POSTED 2005

I'll start this out by confessing that I don’t know who Derek Miller is.

I don't know if he is an actor, director, non-participant who just likes plays or what. I don't know if he has ever written another review beyond what he wrote for The Minnesota Fringe Festival but I do know that I enjoyed his assessment of 50 Foot Penguin's Fringe offering, The President, Once Removed tremendously --- more than almost every review I've read in the past three years.

He takes an adventuresome position at the beginning of the review, daring to speculate that Emperor Zach Curtis might not be wearing any clothes after all. But he goes on to present such a clear and well-represented argument for his opinion, it's hard to imagine how the reviewers who lauded the show could disagree.

Reading this review was a great exercise for me because I knew nothing of the play, (I never did go see it,) knew very little of the play's subject matter and knew almost nothing about anyone involved. (I have seen Zach Curtis in a couple of plays, read the newspaper story about his "mafia," and know a little about his reputation as being the Big Man On Campus. Jim Pounds name is ringing a faint bell but that's it ---- no one I know to take away my own objectivity.) Consequently, my own experience with play, playwright, director, and/or actors could not fill in any holes Miller left. Miller would have to tell me everything in order for the review to be satisfying ---- and he did.

".....The script spends much of its time luxuriating in smarmy little scenes where you expect the characters to turn and wink at the audience after every sly comment. In fact, it indulges itself so much in the canny wit of the characters that basic things like conflict and character stakes seem left by the wayside...."

This could have been fleshed out a bit more but, on the whole, it's a great insight and the theatrical downfall described is one that I've witnessed before. Had I been considering buying a ticket to this show, this would have been Strike One.

".....Curtis' direction doesn't help much. The staging is lackadaisical at best and awkward at worst. A constant cycle of scenes where one would be frozen in dark on one side of the stage while another was lit and running on the other side might have worked in a classic proscenium stage, but, since this is the Theatre Garage--set up as a thrust stage--it meant that, at any time, a full third of the audience was blocked from seeing the scene that was actually going on. After my first three minutes of watching Bob Malos smirk and play Gin in the dark while a scene I couldn't see was happening behind him, I decided to close my eyes for a second. When I opened them again, nothing had changed....."

This is superb. I went to a bad production of Cymbeline a few years ago in which the blocking was atrocious and the audience had to sit on over-stuffed sofas that sank almost to the floor. One third of the stage was completely blocked by audience members and poles at all times. (Of course, that exact area was where the director chose to place the actors for the majority of the play.) Consequently, I paid full price but got only two thirds of a show. Directors take note: theater-going is getting too expensive to dismiss these errors as nit-picking. A good and legitimate warning from Miller --- for Curtis, Strike Two.

"....The pure history of these events is fascinating if presented right, but, judging by the three people that I saw fall asleep during the performance, I don't think this show did it......"

Strike Three and out.

This last assessment is more powerful than anything any critic can ever say. Granted, I'm sure that some people fell asleep during Laurence Olivier's Richard III. (Face it, sometimes Shakespeare is a little tough-going.) But audience members falling asleep during a 50-minute Fringe one-act tells me a lot about what to expect.

Miller goes on to thoughtfully praise some of the actors in the show. The praise lent credibility to his assessment: since so many people hold Curtis up as being a paragon of theater, I started to wonder how such seemingly bad product could come from someone so lauded. After this review, I wonder if half of Curtis's success lies in his ability to cast talented people to make up for what sounds like junior high school level directing.

All in all, a tremendous review. The negative comments were legitimate criticism: one third of the audience won't be able to see, the script lacks conflict and character development and several people fell asleep. None of this vague the-director-didn't-do-his-homework garbage. In addition, none of the criticisms were worded in such a way as to make me think Miller had any agenda other than to tell me if this play was worth my $14.

Finding good reviews on the Fringe site can be tough. You can pretty much bet that most of the accolades are being written by the family members of the actors and most of the bashes are written by someone with a personal ax to grind. But if you read enough of them, you'll find a few diamonds in the rough.

I hope Mr. Miller will see more shows next year,

Minnesota Fringe Festival

All reviews

HOME

Steven LaVigne: of The Ameriprise Financial Ivey Awards and On The Purple Circuit

Dominic Papatola: A pro. A flawed pro, but a pro.

Derek Miller: Good reviewers found in unlikely places.

Matthew A. Everett: The Humble Reviewer

Graydon Royce: The Snide Critic

Reviewers Reviewed: When Critics Don't Agree

Reviewers Reviewed: Odds and Ends

How Reviews Can Cut Through The Hype

Unfair Arts Coverage

Why Directors Get A Raw Deal