How often does a play begin in a dark, eerie morgue and end in a big musical number? Not often, especially if that play is City of Angels, a musical most theaters wont touch with a ten foot long conductors baton. And who can blame them? The show is remarkably technically complex, requiring a big strong set, as well as many rotating set pieces, a huge amount of scene changes, lots of furniture and props, a fantastic band and musical director to tackle its complicated score and a highly talented cast, most of whom must play at least two roles.
Thats why I tip my hat to Wheaton Drama, Inc. for not only taking on these challenges, but for doing an outstanding job in the process.
City of Angels is a fun show. Not only is it written by Larry Gelbart, the man who helped bring us TV’s M*A*S*H, such films as Tootsie and plays that include A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum and Sly Fox, but it has great music by Cy Coleman of Sweet Charity fame and lyrics by the clever David Zippel.
At first, the play appears to be a black and white detective film noir, complete with dark scenes, violence and snappy language, but this really turns out to be the play within the play. The real story, set in full color, is about novelist-turned-screenwriter, Stine, and his journey into the dark faerie tale land of late 1940s Hollywood. While writing the screenplay for his book “City of Angels”, Stine discovers that the parallels between fiction and real life (or should I say reel life) are many. Tempted by fame, fortune and beautiful women, Stine begins compromising his principles, making drastic changes to his story to make it in the movies.
Director Steve Schroeder made some interesting choices that really paid off. The first can be seen in the way he pulled the audience into the show. After projecting a short film made in newsreel style and reporting on Wheaton Dramas upcoming schedule he had the ushers lead us into the story. These four young people who had been talking with and helping the audience suddenly begin singing as the curtains open. The opening theme song is in the style of the Manhattan Transfer. Any fan of the Transfer will tell you that complicated harmonies, cross harmonies and counter melodies are what theyre all about– that and a big band jazz sound that makes it hard to sit still. I can honestly say that The Angel City 4 – Harrison Ashley, Harmony Barry, Amy Royle and Charles Rucker – did the Transfer proud, singin, dancin and jazzin to the music.
David Pfenninger brings the character of Stine to life, giving him a quiet, calm demeanor but also a passion for his art and plenty of guilt over his many betrayals. Not only does Stine betray his art, but also his wife, Gabby. Along with real acting talent, Pfenninger has one of the strongest voices you will hear anywhere in Chicago theater.
Doug Orlyk plays Stone, the private eye in Stines story. Orlyk plays the role with the appropriate been there, done that laissez-faire attitude. And, while some actors in this role adopt a Humphrey Bogart sounding voice, Orlyk plays Stone straight which works well. In true film noir fashion, many of Stones lines are heard as his thoughts. These prerecorded inner monologues work well, especially because Orlyks subtle actions compliment his thoughts, getting laughs and other strong reactions from the audience.
Lori Skubich plays two roles, as do so many of the other leads. As Oolie, Stones assistant/Girl Friday, Skubich is tough-as-nails. She is not afraid to go into the worst parts of town and can even make flashers cry. But, tough as she is, she can still be hurt by Stone, for whom she bears a torch. Skubich also plays Donna, Stines real world lover. This she does with much the same character as Oolie though with a tad more cut-throat drive for success. Both are strong women whove made it in a mans world and whom, sadly, give more then they receive. Skubich brings to each role solid acting plus a lovely and strong singing voice. The audience loves her.
Dawn Brown plays Stines wife, Gabby, as well as Stones star-crossed lover, Bobbi. Brown is very good in each role. As Gabby she is sympathetic and sagely, giving her husband good advice, while alluding to her pain at his habit of sleeping around. As Bobbi, she brings a near innocent quality to this good-woman-gone-bad. Bobbi is an ironic juxtaposition of her real world counterpart: while the character Bobbi cheats on her man, in the real world it is not she, but Stine who cant stay faithful.
Both Skubich and Brown stop the show with their duet, What You Dont Know About Women. Together, their voices are as strong as their commitments to their roles as women taken too much for granted.
Lars Timpa plays Irwin S. Irving, the noir worlds sleazy director who is fooling around with Stones girl. In the real world, Timpa is Buddy Fidler– producer, director and all-around bullying jerk. Hes a winner who gets his way, and youd better know it. Timpa brings excellent timing and acting to this role, knowing how to sleaze one moment and bully the next. In one song, Timpa pushes Pfenninger/Stine around the stage in a wheeled office chair telling him how things really work in Hollywood. As his Cheshire grin grows, he looks like a cat playing with a ball or maybe playing with its prey. This really sums up Buddy, making him a character the audience loves to hate.
