by Andrew Juhl
Old Creamery - The Old Creamery Theatre’s Studio Stage is a small space. I dare say it’s tiny, even, relatively speaking. There are times during Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf where the characters are sitting almost literally amongst the audience—and necessarily so, considering the austerity of the set. It is precisely this familiarity, this intimacy that makes seeing shows at the Studio Stage such a pleasure. Every member of the audience is but a few arms’ lengths away from the actors, making it a fuller, more real experience than to which some might be accustomed.
With Woolf’s running time clocking in at just a shade over three hours, apprehensive theatergoers might be wary of making such a commitment. I, however, found that the only time I was checking my watch was during the two intermissions, wondering how much longer before the theatrics would resume. resume. I love this play, probably playwright Edward Allbee’s greatest, and the closeness of the space combined with the dedication of the cast makes the reviewed production the best I’ve ever seen live.
For those unfamiliar with the play, the action centers around George, a middle-aged associate professor of history at a small northeastern college, whose undistinguished career is an immense disappointment to his slightly older wife, Martha, the daughter of the college’s president. At the beginning of the play, George and Martha are returning home from a faculty party, and although it’s
already after 2 in the morning, a new faculty member (Nick) and his wife (Honey) are coming over for drinks. But hospitality turns into hostility as George and Martha trade barbs in continually hurtful mind games. At first, guests Nick and Honey don’t know how to react to the emotional eruptions and unbridled animosity of their hosts. After a few drinks, however…
Stars Tom Milligan and Marquetta Senters perform ‘George’ and ‘Martha’ with enviable skill. Both actors reveal an obvious reverence for the material, along with a dogged unwillingness to let it down. Milligan’s delivery of the play’s few sprinkled bits of humor is—like his overall timing—nearly impeccable. And although I was initially doubtful as to whether Senters, an actress whose look I would not normally expect to be seen cast as Martha, could carry-off the sensuality and seduction required of
the role, I couldn’t have been more wrong. Milligan’s ‘George’ and Senters’ ‘Martha’ go from loving to hateful to deceitful and back again numerous times, making many stops along the way, and all of them believable, well-choreographed, and tight-spoken.
David Tull and Jackie McCall could have easily been overshadowed in this production, as I’ve seen more than a few pair of ‘Nick’ and ‘Honeys’ be in the past. This pair, however, turn in beautifully restrained performances, turning the four actors into what is truly an ensemble cast.
If you love a good, well-acted, well-staged piece of American-made drama, do yourself a favor, get to the Old Creamery Theatre Studio Stage in Middle Amana before October 17th, and see this production. You’ll be so glad you did.
Want to contribute reviews or articles?
Contact us at ictheatreblog@gmail.com.
17 comments:
And Sean Lewis' direction is what really makes this show fly - a lot of credit must go to him.
I am so glad that Senters' LOOK didn't get in the way of her performance....try to review the performance and do not include your world view on the appropriate body-type for this role or any other.
I agree with the sentiment of the previous poster. As an avid theater goer I put very little stock in someone's "look" if their performance is of the caliber delivered by Ms. Senters. I saw last week and it was one of the greatest theater experiences I've had in many years. As I read your review I was along for the ride until the drastic and unnecessary barb thrown in her direction. It doesn't follow any pattern and therefore is simply a superficial anomaly that has no place in legitimate critique. Do yourself a favor and consider leaving out such comments about actors in the future unless it lends some reinforcement to an intellectual point. It truly reveals your amateur abilities as both thinker and writer.
oh come on - the world is based on what we expect from a certain "type" of performer.
Ms. Senters knows who she is.
the reviewer saw who she is and responded honestly.
it's a tough old world out there.
get real.
ms. senters is a fine actor.
nobody expected kathy bates to get into a hot tub on film naked and so when she did, we all celebrated.
it's phoniness of the worst sort to get up on your PC high horse this way.
we all look the way we look and sometimes the roles we play are surprising. lucky us.
get over your knee jerk crap about people showing up in unexpected roles and just love the shows we see.
