Theater Review: Generic Theater’s Equus
Words Jeremiah Albers
Photos David Adam Beloff
Thursday, April 29th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Whoa, Nellie.
Jason Willard
The latest offering at Generic Theater, a revival of Peter Shaffer’s psychological thriller Equus directed by Philip Odango, is an embarrassing spectacle. It is wildly misconceived, ponderously pretentious, and one of the longest, and most difficult to sit through productions I’ve ever had the displeasure of seeing.
Equus, first produced in London in 1973, has a fallacious reputation as a contemporary masterpiece. It is not a bad play, but it is not the brilliant piece of theater it is often regarded to be. The script lacks freshness, and seems to become more dated with each passing year; when revived in London (and later on Broadway) with Daniel Radcliffe in 2008, this fact was not lost on any of the major drama critics on either side of the pond. The success of that production had more to do with a section of the populous curious to see Harry Potter’s penis than with the inherent quality of the play. However, Shaffer has written a taut psychological thriller with an intriguing mystery at its core, at least until Odango decided to filter it through his own, uh, unique theatrical sensibility…or something?
The plot centers on Martin Dysart (Jeffrey Corriveau), a dissatisfied and disillusioned middle-aged psychiatrist who is forced to confront his own deep-seated anxieties when he is forced to treat Alan Strang (Jason Willard), a young man institutionalized after blinding six horses with a sharpened spike. As Dysart works to unravel the mystery of why Alan committed this heinous act of violence, he discovers the motivation is religious in nature, and becomes jealous of the boy’s profound faith, regardless of the fact that his zealotry is founded in stunted psychosexuality.
Jeffrey Corriveau, Jason Willard
Odango, however, doesn’t seem to understand what makes this play tick, or if he does he doesn’t care. He has made a series of bizarre choices that undermine the play at every moment; choices for which there is little reason or textual support. First, he has decided to make the boy’s parents, in the original play a traditional couple of differing religious and political ideologies, into a lesbian couple. This is nonsense, of course, as it undermines the subtextual motivation for the boy’s crime, and proves to be the most offensive of Odango’s peculiar choices. Does Alan blind horses because he is the son of gay parents? Should we expect the children of all gay parents to act out so violently? It is a strangely homophobic message that results, particularly in a production so preoccupied with homosexual sex.
This preoccupation appears in the production numbers. I don’t know if it’s right to call them production numbers, but as the early promotional materials were describing the play as a “Dansical” (whatever that is), that is what we are going to call them. The first of these, a Memoirs of a Geisha meets Freddy Krueger reenactment of a human sacrifice, is actually well-conceived, and intriguingly staged. But Shaffer’s play is tightly constructed, and interrupting it at every turn for fantasies and ballets, only kills the suspense, making the play itself, which can be reasonably entertaining, unbearably dull. The only time it comes to life is during these production numbers which become increasingly bizarre, until the act one finale, when Odango takes us all on a wild ride through sub avant-garde gay porno. No, that isn’t a tranny Amy Winehouse wagging her dong in your face, that’s a horse. When Willard stripped to his altogether to simulate anal sex with Nugget (John Bremner), also nude, I had to double check my program to make sure the play wasn’t being produced by Falcon Studios.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m no prude. I take no objection with the nudity itself, only the exploitative manner in which Odango is employing it. Equus is legendary for containing nudity. Near the conclusion of the play, Alan and his girlfriend (Kayla Grubbs) are naked together in the stable. Their coupling is reminiscent of Adam and Eve together in the garden, and it is this religious idea that really spurs Alan’s violent acting out. Although this does happen in Odango’s production, its impact is diminished by the fact that merely a half hour earlier we were watching a live-action reenactment of a highlight reel of The French Lieutenant’s Boys.
Those looking for real evidence that Odango doesn’t understand the play he’s eviscerating need look no further than his Director’s Notes in the program (I won’t even begin to discuss the silly new ending Odango has added). One sentence is incredibly telling: “But this is also about the journey of Martin Dysart, the boy’s psychiatrist.” No, Mr. Odango, this is only about the journey of Martin Dysart, the boy’s psychiatrist. Alan’s story is exposition. Everything that he has done occurs before the beginning of the play, and that information is cleverly parceled out to the audience by the playwright to create tension and build suspense, which would be a lot more effective if it weren’t being stopped every five minutes for burlesque numbers and other forms of artistic masturbation.
It is hard to deny that Odango is a talented director. But there is a difference between being a talented director, and being a good director. A good director finds a concept organically, from the play he is directing, weaving strands of ideas, themes, and subtext to create the production. Odango shoehorns his own ideas onto the play, regardless of whether they make sense there or not, succeeding only in creating doubts about his skills of reading comprehension.
The audience at Wednesday’s opening alternated between states of lethargy, and juvenile giggling shock: once the penises disappeared, however, most just shifted uncomfortably in their seats. Only those who want their gay porn served up with a double helping of boredom will find anything to enjoy in this three-hour long fiasco. Odango’s Directors Notes state that he “envisioned the world of Equus as the merging of a psychologist’s office and Chinese Opera and Conan the Barbarian.” But the audience experiences it as the merging of tedium, and good old-fashioned American exploitation, and interminable length.
Equus runs at Generic Theater down under Chrysler Hall through Sunday. Tickets are available through Ticketmaster, or can be reserved through the Generic Theater website, www.generictheater.org, or through the Generic box office (757-441-2160). Visit their website for more information.
""
COMMENTS
Facebook comments:
ABOUT THE WRITER
Jeremiah Albers holds a BA in Theater and Communication from Old Dominion University. He has worked for several years as an actor and a director, and his work has been seen on numerous local stages; most notably through his work with The Pushers and CORE Theatre Ensemble. Prior to contributing to AltDaily, he wrote for a year as a theater critic for On Hampton Roads.
