Well, there you have it. Uproar and hoopla before it happens, and in the end, a modest run of a modest one-woman show.
I'm curious: Do you think this play would have gone further had Rachel Corrie lit herself on fire and protested Israel on-stage? If the attempt to impact or incite passions was more direct, more unapologetic?
What accounts for this unceremonious exit?
Rachel Corrie can't light herself on fire, Matt, because she is STILL DEAD. Given that, your comments here aren't really funny. I know you meant the "character", but still. Color me humorless.
ReplyDeleteAnd the production played out its announced off-Broadway run, extended and opted out a couple weeks early probably because of slow Christmas sales. Still a more than decent run for a straight play off-Broadway with no Hollywoood stars in it.
Mark:
ReplyDeleteFair enough. This warrants, perhaps, more reverence on my part. I wasn't intending to be funny, actually. I was trying to say...did reality not prove to be audacious and intense enough to bring audiences?
I guess my actual point was, considering the hoopla and scandal and loaded material, why didn't the production's effect match the warm-up?
I only saw a reading of the play and my major thought about it was that, while interesting, it was not exceptionally theatrical. It did not grip me in the same way the news of her story did. Essentially, I got from the play what I got from the emails that are published online. It was a look into a girls idealism but it did not really give me the arc or the magnetism I look for in a piece of theatre.
ReplyDelete