I think it's perfectly legitimate to note when an actor doesn't look the way a certain part is normally cast. It's not a slight on the actor at all, but a realization of the playwright's intent. The fact that this particular actor pulled off the role is a testament to her abilities, and should only be seen as a compliment. To cast aspersions on the reviewer is absolutely ridiculous. Andrew has shown himself to be a consistently professional reviewer, one of the best in the Iowa City area.
I agree with the previous two comments. It's silly to pretend that audiences don't have certain expectations for a role. And when an actor overcomes those expectations, it's noteworthy.
Hang out in any lobby of any theatre at intermission and you'll hear things like "That actor's too old to be playing opposite that younger actress." "Wow, we're really supposed to believe that pudgy guy is a bodybuilder?" "That actor doesn't look old enough to be Jean Valjean." "That actress is far too pretty to be playing the Ugly Stepsister." Etc. Etc. Etc. Call that unfair, get self-righteous, whatever. But many audience members DO judge these things, and it's perfectly legitimate for a reviewer to recognize that.
On the flip side -- you also hear people say "Wow. I've never seen a Sweeney Todd look as young as Johnny Depp, but you know what? It works." Sometimes, actors overcome those preconceived ideas, and it's worth noting when it happens. It's great that the "Virginia Woolf" reviewer called attention to this in a positive way, precisely BECAUSE Ms. Senters' work flies successfully in the face of the usual actor type for this role.
Oh -- and I'm sorry, but I can't let this go, Poster #3: "It reveals your amateur abilities as thinker and writer." Wow. Seriously? What a self-righteous and overblown thing to say. Your inability to state your opinion without gross exaggerations and overgeneralizations about the reviewer reveal quite a few amateur thinking abilities yourself. Please stop with the pseudo-"outrage" and keep the discussion respectful.
Disclosure: I know Andrew, and though we're not exactly friends, I can't say as though I have anything against him. This is at least the second time he's written something for this blog that's started a back-and-forth flame-war in the comments, and that's happened to other reviewers here, too. And every time it does, there's one thing about the inane bickering and reviewer-bashing that always bothers me/seems conveniently overlooked:
At least these reviewers have the decency to put their *names* next to their words. If they write an insult or think a show is bad, they at least have the integrity to say so without using the cowardly cloak of internet anonymity. A few too many commentators on this blog can't say the same.
Including me.
You're all obviously naive on this whole thing. The liner notes of the play describe Martha as a "large and boisterous" woman. Edward Albee also has final approval on all casting for this and all other productions of Virginia Woolf. He picked Ms. Senters as what he wanted for this role. To assert your own superficial expectations on the role because you saw a young and slender person play Martha once shows that you haven't done your literary research and probably shouldn't be reviewing serious works. Stick to High School Musical.
Thank you to the previous poster. It's all a question of what kind of reviewer you want to be. Do you want to be a reviewer that plays into the ignorant stereotypes that plague modern audiences that have no legitimate insight into the work or do you want to be a serious reviewer that understands the many aspects of a piece as complex as Virginia Woolf and therefore is qualified to superimpose his opinions on productions of such a work? Unfortunately this reviewer can't make up his mind. You really show your hand when your negative comment is directly contradicted by both the work and the playwright. Next time do your research before you try to review such a substantial piece of art and this won't be an issue.
I believe it is the two previous commenters who are naive.
1) Ain't no way Albee, now 82, hand-picked Senters. So blow that submission out your ass. And, no, he WOULDN'T care, because he's a man of theatre, so understands, like this reviewer, that people can play against expected type.
2) Albee did pick Uta Hagen for the original Broadway cast, and what did she look like?: http://www.studio360.org/yore/images/Stealing/Hagen-Virginiawoolf.jpg
3) He also had significant input for the choice of Elizabeth Taylor in the major motion picture, a role for which she won an Oscar. What did SHE look like in 1965?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2415/2179315785_065595059b_z.jpg?zz=1
4) No, I don't expect a local professional theatre to cast the likes of Hagen or Taylor, but I think of a slenderER Martha when I think of "Martha", too. And I, too, when I saw the play, was similarly blown away by how good she was and how little something like that mattered.
