WOOOOOoooooooo
Mar. 2nd, 2008 09:44 amLast night I headed out to Theatreworks to catch Playwright's Forum's production of Sean O'Leary's "Beneath Shelton Laurel," which I jokingly referred to as "Under Sheldon Leonard," when I reserved my ticket. It's a civil-war era ghost story telling the incidents behind "The Shelton Laurel Massacre," one of many wartime atrocities, with certain references to Iraq, but probably similar stories could be told of every war.
The play has four ghosts of victims facing off against two of the former soldiers responsible for the massacre, and the widow if some of the victims helping to push things along. It's an interesting device, but creates intended moments where everyone on stage is shouting something different trying to develop cacophony. These moments are punctuated by the youngest actor on stage wailing the title of this post.
I spoke to the director afterward, and got the sense that she wasn't happy with the production. Admittedly, there was a bit of obviously forgotten dialogue, and a tech issue at the climax that blew the suspension of disbelief, but an audience will almost always overlook those things in a live production--they're part of what make the stage a compelling destination when the screen offers things blowing up. The play could probably use one more revision, but that's not the fault of the production, and from what I understand the playwright is aware of the limitations (Playwright's Forum invites the authors of its productions to attend the run, do q&a, etc.).
I vote to check if out.
The play has four ghosts of victims facing off against two of the former soldiers responsible for the massacre, and the widow if some of the victims helping to push things along. It's an interesting device, but creates intended moments where everyone on stage is shouting something different trying to develop cacophony. These moments are punctuated by the youngest actor on stage wailing the title of this post.
I spoke to the director afterward, and got the sense that she wasn't happy with the production. Admittedly, there was a bit of obviously forgotten dialogue, and a tech issue at the climax that blew the suspension of disbelief, but an audience will almost always overlook those things in a live production--they're part of what make the stage a compelling destination when the screen offers things blowing up. The play could probably use one more revision, but that's not the fault of the production, and from what I understand the playwright is aware of the limitations (Playwright's Forum invites the authors of its productions to attend the run, do q&a, etc.).
I vote to check if out.