Other posts by Jeremiah Albers.
Other posts by Jeremiah Albers.
RELATED POSTS
More Theater Posts
RSS
whoa… glad I missed that one.
I will preface this by saying, I have not seen this production yet… so I certainly cannot agree or disagree with the content of the review… but wow.
I felt like it was written by an angry mob with pitchforks… I’m all for honest reviews (especially bad ones, they let everyone know whats up) but I gotta be honest, this doesn’t do much to “celebrate local culture in Norfolk and all of Hampton Roads”
Lets at least acknowledge some of Odango’s successes such as “Letters from a Young Girl” or the terrific “Evil Dead: The Musical” which have been huge assets to the “culture” in our area.
AltDaily, of any publication should know that all creatives have ups and downs… lets not deteriorate what HR has to offer by being bully’s when one (apparently) hits a dud.
Keep em comin’ Odango.
Having read the play and really enjoying it for what it was, this certainly sounds like I would be just as upset after watching it, for all the same reasons. I’m all for not spitting out carbon copies of plays every time they’re done, but I’m not for large alterations to shows, especially ones that make no sense.
Thank you for such an honest review. I’m still looking forward to seeing the play. I saw the movie and read the play about 20 years ago and have always wanted to see it performed on stage. Because of the honesty of your review, you have lowered my expectations and possibly, that might make it even better for me.
I disagree with Paul that we should sugar coat reviews just to make Norfolk look better. That just doesn’t even make sense. If the play is bad, then it’s bad. If the play is great, then it’s great. Reviews have nothing to do with “celebrating local culture.”
Thank you, Larry, for a great comment and good attitude.
@Paul, I’ve debated this with editors of alt weeklies in other places and also quite a lot with myself. Some time ago I published a negative review by another arts writer in Port Folio Weekly of a one-woman art show. The arts writer and I both got a lot of flack from people, saying we were picking on her and not supporting the local arts community. My response is–there is no greater compliment to an artist than having a publication and/or colleague take their work that seriously. Ignoring a play or glossing over it to be nice, in my opinion, are far worse than being honest about it.
As an arts reviewer myself, I know that if everything I say is positive, I will lose credibility.
Jeremiah has written sterling reviews on many occasions, which is why I will defend his critique as fair and thoughtful.
And the best thing that has come of this piece is the insightful conversation between the director and our writer that takes place below. Nowhere else will you get that kind of debate.
What ‘choo talkin’ bout Paul?
Why would someone reviewing a specific show bring up past shows? You don’t review a bad movie and bring up other better movies the director did once. I guess everyone should get gold stars and no one should write in red ink any more, too? But since you brought it up Mr. Albers did write a nice review of Letters… when it happened… back in February and I’m sorry to falter your Odango love but he didn’t direct Evil Dead – Jeff Corriveau did.
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/04/review-local-production-equus-gallops-excess
As the director of this production of Equus, I can appreciate Mr. Albers’ essay, which is more of an editorial critique than a review. He does make valid points about the artistic masturbatory excess of certain directorial choices and I agree with Mr. Albers that the script is not fresh and does have a fallacious reputation of being a contemporary masterpiece. Since Mr. Albers makes no mention of the quality of the performances of the actors and dancers or of the production design itself (costume/lighting/sound/choreography), I encourage you to experience the show for yourself, read the director’s letter in its entirety and participate in the dialogue: is it too much? Is it just enough? Is it artistic masturbation, or is this production of the play itself a critique on the script and the ‘Normal’ that the play criticizes? Since Mr. Albers and I agree that this production is working off a less-than-brilliant and dated script to begin with, the script carries an inherent uphill challenge for any talented or good director, or any director for that matter. As the director’s letter does explain the thematic choices for the play and the increasing visceral vividness in dream psychology (interpreted here by Mr. Albers as the increasingly bizarre production numbers), I agree with Mr. Albers that this production is filtered through my own theatrical sensibilities, in addition to my dramaturgical research into psychodynamic psychotherapy. In full transparency, the poster discloses that it is ‘unlike any productions you’ve seen before’, and so if that disclaimer was missed by Mr. Albers and he was expecting a revival of the London or Broadway or of any local traditional treatment of the play he has seen (if any), then surely we both can benefit from improving our reading comprehension skills. Editorial-style critiques are welcome and encouraged; balanced reviews even more so.
Paul: Sometimes the best way to support local culture is to hold it accountable to itself. I agree that Philip Odango has done other, better shows before this one…but those are not at issue here. Having not seen the show, I know it is difficult to really weigh in on the discussion, but I stand by this review. While his other productions have had many positive qualities, this one goes way over the line of good taste.
Phil: What is a review if not an editorial style critique? I’m not certain I understand the complaint. As to the issue of balance, I think this review is balanced. I did not discuss aspects of the physical production or individual performances because they were all swallowed up in the concept. When the director makes himself the star of the play, it is only normal, I think, for the review to focus entirely on his contribution.