5) Large is a nebulous term. Just like old. Or distinguished. It can be relative. Nobody's arguing about boisterous, so why bring it up? Are you saying you have to be large to be boisterious? Well, then, now who's being naive? You say I'm twisting your words to mean more than what you implied? Well, now, who's eating their own high horse?
6) The reviewer said ONE psuedo-negative thing, the point of which was to point out HOW GOOD HE THOUGHT SENTERS ACTED and HOW WRONG HIS INITIAL IDEA OF WHO COULD PLAY THIS ROLE WAS. He's already attacked himself for his stupidity IN HIS OWN WORDS, the rest of you are several days late. To me, it seems he went out of his way to not be insulting and to point out his misgivings; its the people in these comments who are being petty.
7) I agree with the person several levels up that it takes some amount of balls to put your opinion of a piece out there and actually stand by it. If it wasn't for that, what would the rest of you do all day? But, no, let's take him down of few notches for giving up an evening to see a play and a few hours more to write a review about it for your FREE consumption.
8) Plays, like all writing, are MEANT to be interpretted. Just like 3 people could read this play and come back with three interpretations of what the author was trying to say in a particular scene, so too can 3 people read this review and come back with 3 ideas of what level of asshole Mr. Juhl is.
9) Say what you will, but I think he did this on purpose. I don't think this dude gives a damn about being liked, and a lot of what he's written in the DI can attest to that; he wants people to think about the review and go see the show, and we're all dioing exactly what he wanted.
10) I think for any of us to sit here and insult the reviewer for not knowing enough about theatre when we don't know enough about the reviewer (specifically to enough to know what he knows), then we are partaking in hypocricy of the highest order.
"He doesn't know anything about that which he says!"
"Do you know anything about him?"
"No, sir, I do not."
I believe it is the two previous commenters who are naive.
1) Ain't no way Albee, now 82, hand-picked Senters. So blow that submission out your ass. And, no, he WOULDN'T care, because he's a man of theatre, so understands, like this reviewer, that people can play against expected type.
2) Albee did pick Uta Hagen for the original Broadway cast, and what did she look like?: http://www.studio360.org/yore/images/Stealing/Hagen-Virginiawoolf.jpg
3) He also had significant input for the choice of Elizabeth Taylor in the major motion picture, a role for which she won an Oscar. What did SHE look like in 1965?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2415/2179315785_065595059b_z.jpg?zz=1
4) No, I don't expect a local professional theatre to cast the likes of Hagen or Taylor, but I think of a slenderER Martha when I think of "Martha", too. And I, too, when I saw the play, was similarly blown away by how good she was and how little something like that mattered.
5) Large is a nebulous term. Just like old. Or distinguished. It can be relative. Nobody's arguing about boisterous, so why bring it up? Are you saying you have to be large to be boisterious? Well, then, now who's being naive? You say I'm twisting your words to mean more than what you implied? Well, now, who's eating their own high horse?
6) The reviewer said ONE psuedo-negative thing, the point of which was to point out HOW GOOD HE THOUGHT SENTERS ACTED and HOW WRONG HIS INITIAL IDEA OF WHO COULD PLAY THIS ROLE WAS. He's already attacked himself for his stupidity IN HIS OWN WORDS, the rest of you are several days late. To me, it seems he went out of his way to not be insulting and to point out his misgivings; its the people in these comments who are being petty.
7) I agree with the person several levels up that it takes some amount of balls to put your opinion of a piece out there and actually stand by it. If it wasn't for that, what would the rest of you do all day? But, no, let's take him down of few notches for giving up an evening to see a play and a few hours more to write a review about it for your FREE consumption.
8) Plays, like all writing, are MEANT to be interpretted. Just like 3 people could read this play and come back with three interpretations of what the author was trying to say in a particular scene, so too can 3 people read this review and come back with 3 ideas of what level of asshole Mr. Juhl is.
