If you heard one of our readings, please post a comment.
Tell us what you thought: what worked, what needs work?
Please make your comments constructive to help LAB and our playwrights continue to develop these plays toward their next stage.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Face Cream
Wednesday Nov 12 & Thursday Nov 13, 2008 FACE CREAM By Maggie Bofill Directed by Mimi O'Donnell Choreographed by Sid Grant Dance Captain Joselin Reyes Featuring Richard Petrocelli* & Paula Pizzi*
Nice to witness a play with such a stong female voice at Lab. Ageing...hmmm...She may be outgrowing him. Or is the dance between men and women always sort of an intellectual vs physical one. Like one partner navigates the earth brain plane and the other, the body spirit sensual one. This play took place in a moment of a rip tide btwn the two...Respected the fight for the love!
Why was an earlier post removed? If our posts were solicited before the readings, in fact we were told to blog our opinions, then taking down posts deemed "negative" is very hypocritical, even censorship. I didn't agree or disagree with the removed post since I didn't see Face Cream, but why was the post removed? Because it didn't shout its LOVE? If that's the reason for removing it then maybe that particular blogger had a good point - all love and censoring truthful dissent isn't helpful to anyone. It isn't very honest either. And it certainly isn't very "downtown" or "cutting edge". For the record, I love LAByrinth. But this particular decision to remove an opinion because you didn't like it seems cowardly and more akin to something MTC or commercial producers might do. Or maybe the Bush administration. Censorship is never good. I look forward to an open debate. Thank you. Fan of labyrinth. Jesse.
Thanks Jesse - the open debate is still open, but to paraphrase someone else, it should be possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Though it did have a serious point, the post we removed was very personal, offensively so. You'll notice plenty of criticism elsewhere on the blog - but when it comes to supporting new work, and nurturing new writers, there's nothing "cutting edge" about laying them open to personal insult.
Dear Labyrinth - Thank you for your response. I don't really remember all of the specifics of the post that was removed so i didn't remember things being personally offensive, I thought it was mostly critical of an audience that was too friendly and too supportive that wouldn't really help a writer. But personally offensive stuff doesn't belong in a critical blog so I'd have to say I understand and agree. I look forward to more great work out of Labyrinth. And one of the things I like most about Labyrinth is that it doesn't play it "safe" and is willing to take risks even if some audiences don't like those risks. That was my main point. Good art doesn't please everyone. Bad art isn't art at all, but simply commerce. Keep stirring it up! Jesse.
This post seems to be functioning again. I liked Face Cream quite a bit. I thought it was fun and entertaining and well observed. But I agree that censoring comments by those who didn't like it to be not very conducive. Labyrinth is a great company made of adult artists who shouldn't need to be coddled but spoken to with honesty. I saw 7 of the plays in the barn series and live nude plays and found all of them worthwhile with great potential. Some I thought were on the way to greatness, others were on the way to helping develop new voices. A great event. THANKS
Ah, good, I'm able to respond here. Earlier, I wasn't able to post, and I was worried that comments on this particular play had been shut down. I posted my general response to this situation in "The Motherf#@ker with the Hat" thread, but I will recap.
I'm the person whose post was removed. I really appreciate Jesse's comments and I'm glad someone read my thoughts before they were deleted. It's probably futile for me to try to make my point again, but--I think it's important that the LAB posts some guidelines to this process, defining the kinds of things that are considered "offensive" or "offensively personal" rather than constructive criticism. I find it perplexing that another audience members' comment that, with Stephen Adly Guirgis, "it's evident the emperor's really not wearing any cloths", was not considered "personal, offensively so" but my comment on this one was. That's just weird.
Guidelines would clear it up, and also help audience members like me (who don't know anyone in the company and aren't part of the process) understand the process better.
My comment was very mixed--I stressed the potential and some of the strengths I saw in the play, detailed my own response to the work, made several suggestions for reworking that I thought were very constructive. It would have been more appropriate to censor out the parts that you found "offensively personal" and leave in those parts that would fall well within most people's definition of "constructive criticism," ESPECIALLY given some of the comments on other plays that have been left uncensored. It rather proves my point that this particular play is being held to a very different standard than the other five plays I saw in this Barn Series, which does a real disservice to a promising playwright and play.