As Alaura Kingsley, the noir femme fatale, Julie Rodgers-Baker burns up the stage. This red-hot hottie hires Stone to find her missing stepdaughter, and maybe help her with an itch that needs scratching. Whether in a skimpy tennis skirt or silky nightgown, she knows just what buttons to push on Stone — and I didnt hear any of the men in the audience complaining, either. Rodgers-Baker also plays Carla Haywood, Fidlers wife. Haywood knows her power as wife to a well-connected film producer and director. Each role was played painfully well by the talented and beautiful Rodgers-Baker, who also has a lovely singing voice.
Marc Ludena brings to life the vengeful Lt. Munoz, Stones foil who is thrilled to give his hated enemy a hard time. In the song All You Have to Do is Wait, Ludena along with a chorus of dancing officers and morgue employees, nearly brings the house down. This was a funny number and everyone on stage deserves their kudos. Though he may not have the strongest voice, Ludenas is pretty good and his fantastic timing is more than enough to get the audience laughing and cheering. As Hollywood actor, Pancho Vargas, Ludena is also funny, but in fawning sort of way. He knows enough make it in Tinseltown and that is just what hell do.
Brett Holcomb plays Jimmy Powers, a singer living in both worlds, performing with the Angel City 4 and adding music & humor to several scenes. Holcomb brings this crooner to life with a fantastic voice and a great understanding of comedy. He did a fine job of making Powers entertaining and buffoonish.
Lisa Savegnago also does some burning up of the stage as Mallory Kingsley, the missing stepdaughter. Wearing a bed sheet and nothing else, she sings a hot seductive Lost and Found to a shocked Stone. Her movements are primal, her voice gorgeous. Savegnago also plays Avril Raines, rising actress and would-be seductress to Stine, were her efforts not continuously foiled by Haywood, the directors wife. I really enjoyed Savegnagos performance. Considering some of the risqu things she had to do in this role, I can guess that she is a real sport; one who knows how to move, act and sing.
Other performances of note include Dan Baggott-Miller as Dr. Sebastian Mandril, the typical guru-to-the-wealthy, complete with fake accent and funny gestures. Craig Gustafson brought humor to the many parts he played, including the Shoeshine Boy who had the unenviable task of shining Buddy Fidlers shoes on his constantly moving feet. Lisa Baggott-Miller was great as the street smart, world-weary city brothel madam. She spat truisms and sarcasm strongly enough to blind a sailor.
All of these performers were supported by an eight-piece orchestra (directed masterfully by David Belew), smooth scene changes led by Debbie Trueblood and many more contributors than I can mention here.
Aside from a few technical errors, such as a phone ringing well after it had been picked up and an ill-timed gun shot sound effect, this was a nearly flawless show.
City of Angels is a favorite show of mine for many reasons, some of which have been mentioned. I particularly enjoy how it plays with the idea of a writer interacting with his creation. This plays out beautifully at the end of the show, but I do not wish to spoil that for you. Instead, I suggest seeing the show when you are able– and only if the production is well worth seeing. Thats why I recommend seeing City of Angels at Wheaton Drama, Inc.
City of Angels is playing at 111 N. Hale Street, Wheaton, Illinois, and runs from June 5 through June 28, Thursdays-Saturdays at 8pm, Sundays at 3pm. Tickets range from $18-$21. Call 630-260-1820 for reservations or visit www.wheatondrama.org.
Wow!: Isn’t freedom of speech a wonderful thing? When I write a review in which I praise a show I am considered insightful and enlightened. When I hate a show, as I certainly did with Wheaton’s production of City of Angels, I am unduly mean and harsh. Mr. Hickman and I clearly saw two different productions if he felt this one was nearly flawless. He is just as entitled to his opinion as I am to mine. I would love to know what Mr. Dalton thought once he saw it himself. If he is as honest and passionate as he sounds I would love to have him review for me some time. I’m one of the few reviewers out there who would even consider reviewing community theatre, and I hope my reviews are fair, articulate and interesting to read. If they help stir up as much thought and controversy as this, then I consider my job well done.