Jeremiah: I agree there is some balance to the critique and that perhaps the directorial choices took focus away from reviewing the other elements. It appears, at least to me, that the main point of contention had become authorial intent versus directorial interpretation: this is what the script says and this is what the audience should walk away with versus this is how I interpreted the text through certain filters. So, to me at least, it’s a defense of an already-flawed script. The review would have been more balanced had you illustrated how specific production elements (ex: actors) reacted as a result of directorial interpretation, instead of injecting your own analysis of the subtextual motivation. You say that the play is only about Martin Dysart’s journey and that Alan is only exposition. That is a relative interpretation on how you have perceived the material, and we both agree that at the top of play, everything that has happened to Dysart has already happened. I would gladly engage in a lit-crit discussion about the text and I would approach it from a psychological perspective which fuels my interpretation of the material. However, I had not to expect a review to take a the-director’s-got-it-wrong stance in defense of the script based on the reviewer’s own interpretation. Therefore, my complaint on the unbalance of the review is that the reviewer injected their own analysis of the script and compared it against the director’s choices; it would have been more balanced if the reviewer acknowledged simply how the actors reacted to the interpretation. Other than using words such as misconceived and pretentious, the review would be more well balanced had it been less of an analytical essay with a this-is-how-its-supposed-to-be candor, and more of ‘this is what the director chose to do, how did it affect the overall storytelling experience’ (ex: the director chose to include choreography in the electronic shop scene, how did this affect the story). If the general observation that the director’s choices detracted from the story, then that’s a valid and astute point of contention. If the choices made the show “unbearingly dull” and a “suspense killer” based on the reviewer’s idea of what’s “supposed” to happen (authorial intent), then really any director can only defend himself/herself through their director’s letter. That cuts out any middle ground, really, for a director to have an interpretation, if the reviewer already has an expectation of what is supposed to happen. Deviating from the Normalcy is a theme of the script, and this is what the play does – deviate from the Norm. Perhaps even acknowledging that much and examining how the play’s own precepts affect the overall storytelling experience would have been more balanced. Then again, I’m not a reviewer and now I realized I should have made my director’s letter two times longer had I known the show would be reviewed from a literary criticism/comparative analysis point of view.
I think to argue that our disagreement is over directorial interpretation vs. authorial intent is an oversimplification.
I take no issue with directors making bold choices, or presenting established works in new or interesting ways. One need only look at a group like CORE Theatre Ensemble to see a group who manages this superbly. I am in no way arguing against directorial interpretation.
Our disagreement seems more to be about the definition of directorial interpretation and its limitations in respect to authorial intent. Forgive the nuance, but I think it’s important. You seem to be arguing (and, with all due respect, your theatrical track record shows) that you believe directorial interpretation trumps authorial intent every time. But to argue from this position is to ignore a broader ethical and legal issue.
A director is certainly free to put their own mark on a production, and to make choices in how the material is presented to an audience. They are not free, however, to make broad changes to that material (unless the material is in the public domain, which Equus is not), unless these changes are approved by, or made in collaboration with, the author. I would be curious to know what arguments you made to Mr. Shaffer or his representatives to justify these choices.
Directors are not writers, Mr. Odango, they are storytellers. It is the job of a director to breathe life into a play. The play the playwright has written. You have argued several times here that you have made these changes to improve a less than stellar script. But if the script is less than stellar, why did you choose to produce it? It is my understanding that you conceived and developed this production, and that it has been in development for a period of time. Why would you waste so much time and exert so much effort producing a play you dislike so much?
Theater is a literary art. If you have such a disdain for playwrights and their craft, wouldn’t it make more sense for you to begin to develop and write your own projects, rather than turn other writers’ scripts into the plays you wish that they were?
You have done this several times before, although never so flagrantly, and to continue to trample authorial intent on the scripts you produce, is to undermine all of your productions with a hack touch.
I, for one, believe you are too talented to continue to sabotage yourself in that way.
I am not a resident of Hampton Roads anymore, so I don’t have the pleasure of watching this show and I am particularly glad that I will not. I have seen some of Odango’s shows and they are all less than adequate. I do not understand why you feel the need to take a perfectly good script and turn it into your own bastardized fantasies exploited on stage? This is a rhetorical question. It’s already bad enough that people don’t come out and see theatre in the 757 unless it’s being put up at VSC. Who is your audience? Who is your target audience? You can’t just put something this scandalous on stage and expect people who are not intrinsically tied to the art community to come and see it. Equus is already provocative and has made a name for itself being a play that pushes the envelope. Why add more? I agree with Albers, about the lesbian parents. What kind of message is that sending? If having lesbian parents served the plot, then I’m sure Schaffer would have added it in. I wouldn’t discount Schaffer’s playwriting skills over Odango’s pompous re-writes. No one that appreciates good theatre and knows a thing or two about it would pay to come see this. It’s a joke, really and I think that it’s time that we hand over the torch to someone who can direct quality, edgy productions without being grotesque for no apparent reason. If the script is good, then you don’t need all of the “spectacle.” If all you’re relying on is the “shock-value” then you have no foundation to stand upon.
Thank you Ms. Elyse for your insight and your assumption that it’s a perfectly good script. As you can see Mr. Albers and I agree that it’s not a brilliant piece of theatre and we both agree that over time it has become dated.
You claim that people in the 757 don’t come out and see theatre unless it staged at VSC. That is a bold claim and I highly recommend you that do you check out the offerings at your nearby community playhouse, I would think you’d find a vibrant and healthy flow of traffic and to claim that people come out to mainly VSC shows assumes that these people you speak of are disinterested in the offerings at other theatres. I think you’d find vibrant audiences, but then again it’s your perception that matters right now.
My audience is you – those with preconceived notions of what he or she will expect, those who hold high regard and reverence to ‘perfectly good scripts’. Also most importantly, my targeted audience is you – those who read the critiques of others, assume it is inherently right, and are unable to form a well-rounded opinion of their own. Granted that Mr. Albers had the unfortunate fortune of seeing the show and of writing a very valid critique, and I will loosely use the term review. Mr. Albers’ interpretation of the same-sex parenting is based off his perception of the implications of attributing stunted childhood development to same-sex parents and what the general takeaway may be for the audience, in this example, that it has a homophobic message. That is a valid if-then conclusion. Is it correct? It depends on the person watching. Then again, aren’t all literary element interpretation dependent on the person perceiving it? As a director, do I have a moral or ethical obligation to shy away from stirring away discussion of social issues? Is that even a director’s job?
