cover up his wafer-thin premise with ridiculous situations and low comedy, “Comparing Books” is a disappointment. In the final minutes, the story makes an unexpected turn into territory that is blatantly sentimental and wretchedly inspirational.

AGAIN, WE HEAR, IN A STRAINED VOICE, ABOUT HIS “DISAPPOINTMENT” WITH “RIDICULOUS SITUATIONS AND LOW COMEDY”- AND WE GET THE CONVOLUTED PHRASE “WRETCHEDLY INSPIRATIONAL” WHICH BORDERS ON THE OXYMORONIC. IT IS VERY CLEAR BY NOW THAT MR. BROCK WANTS THE INVENTION OF SOME NEW KIND OF COMEDY. PROBABLY NEED TO DISPOSE OF NEIL SIMON, MEL BROOKS, AND LARRY GELBART AS WELL, SIT-COM GUYS ALL. WE’RE STARTING TO NARROW THE FIELD DOWN NOW. WOODY ALLEN MIGHT STILL HOLD UP, IT’S HARD TO SAY, BUT THE 60’S ARE SO OLD HAT AND PASSE TODAY. OH, BUT FORGET “PLAY IT AGAIN, SAM”. THAT OL’ DRAMATIC LOGIC, YOU KNOW.

Jewish Theatre’s commitment to new work is commendable. But its lack of dramaturgical rigor is starting to take its toll. Soon, if not already, it’s going to find itself comparing flops.

THIS PART I’M AFRAID I DON’T UNDERSTAND. I THOUGHT LAST SEASON’S “BROOKLYN BOY” WAS A HIT. I THOUGHT “HANK KIMMEL’S SHORTS” WAS CITED IN CREATIVE LOAFING AS THE BEST NEW PLAY OF 2007- THIS DISPITE MR. BROCK’S DISTAIN FOR THE PIECE. I THOUGHT THE REVIVAL OF “BORN GUILTY” WAS WELL RECEIVED. THAT ONLY LEAVES “PETER AND THE WOLF” AND “THE MAGIC DREIDELS”. ARE THESE THE SHOWS THAT MR. BROCK BELIEVES ARE SPELLING THE END FOR JTS? NOT TO MENTION “THE DISPUATION” WITH THEODORE BIKEL AND A HOST OF ATLANTA TALENT? AND IF YOU’LL NOTICE, HE WASN’T TOO HAPPY WITH HORIZON THEATRE’S CURRENT HIT “WATER COOLER: THE MUSICAL”- DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS SELLING TO PACKED HOUSES. IT ALSO GOT A C-, BUT I DON’T HEAR HIM COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DEMISE OF THAT VENUE.

BOTTOM LINE: A comedy that’s as dysfunctional as its characters. IF YOU WANT DYSFUNCTIONAL, PERHAPS TRY SAM SHEPHERD. A COUPLE MORE PLAYWRIGHTS FOR THE TRASH BIN: IONESCO, BECKETT, AND GENET. DRAMATIC LOGIC, YOU KNOW.

You know, what Mr. Brock doesn’t realize is that there is such a thing as comedic logic. I think dramatic logic, in most cases, works better with a DRAMA, which this piece definitely is not. If we always had dramatic logic in a comedy, we would never be able to laugh at the likes of “Who’s on First?”…”Oh, I understand. You’re confused. The fellow that plays first base? ‘Who’ is his nickname. And his last name is Cares. Who Cares”. Does this man actually HAVE a sense of humor? If he does, what kind IS it?! What actually tickles him? Atlanta’s Arts Community has been trying to play catch-up for years since the deaths of its many cultural and civic leaders in an Orly airport plane crash in 1962- believe it or not. Anyone who does not know about this event should go online and investigate the history. Although I understand the need for a theater critic to sometimes be a little harsh and opinionated in his reviews, it appears that Mr. Brock believes it is his civic duty to hold NOTHING back as he embarks on every adventure into stage criticism. What he fails to realize is that theatres deserve a little more credit than he is giving them, and that the Atlanta Arts scene, while vibrant, is still a fragile one - economically if not spiritually. His kind of critiques do little to improve that plight- to bring more and more people into a darkened house with like-minded folks who want to share in a good laugh or a good cry. Allowing them to simply not think- or to ponder life’s challenges and questions or its simple, inescapable truths- or perhaps even allowing them to experience something, as Dominic is “loathsome to say,” INSPIRATIONAL. Yet Mr. Brock offers no suggestions on how to fix this dilemma. While he feels it is incumbent upon him to let the world know of a theatre’s shortcomings, with the need to give the violator a “warning” if they do not behave as he wishes, he need not. And the audiences will hopefully- despite the mournful moans from an apparently world-weary mouthpiece like Mr. Brock, and in spite of him working for the “only game in town” as far as newspapers are concerned- continue to come to the shows by way of good old word of mouth. Perhaps “Comparing Books” is nothing more than a humorous piece of fluff, and not an intellectual powerhouse of parody, puns, satire, or fantastically funny or provocative predicaments, but it sustains it’s main ambition- to make the audience laugh. All this invective from W.B. is extremely fascinating, considering the fact that Mira Hirsch, the Artistic Director at Jewish Theatre of the South, won the Lexus Leader of the Arts Award back in March of this year- and since the following quote graces the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta’s webpage: “Jewish Theatre of the South has become a vital part of our cultural landscape. Its work a gift that sustains and nurtures us all” Wendell Brock, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Let this, then, be a “warning” of such to Mr. Brock- a shot across his bow- or brow. You have been duly put on notice. Please exercise more caution when you think of writing your inflammatory reviews. Remember the struggling theatre scene in Atlanta. Try not to put theatres out of business. If you slam them enough, there won’t be any theatre or any animate objects like Players around for you TO criticize. And then, maybe, you’ll have reviewed yourself right out of a job- and you’ll be right back to critiquing inanimate objects- like FOOD.