9) Say what you will, but I think he did this on purpose. I don't think this dude gives a damn about being liked, and a lot of what he's written in the DI can attest to that; he wants people to think about the review and go see the show, and we're all dioing exactly what he wanted.
10) I think for any of us to sit here and insult the reviewer for not knowing enough about theatre when we don't know enough about the reviewer (specifically to enough to know what he knows), then we are partaking in hypocricy of the highest order.
"He doesn't know anything about that which he says!"
"Do you know anything about him?"
"No, sir, I do not."
I just hope all this drama leads to bigger audiences for the show. :-)
The fact is that this is a review. Reviews are mostly a subjective and just one person's opinion. Mr. Juhl was doing what was asked of him and because he was honest he got ridiculed for it. If you look at actresses that have played the role in major productions you'll see a pattern. Actresses like Elizabeth Taylor, Kathleen Turner, Uta Hagen, and Mercedes Reuhl. All these actresses represent a certain body type and I'm sure Edward Albee had a hand in approving these actresses too. He probably also had a much larger pool to choose from than he would in Amana, IA. The fact of the matter is, whether it be reviewer or patron everyone comes to the theatre with their own perceptions and world view. This influences how we view the play's events as well as the characters themselves. It is not fair to say a critic hasn't done their "research" just because they didn't happen to read the liner notes of the script. Why would he/she? Based on all the well known productions of this show there is a certain "type" that tends to be cast time and time again. And very few reviewers, if any, actually read the liner notes/character descriptions of a play prior to reviewing it. Plus, he only mentioned Ms. Senters' look in order to accent just how remarkable she was in the role. When a person admits to having one perception but then says an actress changed that perception, that should be seen as the highest compliment. There is also no reason to attack Mr. Juhl's intelligence. All this does is serve to undermine any argument you might be making in the first place. Also, to poster #3 you said you put very little stock in someone's "look" if their performance is of the caliber delivered by Ms. Senters. By saying this you inadvertantly proved Mr. Juhl's point. He didn't say after her performance he still couldn't get past her look. He said prior to seeing the performance her look isn't one he would have associated with the role, but due to her performance he couldn't have been more wrong. I'm sure that this is something many people have experienced. I think we've all heard of someone being cast in a play or movie and had our doubts, and sometimes those doubts are affirmed and sometimes we're proven wrong. I know there were plenty of doubters when Daniel Craig was cast as James Bond or Heath Ledger was cast as the Joker, but they proved naysayers wrong just as Ms. Senters proved Mr. Ruhl wrong. He should be applauded for not allowing his own perceptions to keep him closed off to this possibility. Many people, as proven by some of these posts, aren't as open minded. Let's also not forget, that this was a glowing review. Mr. Juhl loved the show and the performances and gave the production an extremely high recommendation. To focus on this one line of the review that was only mentioned as a lead in to some of the highest praise isn't addressing the review as a whole, and that's unfortunate. There is nothing in this review that would lead to people choosing not tosee the show. To the contrary, this review could lead to people seeking this show out and as a result more tickets will be sold and more people will get to experience this production, and that's a very good thing. However, the fact remains, regardless of whether or not we agree with it, this idea of "looking the part" is always going to be a part of the theatre profession and most actors, especially actors making a living at it, understand this. There are always going to be "types" that we, as an audience associate with certain roles, and people who don't necessarily fit an audience's preconceived notion of a certain role will always have to face that fact, and Mr. Juhl's review was just a reflection of that sentiment.
Thank you, Oh Chill Out, for a great rebuttal that put the two previous, pretentious commentators in their place. Well said, and I agree 100 percent.
I also agree with the hope that this discussion leads to more people going to see the show, as well as some of the other great theatre going on in CR and Iowa City this week. "View from the Bridge," "Six Characters In Search of an Author," "Virginia Woolf" -- three great, classic, challenging dramas all being produced the same weekend! Why doesn't this happen more often?