“No one that appreciates good theatre… would pay to come see this.” How very convenient of you, Ms. Elyse, to be a connoisseur, if not a dramaturg, of good theatre. I’m sure that your skills would be greatly appreciated by any production or creative team as your insight into the likes-dislikes of of the theatre-going populace would greatly help predict the outcome of any future production.
If my taste level or directing ability is in question, so be it. I can appreciate your call-to-arms to hand over the torch to another more adept director, capable of directing, as you say, quality edgy productions without being grotesque. That would easy for me to do that; however, such said torch I built from scratch, it was never handed to me, nor was it ever given to me. To assume that the torch was handed over to me to begin with is an assumption I would hope you could validate. Let me know where the torch came from, I would gladly hand it back. Although I wouldn’t be surprised by the disappointment of numerous performers and creative minds who have benefited from my involvement.
I accept your criticism, Ms. Elyse, of my pompous, scandalous approach to how I handle literary material, because I myself have accepted that. I may be judged to be not a good director, and I accept that.
I do hope, Ms. Elyse, that, wherever you may be, you continue to support your independent theatres. As you said, no one in the 757 comes out to see theatre anymore unless its at VSC. These non-VSC theatres can benefit from your insight. Don’t let my pompous, scandalous approach dissuade you from encouraging others to go and see the works at their community theatres.
3 hours of “not for me”.
I have the fortune to not only be apart of theatre, where I am currently, but to be actively involved in theatre for quite some time now. Am I a scholar? Well, yes, I am. Is this something I must profess? Well, yes, because we are in the same. My opinion is valid, from an educational standpoint and is not coming from a place of ignorance, or bias. I just think that “spectacle” and “shock-value” are not key points to manuever from when you’re devising a show; especially when you have an already in-tact script. I’m all for experimental theatre and going out-of-the-box but the truth is, people in the 757 (atleast the majority, if that is what you’re looking for) will not come see this show. I have been apart of many productions in the area and I know the audience. What the 757 needs is a community that backs up it’s artists, if we’re talking about the big picture. Take it from one theatre lover to the next.
Dear Elyse, from one theatre lover to the next. This “review” and I use that term loosely given that Mr. Albers semmed to just take every piece of information and turn it into a shitting upon Odango, this was not a review. This was one person who wanted to seem big and bad by posting an “honest” review which all in all is far from honest. I believe that you honestly have no right to post anything since you, yourself did not see the show. Your argument is invalid. I saw the show, know philip and have seen previous reviews by Albers, which non seem very accurate.
Do you think Mal Vincent just want’s to be ‘big & bad’ as well? Because he pretty much says the same thing in his review as what’s said here just without such vivid accurate imagery that only this reviewer can provide. Still laughing about the tranny comment…it’s funny because it’s true. And to say that the only reason someone doesn’t like something is because of a personal vendetta is ridiculous and childish.
Read your review of Equus and saw the Philip Odango version Sat. afternoon at The Generic Theater. (Me and nine others – first time I’ve been to a play with more people on stage than in the audience.)
This is the fifth production of Equus I’ve seen – and none of Odango’s additions adds anything. Dysart rising from the wheelchair to wave some leaves is the worst.
And the choice of a 90-pound weakling to play Nugget was crazy – and he’s certainly not hung like a horse.
The author is going to be in residence this summer when Alec Baldwin stars in Equus on Broadway. Maybe he’ll add some neew twists.
Hodge asks that when analyzing a review, we question how the review served the audience, how it served the artists involved in the production and how well it provides an accurate depiction of the production in terms of posterity. I fail to see how any of this critique is serving anything besides the people safe and alone behind their computer screens (myself included.) If artistic masturbation is the issue here, then the reviewer better have a hefty supply of towels on hand before writing his next review.
These comments are great! I love AltDaily! Thank you Thank you Thank you!
Also, that last comment was made by Jonathan Bremner — Nugget himself! (aka student) be in awe everyone! be in awe!
And if one must look at a review and answer those questions shouldn’t you also be able to answer them about any art including the show being discussed… 1)did it serve the audience? more importantly did the audience want what it got served -ugh! 2) did it serve the artists involved in the production — we may never know, there lips are sealed, no one has come to the defense of this show except for Mr. Odango…. hmmm… 3) Did it provide an accurate depiction of the production in terms of posterity — See all above comments that involve having seen a previous productions of Equus. (Cliff’s Notes: NO.)
So forget the review of the review and face it that the show was bad and move on with your bad self. Next!
So much for the anonymous forum concept – ass.
P.S. I never asked for “awe” so you can keep the personal comments to yourself. Seeing as you have decided to open the can of workms, though: here we go.
Did the REVIEW serve the AUDIENCE?
Based on comments from people who have stayed to discuss the show with the performers afterwards, (including choreographers from the visiting ballet company that attended this evening with the comments of “wonderful, thank you for inviting us to see this production.”) There were many people with an objective enough viewpoint to appreciate the dedication and effort that was put into a show that was already an added show for the season at hand in Generic. Now did the review above serve the audience in any informative way? Perhaps, this is arguable since it does delve into production aspects. However the average audience member does not come to a show with the idea that they are about to view solely a director’s work. People come to see a show, a spectacle, a performance. What is it that makes a show good? What do people want to see? What haven’t they seen before that we can use a show like this to gauge how much we should or shouldn’t do in in future productions? This review feels more like a reviewer serving his own needs and using AltDaily as a blog moreso than a critical analysis of the show.