Clarification: Be assured, EverGreen, that this thread has not left a bad taste in my mouth. I relish the free exchange of ideas. I would like to point out, however, that I never blamed Wheaton Drama for anything. I have been a regular patron since the 90s and have had many wonderful audience experiences. I’ve also had some awful experiences. But I still keep coming back. I sorry that you were disheartened that I thought it important that readers knew that there was another review that was dichotomous to the one on TribLocal, so that they could make an informed decision about seeing the show. I’ll let you know what I think after I see it tonight.
hope you enjoy the show…: Mr Dalton,
I really do hope you enjoy the show when you come out to see it tonight. And I hope you can see it with fresh eyes and are not influenced by either Mr. Stead’s (IMO overly-harsh) critique, or by the bad taste that all the friction on this thread has undoubtedly left in your mouth.
And while we can’t do anything to change your opinion as to the validity of Mr. Hickman’s review, except go out there and do the best darn show we can–which we will certainly attempt to do–I do hope you can find more to enjoy in it than Joe Stead did.
We did not attempt to suppress the Stead review, but we did not find it in out interest to publicize it. Clearly, Chris Hickman’s review is only going to help us, so we linked to it from our website. We’d be mad to do that with Stead’s. I don’t think you should hold WDI to “blame” for not publicizing the negative review. Nor is it Mr. Hickman’s responsibility to report on someone else’s differing opinion. I find it somewhat disheartening that you chose to steer our potential viewers to a negative review before you’ve formulated your own opinion. I’m sure it was not your intent, but it’s actually a terribly mean-spirited thing to do.
It is my greatest hope that we can change your mind tonight, and that you’ll come back here and be able to say that you found more common ground with Chris Hickman than you did with Joe Stead.
Enjoy the show!
Ah, But Underneath . . .: (with a tip of the hat to both Stephen Sondheim and Mark Cherry . . .)
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the director of the aforementioned “City of Angels.” Today, however, I wish to put on one of my other hats–that of Professor of Speech Communication, Argumentation and Debate at College of DuPage. The above arguments from both Mr. Dalton and Mr. Gustafson need some clarification, strengthening, and better support.
Issue #1–is the positive review biased? Since I am indeed a good friend of Mr. Hickman, I can state unequivocally that that he holds himself to very high ethical standards. I have received negative and positive reviews from Mr. Hickman in the past, both in private and public forums. Mr. Hickman would not hold back on constructive criticism regardless of the forum or recipients–a quality of an excellent critic if you ask me. In the future, I recommend that Mr. Dalton provide more grounds for claims of bias beyond association.
Issue #2-is a review by a stranger unbiased? In this case (and with all due respect to my friend and cast member, Mr. Gustafson) I do not see any reason why Mr. Steads review is overtly biased. While I do not respect the destructive tone of Mr. Steads review, I absolutely accept some of his criticisms, particularly concerning the feasibility of producing the show. It is a challenging show indeed.
Issue #3–is the positive review a marketing ploy? The creation of it was not. Both Mr. Hickman and Mr. Stead were invited by the shows production manager to review the show. My understanding is that Mr. Stead attended on Sunday, June 7th and that Mr. Hickman attended on Thursday, June 11th. Did Mr. Dalton inquire as to whether or not Mr. Hickman was even aware of Mr. Steads review before writing his own? Once again, Mr. Dalton seems to create guilt by associationjust because Mr. Hickmans review appeared after Mr. Steads review does not mean it is a reaction piece.
That being said, is Wheaton Drama using Mr. Hickmans review for marketing purposes? You betwhat producer would not? If Mr. Dalton claims that they should not because of bias on Mr. Hickmans part, please re-read Issue #1.
Issue #4-should critics fully disclose potential sources of bias? I argue no. Every critic will bring in bias when reviewing a show–whether they know people in the show, have prior professional relationships with people in the show, have reviewed them in the past, received negative reviews from them, and the list could go on and on and on. Let critics be evaluated by the quality of their review, not by their associations. Which brings me to . . .
Issue #5 (and, if you ask me, the ultimate issue)should both reviews be read? Absolutely. Here Mr. Dalton assumes correctly that both reviews have valid points. So do read them both. Even bettercome see the show and make assumptions for yourself! http://www.wheatondrama.org
Ah, But Underneath . . .: (with a tip of the hat to both Stephen Sondheim and Mark Cherry . . .)
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the director of the aforementioned “City of Angels.” Today, however, I wish to put on one of my other hats–that of Professor of Speech Communication, Argumentation and Debate at College of DuPage. The above arguments from both Mr. Dalton and Mr. Gustafson need some clarification, strengthening, and better support.
Issue #1–is the positive review biased? Since I am indeed a good friend of Mr. Hickman, I can state unequivocally that that he holds himself to very high ethical standards. I have received negative and positive reviews from Mr. Hickman in the past, both in private and public forums. Mr. Hickman would not hold back on constructive criticism regardless of the forum or recipients–a quality of an excellent critic if you ask me. In the future, I recommend that Mr. Dalton provide more grounds for claims of bias beyond association.
