A pre-emptive strike.
Lick Your Wounds went really well last night. It went the way it should for the first time. Very interactive. A lot of dialoge with the audience as well as some great scene work and some fun psychological tests for the audience from which we gleened more info for more great scenes.
No critic.
No problem.
The critic didn't come this week. Oh well. As much as I'd love us to get a glowing review in a big paper for this show, I kind of don't want critics to know about this show. Because all the stuff I love and that people who watch me love to watch is stuff that is for them. It's never for critics. I guess that's because a lot of critics became critics because it was the only way to get even with the kids who could do the stuff they were too awkward or unskilled to do. I also imagine that someone like me, who is easily liked, has got to piss off a critic from the get go.
Why, if everyone knows that critics are not good guages of "fun" in a show, do people still read their criticisms? Or do the even read them? Is it possible that the papers that they write for are successful despite the critics columns?
Is it possible that critics are useless?
Probably...except that publicity is nice.
What would be great is to have a psychologist review the critics and have their columns side by side with the criticism of a piece of theater or music by that critic. That way the show's specific demographic could see if the critic was even "in" on the message that that piece of theater or music was sending. If the critic is a 45 year old aspiring spinster who lives with seven cats but loves to criticize (especially males), then the reader will read that and discount her disparaging remarks about the men in the cast or the young urban humor. I don't think Hedy Weiss should be reviewing "The Latin Kings of Comedy". And that's why I love it.
Like if Jim Derogaitis reviewed the most recent Neil Diamond album. Of course he'd hate it. It's not for mass consumption anymore. But Neil's fans. They get it. And they love it. Or if Roger Ebert reviewed that time you stole your best friends girls panties and acted like you didn't know what he was talking about. Roger Ebert wasn't there. And he's never stolen panties.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, to all those who read this and aren't already in "Lick Your Wounds" and intend on seeing it someday in the future, don't be swayed if there's a negative review because chances are the critic is who we're making fun of in some subconscious round about way and the critic probably won't even know that that's why he/she hates it.
But if they like the show, then they're right. It's really good.
No critic.
No problem.
The critic didn't come this week. Oh well. As much as I'd love us to get a glowing review in a big paper for this show, I kind of don't want critics to know about this show. Because all the stuff I love and that people who watch me love to watch is stuff that is for them. It's never for critics. I guess that's because a lot of critics became critics because it was the only way to get even with the kids who could do the stuff they were too awkward or unskilled to do. I also imagine that someone like me, who is easily liked, has got to piss off a critic from the get go.
Why, if everyone knows that critics are not good guages of "fun" in a show, do people still read their criticisms? Or do the even read them? Is it possible that the papers that they write for are successful despite the critics columns?
Is it possible that critics are useless?
Probably...except that publicity is nice.
What would be great is to have a psychologist review the critics and have their columns side by side with the criticism of a piece of theater or music by that critic. That way the show's specific demographic could see if the critic was even "in" on the message that that piece of theater or music was sending. If the critic is a 45 year old aspiring spinster who lives with seven cats but loves to criticize (especially males), then the reader will read that and discount her disparaging remarks about the men in the cast or the young urban humor. I don't think Hedy Weiss should be reviewing "The Latin Kings of Comedy". And that's why I love it.
Like if Jim Derogaitis reviewed the most recent Neil Diamond album. Of course he'd hate it. It's not for mass consumption anymore. But Neil's fans. They get it. And they love it. Or if Roger Ebert reviewed that time you stole your best friends girls panties and acted like you didn't know what he was talking about. Roger Ebert wasn't there. And he's never stolen panties.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, to all those who read this and aren't already in "Lick Your Wounds" and intend on seeing it someday in the future, don't be swayed if there's a negative review because chances are the critic is who we're making fun of in some subconscious round about way and the critic probably won't even know that that's why he/she hates it.
But if they like the show, then they're right. It's really good.
posted by Churchill at 11:10 PM
1 Comments:
That was a really great show for us. I like the fact that I was tired, and because of my tiredness chose to execute my "scene work" from a sitting down position. And it worked! So there. I'm the big winner. Or weiner. Yes, I am a knockwurst. And this is my story.
Why do ladies hurt me?
Post a Comment
<< Home