Did the REVIEW serve the ARTISTS?
The reason you haven’t heard anything from us so far is because we’ve been busy creating the show everyone is so willingly scattering to pieces. I am here now to share the experience from behind the curtain. Yes this show pushed boundaries and limits, and put more than one of us in a position we weren’t comfortable with. Did you see that during the show? I urge you to examine your reactions to the acting, intention and dedication that every member of our ensemble asserted for the audience each and every night in the face of reviews such as these. I read this particular review after only one performance. Yet we made each show better than the night previous. I can only really speak for myself, but this show allowed me to demonstrate what I have learned in a mere three years of experience at ODU’s dance department. The director’s message wasn’t mine, but if you know anything about ballet, and a 24 year old who decided to start when he was 21, and a minority in the world of dance being a straight male, you might learn to appreciate more of what happened on that stage underneath Chrysler hall some more. As an actor who spend much time talking with the director trying to interpret the vision at hand, this was an experience in juxtaposition. Imagine being asked to go from “hamptons prep” to half dressed horse vestige” to “tranny Amy Winehouse” (as the preferred term seems to be.) and making sense of it. This play utilizes reverse freudian theory and brechtian principles in pushing elements of drama and musical theater into the same playing space. Neither of the aforementioned schools of thought (Freud and Brecht) are something I have ever agreed upon or supported personally, but should I deny the theatrical experimentation because of my own personal ideas on the issue? This review serves to attach negative images in the same sentence as the names of people who worked EXTREMELY hard to try and give something to the audience that would ask them to not focus on the nudity presented, but a more tangible sense of dedication. (I’d like to see any of the audience members pull of that choreography night after night with a straight face.) So as actors we are forced to discredit this review on any grounds of serving us because of the fact that it does nothing but degrade a project we have all grown together in, explored boundaries and developed ourselves further as professionals under.
Did the review provide a window of posterity for future generations?
If you take into account the theatrical movement of Hampton roads and compare it to most places you can go to see theater, we are very provincial and classical. As someone who has been performing in community theaters for the last few years now, I can say that most audiences have consisted of older citizens looking for something classic and provincial. Recognizing the growing pains of introducin something new and vibrant is worth taking a look at. It may not be the most well developed, but I urge you to keep your eye on Generic Theater. It is reviving itself with an attitude of angst, edginess, provocative theater while still providing presentation of the classics. Theater in the area is wanting to recieve a modern surge of something new. Go to New York or San Francisco and you’ll see they already have this culture developed. I attended a Pride festival in downtown Cisco last summer with some friends hosting a booth for the California Shakespeare Theater that I was an intern with and saw numerous things that would make a recent viewer of Equus blush at. I think it’s time we realized that the world is a bigger place culturally, and that pushing the envelope is something to be viewed more objectively. To do so only displays the ignorance of the individual in question.
I urge and encourage any responses to the above topics with the following reminder. This is something that we all serve to grow with. Keep in mind that what you say, people hear. For someone like me who has decided to make theater his living, and deal with the consequences of being a straight male advocate of dramatic reinterpretations of the human experience, your comments have an impact. Make it constructive or shut the hell up. We already got your money.
sorry about the typos and grammar by the way. No time to proof the work I did as I have to move on to the 30 page paper on Shakespeare that I had to put off for this show until now.
I’m working on the thirty page monster as well, so while I don’t have the time to say all I could about the show, I will say this:
You can put a lot of time and effort into taking a dump, but in the end, it’s still just poo.
Here’s some constructive criticism, young man, and I hope you do hear this. Bottom line is, no one really cares how much work was put into anything in life if the end product was not that good. Reviews are one person’s opinion on what they saw as a whole. If the final product was not to their liking, then that’s that. Sometimes in a review individuals are mentioned for their outstanding work and some cases not so outstanding work, but the bottom line is that it is a review of the show itself. The sad and eye opening fact of life is that it doesn’t matter how much effort and dedication was put into a piece of work, if the final product isn’t great, then no one cares how much effort was put into it. This is true about everything in life. If I went into work with a project proposal that I had worked on for weeks on end on my own time and my bosses didn’t like it, I wouldn’t try to defend it by saying I worked really hard on it and need them to recognize that. I try again some other time. It’s very nice of you to point out that everyone worked hard on the show, but shouldn’t that be an expectation of anything you do or put your name on? This is like saying that a basketball player should get some recognition or a pay raise for being a good dribbler even though he can’t sink a shot. Life, whether it be work related or individual artistic endeavors, does not reward you for effort. It is the end product that matters.
” So as actors we are forced to discredit this review on any grounds of serving us because of the fact that it does nothing but degrade a project we have all grown together in, explored boundaries and developed ourselves further as professionals under. ”
- So it’s good that you all bonded as a result of this project, but you shouldn’t tune out any criticism of your end product. Your name is on it. You did say that “The director’s message wasn’t mine”, doesn’t that mean that whatever criticism that has befallen the show land on him rather than you? From what you have said you willingly put yourself in a place of possible praise or ridicule because you didn’t want to deny theatrical experimentation. Well you had to have known that the result was going to be good or bad. It sounds like most people here didn’t agree with it. And the reviewer certainly didn’t agree with the end result. Why are you trying to get some kind of recognition for your own individual work when it sounds like you didn’t agree with what you were doing?