Issue #2-is a review by a stranger unbiased? In this case (and with all due respect to my friend and cast member, Mr. Gustafson) I do not see any reason why Mr. Steads review is overtly biased. While I do not respect the destructive tone of Mr. Steads review, I absolutely accept some of his criticisms, particularly concerning the feasibility of producing the show. It is a challenging show indeed.
Issue #3–is the positive review a marketing ploy? The creation of it was not. Both Mr. Hickman and Mr. Stead were invited by the shows production manager to review the show. My understanding is that Mr. Stead attended on Sunday, June 7th and that Mr. Hickman attended on Thursday, June 11th. Did Mr. Dalton inquire as to whether or not Mr. Hickman was even aware of Mr. Steads review before writing his own? Once again, Mr. Dalton creates guilt by associationjust because Mr. Hickmans review appeared after Mr. Steads review does not mean it is a reaction piece.
That being said, is Wheaton Drama using Mr. Hickmans review for marketing purposes? You betwhat producer would not? If Mr. Dalton claims that they should not because of bias on Mr. Hickmans part, please re-read Issue #1.
Issue #4-should critics fully disclose potential sources of bias? I argue no. Every critic will bring in bias when reviewing a show–whether they know people in the show, have prior professional relationships with people in the show, have reviewed them in the past, received negative reviews from them, and the list could go on and on and on. Let critics be evaluated by the quality of their review, not by their associations. Which brings me to . . .
Issue #5 (and, if you ask me, the ultimate issue)should both reviews be read? Absolutely. Here Mr. Dalton assumes correctly that both reviews have valid points. So do read them both. Even bettercome see the show and make assumptions for yourself! http://www.wheatondrama.org
The Reveal: You are assuming that Clay Dalton is not my real name. I have noticed that some, like Goneril Lear, will use a nom de plume to protect themselves from any backlash within the small community theater world. But since I don’t associate with the theater community and don’t have to hide to avoid repercussions, using a pseudonym makes no sense. I am Clay Dalton, originally from Tallahassee Florida, where I graduated from a Christian high school and moved to this area to attend Wheaton College, and now call Wheaton my home. I have been seeing plays at Wheaton Drama since I arrived, and witnessed its transformation into the wonderful space that it is today. I am familiar with many of the players in the show, having seen them in various productions, and as a theater-enthusiast, I seek out information in various places, including TribLocal, NICOTH and your theater group on Yahoo. I have lurked in the shadows and have noticed trends and now feel the desire to share information about reviews I have found. Should I get actively involved in theater as other than an audience member, I would like to be able to broadcast show information. I have asked for membership to your Theater list so I can get the messages in e-mail and post my own messages (following the guidelines, of course), but have not received approval. I’m sure it’s forthcoming. You’re a stalwart enough fellow not to impede the free exchange of ideas. For observations and comments – well, those will go to NICOTH as soon as they approve my account. Plus I will post my reviews on TribLocal. By the way, your friend did not write a “good” review. It was a “favorable” review. The terms “good” and “bad” connote judgement on the part of the reader who may have a vested interest in the show reviewed. Perhaps it would be better stated as “favorable” or “unfavorable.” I am attending the show tonight. We’ll see which way I’ll go.
Saw show – my comments: I saw this show on Saturday night. I have no connections with anyone associated with the show or the theater group. Both my husband and I had the same conclusion. We would love to see the show again but with a different theater group. As in most community theater, there were some very good actors but there were also some very weak links which brought the show down. We LOVED David Pfenninger, not so much Doug Orlyk. So we had a problem with half of the leading men. Aside from Dawn Brown and Lori Skubich the women were weak. This is just two audience member’s opinions.