THE VERDICT: “D-“ in the Review Department. I’ll pass you THIS time, but……….. I end with two quotations about the famous New York Magazine theatre critic John Simon, often considered to be the cruelest, yet most knowledgeable curmudgeon on the theatrical scene. If Wendell Brock wishes to follow in that professional pundit’s footsteps, perhaps he should commence walking to New York City and let Atlanta carry on with the rebuilding of its Arts community. I do think it is high time for the AJC to publish a rebuttal like this one. Artists and the Arts usually get few opportunities to counter reviews like Mr. Brock’s. The venom in his column speaks volumes. We ought to throw the book at him.

I thank you.

DEBRA NELSONActress

Georgia S.A.G. National Board Member

Atlanta AFTRA Board Member

By Elliott Street

November 1, 2007 12:01 AM | Link to this

As per Debra’s letter, the quotation mentioned was omitted:

The following is an exchange between SATURDAY REVIEW critic Henry Hewes and his interviewer Tish Dace. They are talking about the theatre critic John Simon:

HEWES: Harold Clurman used to say that John Simon was too vicious to be a good critic. John is terrific in his knowledge of the theater. Yet when he writes he always seems to be trying hard to write something that’s going to attract attention, and it shows. He also enjoys making personal remarks about actors and actresses. If an actress isn’t quite as pretty as he would like, he attacks her. Ellen Stewart told me that one of her actresses wanted to commit suicide after something John wrote about her. When this actress was going to appear in another show, Ellen called Simon and asked him please to not come. I don’t know whether or not he honored that.

DACE: When I was 21 and right out of college I went to Stratford, Conn. to see KING LEAR (1963 with Morris Carnovsky) with John Simon and a couple of friends. … I enjoyed the production. I had some criticisms, but it certainly was not a terrible production. But then I had to drive back to New York with John Simon, and the entire way back he sliced, shredded, decimated every aspect of that production. And I thought to myself, “This man doesn’t like theater.” I was astonished that someone who goes to the theater expecting to dislike it could be a critic. Where’s the critical objectivity in that?

From “UNDER THE COPPER BEECH: Conversations with American Theater Critics” edited by Jeffrey Eric Jenkins.

Copyright 2004 by Foundation of the American Theatre Critics Association

By Babby

November 1, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

I saw this production on opening night and had a very enjoyable time along with most of the audience. I don’t always agree with Wendell’s take on productions but in this instance I think he’s spot on. The actors are each delightful in the interesting set of circumstances they find themselves in. However, while the writing will have you rolling, the ending especially does seem wrapped up a little too nicely. All in all, it is enjoyable entertainment but not exactly high art. There’s nothing wrong with that, it just doesn’t need to be defended for something that it’s not. I encourage people to see the show because it makes for a fun night, not because it will change your life.

By Blazedstar

November 3, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

Talk about a mixed message, Babby! You liked the play and the acting, but you didn’t think the ending was all that hot. The writing made you laugh, even roll in the aisles, but you suggest that the production did not deserve the defense. What you state is confusing. I believe that Ms. Nelson was defending the integrity of Jewish Theatre of the South and the audience that enjoyed the show. Mr. Brock does very little to help the arts in Atlanta through this kind of criticism. The show does not conform to his guidelines so he negates the laughter surrounding him and goes for the juggler.

By the way, don’t most Shakespearean comedies always manage to wrap up a little too nicely? Isn’t that “The Way of the World” of farces and the like? So what’s wrong with a modern piece doing the same?

By Babby

November 5, 2007 11:26 PM | Link to this

Blazedstar/Ms.Nelson/Whomever else you might be that was involved in the production:

It was a mixed review. Yes, I guess you could somehow call that a “mixed message” but none of the things I said contradicted each other. My opinion happens to mostly match Mr. Brock’s this time. Yours does not and that’s fine.

I never said there was anything “wrong” with the ending. I’m just saying that in my opinion there wasn’t enough given us (like that given us in a Shakespearean comedy, for example) that makes the nice wrap up pay off in the end.

Again, an enjoyable evening, lovely performances, and one thing that I do not agree with Mr. Brock on is the prediction that Jewish Theatre of the South will be “Comparing Flops”. This was by no means one and I don’t expect the rest of their season to be either.