The fact is that this is a review. Reviews are just one person's opinion. Mr. Juhl was doing what was asked of him and because he was honest he got ridiculed for it. If you look at actresses that have played the role in major productions you'll see a pattern. Actresses like Elizabeth Taylor, Kathleen Turner, Uta Hagen, and Mercedes Reuhl. All these actresses represent a certain body type and I'm sure Edward Albee had a hand in approving these actresses too, and these were major productions. The fact of the matter is everyone comes to the theatre with their own perceptions and world view. Whether critic or average theatregoer, this influences how we view the play's events as well as the characters themselves. To say this type of comment has no place in legitimate critique is just incorrect, especially when the remark is only used to accent just how remarkable she was in the role. When a person admits to having one perception but then says an actress changed that perception, that should be seen as the highest compliment. To poster #3 you said you put very little stock in someone's "look" if their performance is of the caliber delivered by Ms. Senters. By saying this you actually helped prove Mr. Juhl's point. He didn't say after her performance he still couldn't get past her look. He said prior to seeing the performance her look isn't one he would have associated with the role, but due to her performance he couldn't have been more wrong. This is something we've all experienced. We've all heard of someone being cast in a play or movie and had our doubts, and sometimes those doubts are affirmed and sometimes we're proven wrong. I think Mr. Juhl should be applauded for not allowing his own perceptions to keep him closed off to the possibility of being proven wrong. At least he was honest enough to admit to having certain preconceptions. Many people, as proven by some of these posts, aren't willing to embrace this type of honesty for themselves. Let's also not forget, that this was a glowing review. Mr. Juhl loved the show and the performances and gave the production an extremely high recommendation and as a result more people might seek the show out and get to experience this production and that's a good thing. However, the fact remains, regardless of whether or not we agree with it, this idea of "looking the part" is always going to be a part of the theatre profession and most actors, especially actors making a living at it, understand this. There are always going to be "types" that we, as an audience associate with certain roles, and people who don't necessarily fit an audience's preconceived notion of a certain role will always have to face that fact, regardless of an author's intent, and a sliver of Mr. Juhl's review was just a reflection of that sentiment.
I think Mr. Juhl was completely accurate is his assessment If you look at actresses that have played the role in major productions,(actresses like Elizabeth Taylor, Kathleen Turner, Uta Hagen, and Mercedes Reuhl), you'll see they all represent a certain body type and I'm sure Edward Albee had a hand in approving these actresses too, and these were major productions. Everyone comes to the theatre with their own perceptions and world view. Whether critic or average theatregoer, this influences how we view the play's events as well as the characters themselves. To say this type of comment has no place in legitimate critique is just incorrect, especially when the remark is only used to accent just how remarkable she was in the role. When a person admits to having one perception but then says an actress changed that perception, that should be seen as the highest compliment. To poster #3 maybe you should read the review closer because Mr. Juhl agrees with you. He didn't say after her performance he still couldn't get past her look. He said prior to seeing the performance her look isn't one he would have associated with the role, but due to her performance he couldn't have been more wrong. This is something we've all experienced. We've all heard of someone being cast in a play or movie and had our doubts, and sometimes those doubts are affirmed and sometimes we're proven wrong. I think Mr. Juhl should be applauded for not allowing his own perceptions to keep him closed off to the possibility of being proven wrong. At least he was honest enough to admit to having certain preconceptions. Many people, as proven by some of these posts, aren't willing to embrace this type of honesty for themselves. Let's also not forget, that this was a glowing review. Mr. Juhl loved the show and the performances and gave the production an extremely high recommendation and as a result more people might seek the show out and get to experience this production and that's a good thing. However, the fact remains, regardless of whether or not we agree with it, this idea of "looking the part" is always going to be a part of the theatre profession and most actors, especially actors making a living at it, understand this. There are always going to be "types" that we, as an audience associate with certain roles, and people who don't necessarily fit an audience's preconceived notion of a certain role will always have to face that fact, regardless of an author's intent, and a sliver of Mr. Juhl's review was just a reflection of that sentiment.
Post a Comment