Honesty: I think you’re missing the point and that thou dost protest too much. This review was written as a marketing tool to sell tickets for the show. We’ve seen it before – say something negative about a show, and the next thing you know, friends of the cast are posting how much they loved the show. This review was written by someone who is a good friend of people in the cast. My information is that he went out for drinks with cast members after the show. I don’t claim that that makes it suspect and I didn’t say it makes it invalid, but reviewers generally don’t do that since it smacks of impropriety. I did say that the review probably has valid points, just as the other one probably has valid points. But the other review is not being touted on your web site, or on the http://www.nicoth.com website or by anyone associated with the show. Who can blame them. The guy hated the show. It would be an ill-advised marketing strategy. But there should be some honesty in all this. When a newspaper reports a story about something they may have a connection to, they need to declare it. When some stock market guru advises that you buy or sell a particular stock on public radio, TV or in the paper, they are required to declare if they have positions in that stock. I think the same kind of transparency should apply to reviews. For instance, you probably should mention that you are in the show and are mentioned favorably in the review and that the person who wrote the review is your friend. Again, nothing wrong with that if everyone is up-front. I just think that readers should know that there are other points of view that come from people who do not have relationships with cast members. As for glossing over what the reviewer found wrong, I didn’t miss it. It’s right there, a one-sentence paragraph, first from the last, about a couple of missed sound cues. It represents 1% of the review, and, other than that, he thought the show was nearly flawless. I didn’t gloss over that, although it was hard to see after the blinding praise. As I said, people should read both reviews. The more information they have, the better decisions they will make. And I do know about vindictive reviews. I understand that it happens. I read one recently of a show in St. Charles, that was absolutely brutal to the playwright – who happens to be a theater critic for the Daily Herald. Do you think it’s a coincidence that it was written by an actor who was a victim of a couple of negative reviews from that critic. It might have been a valid review. I don’t know, since I never saw the show. But knowing that fact tempers my acceptance of the critique. It’s all about the honesty.
Missing the point: I think you’re missing the point and that thou dost protest too much. This review was written as a marketing tool to sell tickets for the show. We’ve seen it before – say something negative about a show, and the next thing you know, friends of the cast are posting how much they loved the show. This review was written by someone who is a good friend of people in the cast. My information is that he went out for drinks with cast members after the show. I don’t claim that that makes it suspect and I didn’t say it makes it invalid, but reviewers generally don’t do that since it smacks of impropriety. I did say that the review probably has valid points, just as the other one probably has valid points. But the other review is not being touted on your web site, or on the http://www.nicoth.com website or by anyone associated with the show. Who can blame them. The guy hated the show. It would be an ill-advised marketing strategy. But there should be some honesty in all this. When a newspaper reports a story about something they may have a connection to, they need to declare it. When some stock market guru advises that you buy or sell a particular stock on public radio, TV or in the paper, they are required to declare if they have positions in that stock. I think the same kind of transparency should apply to reviews. For instance, you probably should mention that you are in the show and are mentioned favorably in the review and that the person who wrote the review is your friend. Again, nothing wrong with that if everyone is up-front. I just think that readers should know that there are other points of view that come from people who do not have relationships with cast members.
Missing the point: I think you’re missing the point and that thou dost protest too much. This review was written as a marketing tool to sell tickets for the show. We’ve seen it before – say something negative about a show, and the next thing you know, friends of the cast are posting how much they loved the show. This review was written by someone who is a good friend of people in the cast. My information is that he went out for drinks with cast members after the show. I don’t claim that that makes it suspect and I didn’t say it makes it invalid, but reviewers generally don’t do that since it smacks of impropriety. I did say that the review probably has valid points, just as the other one probably has valid points. But the other review is not being touted on your web site, or on the http://www.nicoth.com website or by anyone associated with the show. Who can blame them. The guy hated the show. It would be an ill-advised marketing strategy. But there should be some honesty in all this. When a newspaper reports a story about something they may have a connection to, they need to declare it. When some stock market guru advises that you buy or sell a particular stock on public radio, TV or in the paper, they are required to declare if they have positions in that stock. I think the same kind of transparency should apply to reviews. For instance, you probably should mention that you are in the show and are mentioned favorably in the review and that the person who wrote the review is your friend. Again, nothing wrong with that if everyone is up-front. I just think that readers should know that there are other points of view that come from people who do not have relationships with cast members. As for glossing over what the reviewer found wrong, I didn’t miss it. It’s right there, a one-sentence paragraph, first from the last, about a couple of missed sound cues. It represents 1% of the review, and, other than that, he thought the show was nearly flawless. I didn’t gloss over that, although it was hard to see after the blinding praise. As I said, people should read both reviews. The more information they have, the better decisions they will make. And I do know about vindictive reviews. I understand that it happens. I read one recently of a show in St. Charles, that was absolutely brutal to the playwright – who happens to be a theater critic for the Daily Herald. Do you think it’s a coincidence that it was written by an actor who was a victim of a couple of negative reviews from that critic. It might have been a valid review. I don’t know, since I never saw the show. But knowing that fact tempers my acceptance of the critique. It’s all about the honesty.
