Mouth-Breathing (Can You Hear Me Now?)
Mar. 30th, 2006 12:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mrdreamjeansThere are many reasons for mouth-breathing, but I’m mostly doing so because I was hit tonight on the bridge of my nose for the third time in ten shows. The first two times resulted in cuts which bled for while. Tonight, the visual joke known as ‘a painting smashed over my head’ resulted in part of the wood frame catching the badge on my hat, badly bending the badge (almost ripping it from the hat); reopening the cut, bruising one side of my nose and making it difficult to breath. So, it’s mouth-breathing for me till swelling subsides.
David and I have rehearsed the bit and it’s increasingly frustrating because neither one of us can figure out why it’s only worked 7 of 10 times. The business may have to be cut or altered as it’s not fool-proof. I’ve never given up on a bit, but one more whack could break my nose.
Sometimes I think theater criticism is nothing but mouth-breathing:) “Wonderful Town” has garnered smash reviews; we’re five for five calling us a dazzling hit. That’s terrific! However, a writer from Seattle alternative paper The Stranger followed Sarah (Ruth) around backstage on our final preview. One of our actors was reading a review which cruelly and personally attacked a friend of his performing in another show than ours.
Jim went off about the mean-spirited critic not realizing the writer of the piece was in the room. When he did find out, our actor confronted the writer about the attack. The confrontation was mentioned in the piece that came out today on “Wonderful Town”. It led to a dressing room discussion of theater criticism, its role within a community and the effects on an actor’s psyche.
Most actors I know don’t read reviews until after the show closes. I read them right away, but mostly because I worked as a critic for a couple of years and like to see if the person is a good writer. I look for accuracy in the facts; a sense of style ... I don’t look to agree or disagree with the writer. After all, it’s one person’s opinion. When I wrote, I tried to remind my readers that my review was simply an opinion. I encouraged them to attend theatre and decide for themselves. I tried to offer constructive criticism.
It’s much easier to go negative, than to be positive but critical. A Houston critic, reviewing a comedy a few years back said that the lead actor was “as funny as a dead baby’s grave”. A piercing and vivid remark, but cruel. I had a difficult task when I reviewed musicals in Houston because I was often looking critically at the acting community of which I was a member. I negotiated the role pretty well except on one disastrous occasion.
I was sent to review a Las Vegas-based comedy revue which was playing Houston. The show had added two Houstonians to their bawdy sketch show; both men I had worked with previously. One of the actors was a female impersonator of some reputation. I sat in disbelief, as in one sketch after another, he was terrible ... embarrassingly inept and offensive. I remember thinking, “How am I going to write about this?” I said, “The always talented **** was let down by his material.” Sounds safe, right? What I didn’t know was that he had written the drivel too. A backfire, but I did try to be nice and at the same time let readers know that the material didn’t work. Oh well ....
Finally, there’s mouth-breathing as in being turned on:) The dressing room I’m sharing with two other actors is nicknamed “Vegas” ... as in “What goes on in Vegas, stays in Vegas”. Typical of musical theatre, the chat in our dressing room is funny, inventive ... often sexual and profane. We were discussing the ‘ins and outs’ of a situation and then got sidetracked to the implications of sex in the phrase. All of a sudden we were debating a subject I’d never thought of in a specific way. In sex, is it the ‘in’ or ‘out’ which is more pleasurable? I think it bears examination and study. *grin* .... Can you hear me now? Ha!
David and I have rehearsed the bit and it’s increasingly frustrating because neither one of us can figure out why it’s only worked 7 of 10 times. The business may have to be cut or altered as it’s not fool-proof. I’ve never given up on a bit, but one more whack could break my nose.
Sometimes I think theater criticism is nothing but mouth-breathing:) “Wonderful Town” has garnered smash reviews; we’re five for five calling us a dazzling hit. That’s terrific! However, a writer from Seattle alternative paper The Stranger followed Sarah (Ruth) around backstage on our final preview. One of our actors was reading a review which cruelly and personally attacked a friend of his performing in another show than ours.
Jim went off about the mean-spirited critic not realizing the writer of the piece was in the room. When he did find out, our actor confronted the writer about the attack. The confrontation was mentioned in the piece that came out today on “Wonderful Town”. It led to a dressing room discussion of theater criticism, its role within a community and the effects on an actor’s psyche.
Most actors I know don’t read reviews until after the show closes. I read them right away, but mostly because I worked as a critic for a couple of years and like to see if the person is a good writer. I look for accuracy in the facts; a sense of style ... I don’t look to agree or disagree with the writer. After all, it’s one person’s opinion. When I wrote, I tried to remind my readers that my review was simply an opinion. I encouraged them to attend theatre and decide for themselves. I tried to offer constructive criticism.
It’s much easier to go negative, than to be positive but critical. A Houston critic, reviewing a comedy a few years back said that the lead actor was “as funny as a dead baby’s grave”. A piercing and vivid remark, but cruel. I had a difficult task when I reviewed musicals in Houston because I was often looking critically at the acting community of which I was a member. I negotiated the role pretty well except on one disastrous occasion.
I was sent to review a Las Vegas-based comedy revue which was playing Houston. The show had added two Houstonians to their bawdy sketch show; both men I had worked with previously. One of the actors was a female impersonator of some reputation. I sat in disbelief, as in one sketch after another, he was terrible ... embarrassingly inept and offensive. I remember thinking, “How am I going to write about this?” I said, “The always talented **** was let down by his material.” Sounds safe, right? What I didn’t know was that he had written the drivel too. A backfire, but I did try to be nice and at the same time let readers know that the material didn’t work. Oh well ....
Finally, there’s mouth-breathing as in being turned on:) The dressing room I’m sharing with two other actors is nicknamed “Vegas” ... as in “What goes on in Vegas, stays in Vegas”. Typical of musical theatre, the chat in our dressing room is funny, inventive ... often sexual and profane. We were discussing the ‘ins and outs’ of a situation and then got sidetracked to the implications of sex in the phrase. All of a sudden we were debating a subject I’d never thought of in a specific way. In sex, is it the ‘in’ or ‘out’ which is more pleasurable? I think it bears examination and study. *grin* .... Can you hear me now? Ha!
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}