I've heard a lot about this reading. It better be spectacular...the standards are high.
ReplyDeleteNice to witness a play with such a stong female voice at Lab. Ageing...hmmm...She may
ReplyDeletebe outgrowing him. Or is the dance between men and women always sort of an intellectual vs physical one. Like one partner navigates the earth brain plane and the other, the body spirit sensual one. This play took place in a moment of a rip tide btwn the two...Respected the fight for the love!
Why was an earlier post removed? If our posts were solicited before the readings, in fact we were told to blog our opinions, then taking down posts deemed "negative" is very hypocritical, even censorship. I didn't agree or disagree with the removed post since I didn't see Face Cream, but why was the post removed? Because it didn't shout its LOVE? If that's the reason for removing it then maybe that particular blogger had a good point - all love and censoring truthful dissent isn't helpful to anyone. It isn't very honest either. And it certainly isn't very "downtown" or "cutting edge". For the record, I love LAByrinth. But this particular decision to remove an opinion because you didn't like it seems cowardly and more akin to something MTC or commercial producers might do. Or maybe the Bush administration. Censorship is never good. I look forward to an open debate. Thank you. Fan of labyrinth. Jesse.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jesse - the open debate is still open, but to paraphrase someone else, it should be possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Though it did have a serious point, the post we removed was very personal, offensively so. You'll notice plenty of criticism elsewhere on the blog - but when it comes to supporting new work, and nurturing new writers, there's nothing "cutting edge" about laying them open to personal insult.
ReplyDeleteDear Labyrinth - Thank you for your response. I don't really remember all of the specifics of the post that was removed so i didn't remember things being personally offensive, I thought it was mostly critical of an audience that was too friendly and too supportive that wouldn't really help a writer. But personally offensive stuff doesn't belong in a critical blog so I'd have to say I understand and agree. I look forward to more great work out of Labyrinth. And one of the things I like most about Labyrinth is that it doesn't play it "safe" and is willing to take risks even if some audiences don't like those risks. That was my main point. Good art doesn't please everyone. Bad art isn't art at all, but simply commerce. Keep stirring it up! Jesse.
ReplyDeleteThis post seems to be functioning again. I liked Face Cream quite a bit. I thought it was fun and entertaining and well observed. But I agree that censoring comments by those who didn't like it to be not very conducive. Labyrinth is a great company made of adult artists who shouldn't need to be coddled but spoken to with honesty. I saw 7 of the plays in the barn series and live nude plays and found all of them worthwhile with great potential. Some I thought were on the way to greatness, others were on the way to helping develop new voices. A great event. THANKS
ReplyDeleteAh, good, I'm able to respond here. Earlier, I wasn't able to post, and I was worried that comments on this particular play had been shut down. I posted my general response to this situation in "The Motherf#@ker with the Hat" thread, but I will recap.
ReplyDeleteI'm the person whose post was removed. I really appreciate Jesse's comments and I'm glad someone read my thoughts before they were deleted. It's probably futile for me to try to make my point again, but--I think it's important that the LAB posts some guidelines to this process, defining the kinds of things that are considered "offensive" or "offensively personal" rather than constructive criticism. I find it perplexing that another audience members' comment that, with Stephen Adly Guirgis, "it's evident the emperor's really not wearing any cloths", was not considered "personal, offensively so" but my comment on this one was. That's just weird.
Guidelines would clear it up, and also help audience members like me (who don't know anyone in the company and aren't part of the process) understand the process better.
My comment was very mixed--I stressed the potential and some of the strengths I saw in the play, detailed my own response to the work, made several suggestions for reworking that I thought were very constructive. It would have been more appropriate to censor out the parts that you found "offensively personal" and leave in those parts that would fall well within most people's definition of "constructive criticism," ESPECIALLY given some of the comments on other plays that have been left uncensored. It rather proves my point that this particular play is being held to a very different standard than the other five plays I saw in this Barn Series, which does a real disservice to a promising playwright and play.