Missing the point: I think you’re missing the point and that thou dost protest too much. This review was written as a marketing tool to sell tickets for the show. We’ve seen it before – say something negative about a show, and the next thing you know, friends of the cast are posting how much they loved the show. This review was written by someone who is a good friend of people in the cast. My information is that he went out for drinks with cast members after the show. I don’t claim that that makes it suspect and I didn’t say it makes it invalid, but reviewers generally don’t do that since it smacks of impropriety. I did say that the review probably has valid points, just as the other one probably has valid points. But the other review is not being touted on your web site, or on the http://www.nicoth.com website or by anyone associated with the show. Who can blame them. The guy hated the show. It would be an ill-advised marketing strategy. But there should be some honesty in all this. When a newspaper reports a story about something they may have a connection to, they need to declare it. When some stock market guru advises that you buy or sell a particular stock on public radio, TV or in the paper, they are required to declare if they have positions in that stock. I think the same kind of transparency should apply to reviews. For instance, you probably should mention that you are in the show and are mentioned favorably in the review and that the person who wrote the review is your friend. Again, nothing wrong with that if everyone is up-front. I just think that readers should know that there are other points of view that come from people who do not have relationships with cast members. As for glossing over what the reviewer found wrong, I didn’t miss it. It’s right there, a one-sentence paragraph, first from the last, about a couple of missed sound cues. It represents 1% of the review, and, other than that, he thought the show was nearly flawless. I didn’t gloss over that, although it was hard to see after the blinding praise. As I said, people should read both reviews. The more information they have, the better decisions they will make. And I do know about vindictive reviews. I understand that it happens. I read one recently of a show in St. Charles, that was absolutely brutal to the playwright – who happens to be a theater critic for the Daily Herald. Do you think it’s a coincidence that it was written by an actor who was a victim of a couple of negative reviews from that critic. It might have been a valid review. I don’t know, since I never saw the show. But knowing that fact tempers my acceptance of the critique. It’s all about the honesty.
Missing the point: I think you’re missing the point and that thou dost protest too much. This review was written as a marketing tool to sell tickets for the show. We’ve seen it before – say something negative about a show, and the next thing you know, friends of the cast are posting how much they loved the show. This review was written by someone who is a good friend of people in the cast. My information is that he went out for drinks with cast members after the show. I don’t claim that that makes it suspect and I didn’t say it makes it invalid, but reviewers generally don’t do that since it smacks of impropriety. I did say that the review probably has valid points, just as the other one probably has valid points. But the other review is not being touted on your web site, or on the http://www.nicoth.com website or by anyone associated with the show. Who can blame them. The guy hated the show. It would be an ill-advised marketing strategy. But there should be some honesty in all this. When a newspaper reports a story about something they may have a connection to, they need to declare it. When some stock market guru advises that you buy or sell a particular stock on public radio, TV or in the paper, they are required to declare if they have positions in that stock. I think the same kind of transparency should apply to reviews. For instance, you probably should mention that you are in the show and are mentioned favorably in the review and that the person who wrote the review is your friend. Again, nothing wrong with that if everyone is up-front. I just think that readers should know that there are other points of view that come from people who do not have relationships with cast members. As for glossing over what the reviewer found wrong, I didn’t miss it. It’s right there, a one-sentence paragraph, first from the last, about a couple of missed sound cues. It represents 1% of the review, and, other than that, he thought the show was nearly flawless. I didn’t gloss over that, although it was hard to see after the blinding praise. As I said, people should read both reviews. The more information they have, the better decisions they will make. And I do know about vindictive reviews. I understand that it happens. I read one recently of a show in St. Charles, that was absolutely brutal to the playwright – who happens to be a theater critic for the Daily Herald. Do you think it’s a coincidence that it was written by an actor who was a victim of a couple of negative reviews from that critic. It might have been a valid review. I don’t know, since I never saw the show. But knowing that fact tempers my acceptance of the critique. It’s all about the honesty.
There is another review of this show: Reviews are tricky creatures. Some are honest, some are vindictive and some are nothing more than a marketing tool. Unfortunately, this one falls into the latter category. The author is good friends with some cast members, as well as the director. If you care to read another review from someone who has no ties to the production nor the cast/crew, follow this link:
http://www.steadstylechicago.com/cityofangels.html
One review can find no wrong with the production, even sending kudos to the stage manager. This is the “friend” review. The other couldn’t find anything right with the show. This is the “unbiased” review. I’m guessing that both reviews have valid points. Read them both. I will see the show on Thursday, and will report on what I discover.