Comments

Comments

Rachel Lenart July 13th, 2010

 Thanks John, and thank you, Jo for your considered justification... (i don't agree with you, but fair enough!)

Jo Davies July 10th, 2010

As the reviewer I feel I should address Rachel's comments.

First of all, thank you for them. I completely understand why you'd be so interested in people's impressions of the Auckland treatment on the play, as I'm sure you can understand that it may be completely different from the response to Wellington's treatment.

And I'm sure you appreciate that there are only so many words in a review with which to discuss 3 separate and very different productions.

That said, I stand by my opinion and would like to make it quite clear that I did not describe the female characters in "Thinning"  as "shallow". I said they had little depth when compared with the male characters. And the male character were extremely strong.

Here's why I said what I did.

Firstly, Lily, Fraggle and Billie didn't enjoy the same backstory as Troy and Isaac. As an audience we learnt about Isaac's father's existence which explained why he behaved the way he did and why he despairs of his future. We understand why Troy has chosen to join the Army and why, despite his doubts, he's sticking to his guns. But other than having travelled in the past, there's no real motivation for Lily's wanderlust. Nor do we understand why Billie reacts to her news the way she does because there was no glimpse of what her character's past or future held.

The only hint to Fraggle's story was that she'd had a conversation with Lily while drunk.

Furthermore, teenage girls wear their hearts on their sleeves. In the Auckland performance there was no sign of the "my friends know everything about me" honesty and therefore I was left wondering how these supposedly close friends came to be. Apart from the scene where Billie and Fraggle bait each other, and Billie promises not to call Fraggle one name, then lists a barrage of others, there seemed to be little connection between them. If I'd seen them in public interacting as they did, I would have said they had a sense of obligation to each other, but not a friendship.No, the male characters didn't wear their hearts on their sleeves. But they way their interactions were written, or directed, or portrayed had honesty, truth and a sense of stage magic - which served to heighten the contrast.

And that was why I was, and remain,  unconvinced.

I will also point out that (in my opinion) the character with the most truth, honesty and magic in the previous play, was a male role written by a female. Mark's relationship with Richard was poignant, awkward and raw. And off the back of that, the female characters in "Thinning" became more closed. (Not two-dimensional.)

Thank you Fan for defending the fact that I'm entitled to my opinion. And thank you Rachel for asking for justification. I'm not pointing the finger at the writer, the director or the actors, I'm merely saying that, as far as the female characters were concerned, there was something missing. And I wish I was in the position to see the Wellington production so I could compare the two.

John Smythe July 10th, 2010

As editor of Theatreview, and on behalf of all the contributing critics: we do not consider ourselves to be above criticism. We welcome feedback on our craft just as I hope those we review welcome ours. All viewpoints are valid and yes, some are more informative than others. Thank you, Rachel, for your valuable contribution. 

Fan July 10th, 2010

 Excuse me but what' s childish about using a pseudonym? Most blogs I know everyone does. It doesnt change anything I think and wouldnt make you any the wiser.  

Paul McLaughlin July 10th, 2010

Real tough to call Rachel's contribution 'childish' when you can't even put your real name to your comment, 'Fan' ...

Fan July 10th, 2010

If Joanna felt the characters had little depth, then that's what she felt, and no amount of justification from her or argument from anyone else is going to change her impression.  You just have to accept that this was her impression and deal with it.  You might disagree but it's childish to ignore her view just because it wasn't  'justified'. Just because it's an easy criticism to make (if it is) doesnt mean it can't be true!  I fully agree with her myself and don't intend to try to justify myself either. Reviews are intended as guides for potential audience, not the performers and I think these reviews are a pretty reliable guide to the evening myself. Fitzbunny was great.

Rachel Lenart July 10th, 2010

Hi Joanna,

I am the director of the Wellington production of Thinning. My cast and i were really looking forward to this review to gleam some insight into the prodution as it is being staged in Auckland, to hear how Laurel and her cast have treated the text and the nuances of their interpretation, since we can't see it as the seasons run cocurrently. This review did not really deliver on this, but what really concerns me is your assertion "The female characters are written with little depth". This is a very easy criticism to make of a young male writer but you make no attempt to justify this claim. And so I write in defense of Eli Kent and the women of Thinning

Through the course of this play, each of the four women make life changing choices. In terms of character development, it is the women who grow, the young men ending their journey pretty much where they started, but the women choose and they change.  The women are far more than 2 dimensional robots. They constantly contractict themselves, they are confused, curious and complex and all of them are strong, sassy and smart..Yes, their treatment is less 'rambunctious' than the boys, but it is no less true or real.  Their relationships are explored, on the whole. in a more subtle and inverse way, but isn't this true (generally) of the way girls interact with each other in contrast to the way the boys express themselves?

Of course, you should express your personal opinion of this play, but you really owe it to Eli, Laurel and the 8 marvellous actors bringing these 4 women to life in seperate productions across the country to follow your argument through. Even a little bit, even just one explaination of why you felt this. As Adam says in the play, "Calling people shallow is sort of dissmissive somehow of how messy the brain is." in this case, calling these characters shallow is sort of dismissive somehow, of how complex the play is.

I look forward to further reviews of this production and hope that the next reviewer will attempt to engage with the production and the text in a more considered way.

Erin Banks July 10th, 2010

 As I understand it this review is for the preview performances of all three plays.  The official opening being tonight, Saturday 10 July.

[Thank you Erin - I have revised the note accordingly - ED]