Posted on November 5th, 2009 11:44am by Tim Rogers
Filed under Theater
This is why Elaine Liner is the best theater critic in town. Check out what she has to say about opening night’s performance compared to the matinee she attended. (Her comments about the theater itself also resonated.)
7 comments
I agree with Ms Liner in most of her observations. I had the good fortune of missing the opening but, instead, attended the first preview, at which there were only ordinary folks, including friends and relatives of the kids in the cast.
As is inevitable, it seems, these days, not all of the actors were capable of reciting Shakespeare’s iambic pentameter with anything like understanding and breath control, but these were in a minority. Alas, Moriarty had to cut some of the most beautiful speeches (is Shakespeare always to be edited and bowdlerized?), but the sheer ebullience and high spirits, as well as the audience participation, made the opening a resoundingly joyous success.
If only the damn elevators didn’t beep and squeak during the performance. If only the chairs were a bit more comfortable. If only . . . but I bet that many glitches can be worked out. Too bad, however, about the ladies’ room. It’s not much better — I was told — at the Winspear.
@ 11:55 am on November 5, 2009
Oh. Good Lord! You think Elaine Liner is the best theater critic in town? There are plenty of folks who would challenge that assertion. Carping about facilities is one thing, grasping contemporary theater is quite another.
@ 12:21 pm on November 5, 2009
Elaine Liner may be the best critic of theater seats in town, but as a critic of theater stages, and what is presented on them, she has no credibility. Bitchiness and ignorance are no substitutes for knowledge and vision.
@ 12:32 pm on November 5, 2009
Predictable. Ms. Liner earned her Observer pay by making sure the mayor and all the “old rich guys” and “trophy wives” got mocked in the opening three paragraphs. Imagine: They actually thanked Charles Wyly for giving the money that made the theater possible. Horrid people.
One hardly has to side with such folks to wonder: The critic’s display of her imaginary proletarian allegiance — is that now a necessary first step in a theater review of A Midsummer Night’s Dream?
@ 1:48 pm on November 5, 2009
@St. Benedictine: The speechifying before the play was a bit of a drag — though I agree with you that it is entirely appropriate to thank Wyly for his largesse. And the mayor’s demeanor was commented upon by several people in attendance (including yrs trly).
What I liked about Liner’s review is she didn’t stop there; she went back for another performance and put both shows in perspective.
And her criticism of the sight lines was spot on. I have talked to others who sat in the balconies; they, too, complained about having to lean forward to see the action. In the run-up to the Wyly’s opening, I can’t tell you how many times I heard the phrase “no bad sight lines.” To have the experience fall so short of the promise is certainly worth noting.
Let me raise a question: whom would you rather read than Liner?
@ 2:05 pm on November 5, 2009
You.
@ 5:02 pm on November 5, 2009
So nice that Professor Spiegelman had the “good fortune” to miss the opening night and all the horrible old rich people, and instead enjoy the show with his fellow “ordinary folks.”
Curious to know, though, what theater or opera house the good professor would be complaining about if it were up to “ordinary folks” to provide the capital to build them.
I wish those damn rich people would just keep their money to themselves. I mean, what vulgarity!, insisting that their names be splashed across these buildings. Dallas would be better off with nameless parking lots.
@ 7:40 pm on November 5, 2009
Leave a Comment
FrontBurner® launched in March 2003, the first blog in Dallas run by a media organization. This is where the editors of D Magazine come to waste a tremendous amount of time.
7 comments
I agree with Ms Liner in most of her observations. I had the good fortune of missing the opening but, instead, attended the first preview, at which there were only ordinary folks, including friends and relatives of the kids in the cast.
As is inevitable, it seems, these days, not all of the actors were capable of reciting Shakespeare’s iambic pentameter with anything like understanding and breath control, but these were in a minority. Alas, Moriarty had to cut some of the most beautiful speeches (is Shakespeare always to be edited and bowdlerized?), but the sheer ebullience and high spirits, as well as the audience participation, made the opening a resoundingly joyous success.
If only the damn elevators didn’t beep and squeak during the performance. If only the chairs were a bit more comfortable. If only . . . but I bet that many glitches can be worked out. Too bad, however, about the ladies’ room. It’s not much better — I was told — at the Winspear.
Oh. Good Lord! You think Elaine Liner is the best theater critic in town? There are plenty of folks who would challenge that assertion. Carping about facilities is one thing, grasping contemporary theater is quite another.
Elaine Liner may be the best critic of theater seats in town, but as a critic of theater stages, and what is presented on them, she has no credibility. Bitchiness and ignorance are no substitutes for knowledge and vision.
Predictable. Ms. Liner earned her Observer pay by making sure the mayor and all the “old rich guys” and “trophy wives” got mocked in the opening three paragraphs. Imagine: They actually thanked Charles Wyly for giving the money that made the theater possible. Horrid people.
One hardly has to side with such folks to wonder: The critic’s display of her imaginary proletarian allegiance — is that now a necessary first step in a theater review of A Midsummer Night’s Dream?
@St. Benedictine: The speechifying before the play was a bit of a drag — though I agree with you that it is entirely appropriate to thank Wyly for his largesse. And the mayor’s demeanor was commented upon by several people in attendance (including yrs trly).
What I liked about Liner’s review is she didn’t stop there; she went back for another performance and put both shows in perspective.
And her criticism of the sight lines was spot on. I have talked to others who sat in the balconies; they, too, complained about having to lean forward to see the action. In the run-up to the Wyly’s opening, I can’t tell you how many times I heard the phrase “no bad sight lines.” To have the experience fall so short of the promise is certainly worth noting.
Let me raise a question: whom would you rather read than Liner?
You.
So nice that Professor Spiegelman had the “good fortune” to miss the opening night and all the horrible old rich people, and instead enjoy the show with his fellow “ordinary folks.”
Curious to know, though, what theater or opera house the good professor would be complaining about if it were up to “ordinary folks” to provide the capital to build them.
I wish those damn rich people would just keep their money to themselves. I mean, what vulgarity!, insisting that their names be splashed across these buildings. Dallas would be better off with nameless parking lots.