And honestly, who cares if you are a 24 year old straight male exploring the world of dance and dramatic interpretations. You’ve pointed out twice that you are straight. Good for you. Are you saying that homosexuals have an edge over you in dance and drama? I’m pretty sure talent and experience has a lot to do with how far you go in the world, not sexual preference. It sounds like you have only had a few years of dance training. Again, good for you, you moved well. But how does my knowledge of your sexual preference make me appreciate the choreography any more than when I didn’t know or even care?
I will say that yes, everyone’s level of commitment to the show was high and that is admirable. I can appreciate the riskiness of what the show had to offer, but you have to remember that it is what it is- risk. When you take a chance on something as daring as this, it will either be well recieved or not. And that is all. Individual recognition should not always be expected if the end product didn’t fly.
Granted, some of the comments were a little harsh, but that’s what you have to expect if you or anyone involved in this show are willing to be this daring. Sometimes what people say isn’t constructive, but opinionated. Take those statements that matter to heart, and let the others go away. But you don’t need to grasp for recognition for yours or your colleagues’ work. If it garners praise, then it will be recognized.
Finally, it’s not a good idea to turn people off by telling those who want to express an opinion on work presented by Generic Theatre to “…shut the hell up. We already got your money.” even if their comments were not kind or constructive. Again, take feedback whether it is good or bad, decide what matters to you as an individual, and let the others go. But please don’t tell people that pay money to see the show to shut up if they have a reaction to what is presented to them. Otherwise you will have less people there for the next show.
I do appreciate you taking the time to provide an itemized critique. I think a lesson I can take away from this is the fact that I shouldn’t write responses to reviews so close to a show closing that was as taxing as the last one was. It is hard to not connect yourself so to what people think/say about something you feel so much a part of. As for the sexuality argument, being referred to as someone who presents the image of a “transexual amy winehouse” and participates in scenes of ‘anal rape’ was just something I wasn’t expecting out of this show. It really hurt to hear that said to be completely honest. I don’t care how objective one should be in looking at it, or how personal it was/wasn’t “intended” to be. In the retroactive anaysis of the show I can say my mind has certainly broadened on the matter, and I have developed a certain amount of selective apathy, and I do apologize to anyone I may have offended with my comment of “…got your money, now gtfo.” It was reactionary and said in a sense of retaliatory injury. I look forward to creating more art and developing the craft as much as I am able.
I certainly agree with the crude comments directed at you. It is a pity that a nameless person had to make them when this forum had some fine dialogue on the artistic direction of this play.
AltDailt,
This will be the last of your reviews i will be reading. Jeremiah has written a well thought out and articulate attack on a show rather than a review with any merit or worth. yes the show was bad, yes there were really bad choices made by the director, yes there were a couple of times i thought about leaving partway through the show. but nowhere in his review does he mention any of the incredible amounts of work done by the actors or the successful choices made by both actors and directors. i truly do not understand where anyone would get the idea that this sort of review is ever appropriate. a negative review is one thing, but a completely one sided essay is not useful to anyone. congratulations to Mr. Albers on his BA from Old Dominion, from a soon to graduate student, and on your work with CORE and the Pushers. I would like, very quickly, to provide a small review of your work… in two forms. Lets start with CORE, they have done some truly wonderful pieces of local theater, I worked on their productions of Frankenstien as well as Brave New World. With that said, a certain amount of vulgarity was present and i found the drug use to be a little overused. CORE, while i disagree with some of their artistic choices, is a valuable member of the artistic community. On a slightly different note the Pushers are the most vulgar group of performers i have ever had the unfortunate opportunity to have come across. they are however, i will admit begrudgingly, an asset to the comedy community.
One last point, so when did it become appropriate to review other theater productions at the theater that you are also directing shows at. seriously it seems a little bit like a conflict of interest.
Timothy Sessions II
Mr Sessions:
Did you see the production?
I think one of my friends said it best- Albers was being kind. On top of that, just because this show was a flop does not mean that the actors did not put in a lot of hard work, and does not mean that there should be any less respect for someone who decided to start dancing at age 21 (that is a really tough thing to do- keep it up!) Sometimes we work really hard on something, and it still does not work out.
The director should never direct a show that depends on the audience sharing their views to understand it.
There are not enough reviewers in this area, and some have actually stopped working the community theater circuit specifically, so there are going to have to be some liberties taken there, unless you are volunteering for the job.
Theater, in the end- is entertainment. Yes, you may teach a lesson or make a point, but the audience still needs to be entertained- most of the people I have spoken to, myself included- were not.
Perhaps more time needs to be spent in development of concepts and all that pre-production stuff… I would be curious to know how long was spent on all that.
yes i saw the production, no i was not part of the production, and I believe my comment was on Jeremiahs Lack of having said anything positive not that i thought the actors hadn’t done any work which for the record I know for a fact the performers worked very hard on this show.
oh and only having a few reviewers in the area is not an acceptable excuse for this drivel to be passed off as a review.
I agree that there are not enough people in the area who are doing reviews of community theater, but in this instance we all could have done without, or read mal vincent’s review in the pilot. Mal was just as harsh and critical but wrote a balanced review of the work without questioning the directors intelligence.
Mr. Sessions:
I am certainly aware of the possible conflict of interest that arises from me reviewing a show at Generic when I am going to direct a show there.
Journalistic ethics require that I remain objective, which I believe that I have. If I were not objective I would have lavished the production with praise, wouldn’t I have? Your argument, sir, holds no water.
If you believe another director would have received this play more favorably, I don’t think so. Mal Vincent didn’t like it either.
I respect Jeremiah’s review, though it was the least enjoyable one I read in a long time. Despite all the fine intellectual debates in this forum, the bottom line is Jeremiah didn’t like the show and nothing in this forum will change that. I’ve read several of Jeremiah’s reviews. I found his writing style no different for this play’s critique than ones in the past, but I felt it was harsher in tone. As an artist and a member of the Equus cast, I would hope that I met Philip’s expectations in achieving his artistic vision. From reviewer’s perspective, I believe I did since the majority of Jeremiah’s critque was on the artistic direction of the play and not too much on the technical aspects of the production.
The play closed on Sunday, May 2, 2010. I couldn’t get through all of the critique by the alt daily writer, just as I couldn’t get through the director notes in the program for Equus. I read Mal Vincent’s review, and as usual, I agree with him on most things. I expected to see a trainwreck on Sunday, in fact, I was prepared to leave at intermission before the play even started. That being said, I was pleasantly surprised at how much I LIKED THE PLAY and the PERFORMANCES.
I had never read Equus and have never seen another production of the show. All I really knew was that it was about a boy’s erotic love of horses and that he blinds them. Watching the play yesterday opened my eyes to how wonderfully written that play is–it rose above the movie theme music that tended to overpower the production. Sometimes it was right on for the moment, sometimes the cues stopped so abruptly it brought me right out of any type of climatic, important moment on stage. I snickered over the David Bowie Labyrinth costume for Equus, but in the end, I stuck to LISTENING to the playwright’s words and that was what saved everything.
I had heard it was Equus the Dansical and that in itself was off-putting. I kept associating it with Seussical the Musical, and who would want to see dancing, blind horses? Was the director way off and very self-serving? You bet. Pretentious director notes–c’mon, “a cross between a Chinese Opera and Conan the Barbarian” with music from the movies Predator and Alien? Sorry, you are not a Quentin Tarantino crossing genres for a movie. Really, ludicrous is exactly what was happening onstage during the weird little chinese electrical shop dance scene. However…
The two male leads were marvelous. Really good job. This is community theater, low-budget professional if you like. No one is expecting Tony-awards. But really nice job to all the cast. You really deserve it for the hard work that showed through the director’s childish mentality of “hey, look what I can do!”
I also LIKED the idea of the added primitive dance scenes, dreams, horses, tamborines and all. It could have used some fine-tuning, but the idea was good. I was drawn in to the mystical, hypnotic dream world that was being created on stage. There was magic happening there, and that is what theater is about–it can be educational, exciting, beautiful, unique. And that can happen by scaling things back, not putting in every little idea that pops into your head. I could have cared less about the lesbian parents. It worked, it didn’t work, who really cares? It was about the boy, Equus, and the psychiatrist.
I went home and found my old theater books and found a copy of the play. It had the production notes from the Broadway staging with Peter Firth and Anthony Hopkins. The playwright was pretty specific in the staging of HIS play. Picking Equus for the Generic was a good choice, given that it doesn’t require a big space, lavish set designs, etc. Adding a little meat to the bones of the production isn’t breaking a law. Just make sure it is for a GOOD reason, not just shock value or building your own ego. Nudity, as a good friend put it, was rampant in the late 60′s and 70′s–”hey they’re doing it, let’s get naked in our play1″ Having the nudity in this play–again, WHATEVER. Do it for a good reason, or don’t do it at all. But the actors deserve praise all around for their performances and commitment. Hats off to you, the players.
Since Shaffer did not write a “dansical” perhaps this production should have changed the title and gotten Shaffer’s permission to present a meditation on his original work?
I’m all for exploratory forms of theatre, but let’s present it as such.
Playwrights deserve the respect of having their intentions honored.
Remember, they’ve been around longer than directors.
First of all, I confess the only show directed by Mr Odango I’ve ever seen was the Cabinet of Dr Caligari and that it was more than enough to put me off Philip Odango for the rest of my life. I am not a scholar, but I have had some involvement in theatre and it was very disturbing to see so many basics entirely disregarded – although I somewhat doubt they were ever understood in the first place – even if some of the concepts themselves were quite intriguing.
But I’m not writing to talk about that show. I’m writing to give my heartfelt thanks to Mr Albers for such a clear, honest review. It is a wonderful breath of fresh air. (Especially after the entirely misleading, ego stroking reviews for, oops, there I brought it up again, The Cabinet of Dr Caligari). Mr Albers, you have hit the nail on the head for me, and I’m sure, so many others.
It is not that I wish Mr Odango to give up the…torch, as it were. I certainly am not up to the task of trying to direct, and I applaud the amount of guts, determination and commitment it must have taken to put together all of the shows he has been involved in. However, the fact is that he consistently puts himself before the story and especially before the audience. Of course it is also true that he has some really interesting, innovative ideas. The question is, can he take this review and the comments associated with it as constructive criticism (instead of as an excuse to sacrifice his own choice of material)and put what he learned into his next productions? If he is willing to take up the challenge and try putting the story and his audience before himself I would be very, very excited and eager to see what he comes up with next.
Is it wrong for me to hope?
Jesus, the ODU alpha-male testosterone levels are through the roof here. You’re all from the same place doing basically the same thing in the same community. You have a show, congratulations. I’m not being facetious; in this area getting that nonsense to opening night is an accomplishment. Alternately, no one is going to win a Tony for it anytime soon. There’s something to be said about the overwhelming number of local theater productions that are ridiculously fun and eye-opening to perform and deathly boring/insulting/painful to watch. This includes CORE productions and Pusher shows and ODU backed ones as well; anyone who wants to deny that is a LIAR. This inter-bickering is the artistic equivalent of cousins experimenting at a family reunion then pretending to be mad at each other for ten years. Can you stop pissing on each others’ doorsteps? K thanx bye.
Mr. Odango: “yes, but/yes, but/yes but” (Little Britain)
I am still waiting to hear your reply to whether or not you received permission from the playwright to CHANGE his play ???
This is the very crux of the review – both reviews. Please read them again.
Did you write Equus ? Do you feel you have a right to take someone else’s words and change it into your own ? Add dance numbers, change around the very meaning of the play with adding characters, more nudity, and anal sex ? Oh yes, forgot about the comedy bit, too, with the man falling out of the wheel chair – what the heck was that all about ?
And then to go into an ego trip with “director’s letter” ??
It is a beautifully written play, a priceless piece of work, which you believe is outdated and therefore should be changed. That is not the meaning of theater, where art depicts life .. in the future, in the present and in the past.
I am an actress .. or was in my youth, and I find it so horribly sad that Norfolk puts up with this corny baloney.
Please do not try to tell me with your countless words (he doth protest too much methinks) that this play is in any way, shape or form “THEATER” — it’s simply sheer craziness and makes Norfolk look like very very bad community theater.
Whether or not this is an actual “review,” I agree entirely with it! The performance was ghastly. I realize that the cast and crew worked frightfully hard to present the play, but a spade is a spade and this rendition sucked! Sorry for being so harsh. On the positive side, I am glad to see that such a heated discussion ensued – people are being passionate about theatre! (But of course, those that contributed are all associated with theatre in one form or another)
Oh, and I think the question that anonymous raised is quite important; while watching the play I was constantly wondering to myself “is this legal?!” The play was altered so drastically, I question the legality of Odango’s actions. I would love to read his response to the anonymous person’s question. I am all for experimental theatre, but intentionally going against what a playwright has set forth is utterly wrong
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Theodore Roosevelt
Jeremiah Albers was the wrong person to choose to review this show and I do regret that their editor did not see this review as an outright biased attack on a show. I learned nothing from this review except that the reviewer hates the piece and that he has put together some witty turns of phrase to emphasize this. Mr. Albers this was one of the single worst reviews I have ever read. On a positive note your next review has nowhere to go but up. Unfortunately, I will not be there to read it because after this abysmal piece of writing I’ve no interest in ever reading another of your columns.
Sincerely,
Ryan
This city needs to get its uppity stick out from its butt. It’s performance art, it’s art, not “Theatuh” with the capital T. The director is giving this city exactly what it needs- inventiveness. Mal said it: local theater is all too tame. The driector’s shows have created a lot of opportunities for artists, opportunities that wouldnt exist otherwise even if that means turning “Theatuh” on its stuffy head. Face it he’s the Bansky of community theater- the good with the bad. Eyes may be rolling but heads are turning and guess what- they want more and they keep coming back. So everyone else needs to step up or stop pissing on the doors on those who do.
ew.
My heart-felt thanks to Philip and Jeremiah. The president of Generic Theater, Jeannette Rainey, said it best when she mentioned Jeremiah’s review brought people in to see what the buzz was all about. Jeremiah’s review generated a lengthy dialogue, a bit uncivil at times, in this forum. AltDaily.Com must be thrilled with the traffic it is getting. At the heart of all of this is Equus, a play directed and produced by Philip. He took the risk of invigorating a script that lacked freshness, and was becoming more dated with each passing year. Whatever you may think of Philip’s play or Jeremiah’s review of the production, you should admire the fact we are having quite a lively debate over something unique that rarely happens in our area. As a cast member of Equus, I’m proud to be part of it and in the midst of all these swirling opinions.
Rick:
I couldn’t agree more.
I thought the play was excellent. The reviewer seems to be to hooked on literalism…any play must be performed exactly the same way it was originally performed. If so, he must really hate all the different ways that Shakespeare’s plays have been updated such as being moved to different time periods, etc. Also, remember in Shakespeare’s days, the female roles were played by males. I guess the reviewer wants to return to that. He also seems to be real prickly about Alan having lesbians as his parents. No, all children of gays don’t blind horses nor do all children of straights. Every play and every role should be adapted by the director and the actor. If not, then there is no reason to ever re-stage a play after its original run.
Robert, I completely understand where you are coming from. I think there is a large difference, however, between Shakespeare’s plays and Equus. Shakespeare’s play are in public domain, so a director can change the script, the characters’ sex, or practically anything. On the other hand, Equus is NOT in public domain, so it is actually illegal to change the play in such drastic ways without permission from the playwright and/or the publisher. I would still love Odango to inform us whether or not he had permission, because I am very curious. As I previously stated, I support inventive directors that breathe life into plays that presumably “lack freshness,” but I am firmly opposed to directors that disrespect the original playwright by not gaining permission to change the script. I live in Norfolk, and I would hate to see it gain such a miserable reputation…wink wink.
But then again, why am I complaining?! It is community theatre! Trust me, I admire community theatre participants more than anything, but I would never even begin to imagine police going out of their way to fine a mere theatre director; they are too busy dealing with drugs, murders, and 7-11 robberies. Community theatre just isn’t that important I presume. So since that is unlikely to ever happen, small time directors can keep doing what they wish, disregarding playwrights like Peter Shafer. Such a great impression to leave on the younger generation, who will go on to believe that crime within theatre is nonexistant. After all, the words “art” and “respect” are rarely synonymous.
If we are going to get mad for the poor playwright whose work was changed without permission, I’d like to know how much Generic paid the composers for all the music used in the play for its use? Nothing? Stolen without permission or paying royalties?
… that’s what I thought.
The play was a bloody disaster. Plain and simple.
And I’ve seen hundreds of them.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. Disaster is a kind word for it…truly a joke. A despicable joke. Willard was a joke….both of them.
I knew the elder Willard back in the ’70s. He’s a definite no-talent.