Austinist: Clean-up Needed on "Aisle 7"

Greg Romero

Fri, 03 Mar 2006 09:53:16 -0600

Dear Elephant Man and Jooley Ann: I actually can't stand the overabundance of "glowing" reviews in this city. The lack of rigorous, thoughtful arts criticism is one of the reasons why Austin (and most other cities in this country) continues to underachieve despite the impressive collection of talented people working in the theatre. I wish wish wish wish wish more reviewers would challenge artists to do better work (there are several well-known theatres in the city who have gotten soft from all of the praise). However-- part of the rigor I'm speaking of is a rigor of understanding (or attempts at understanding) that comes with evaluating new plays. I don't feel you can just apply the same tools on new/alternative work that you would with older, established, more conventional work. They are different things and require a different kind of evaluation-- particularly in a university setting where we generally (and hopefully) are taking more risks in our pursuit of creative discovery and the emphasis in the work is placed more on exploration than it is on product. All that being said, I'm happy to read that you can identify Kendall Lynch's talent and the talents of the rest of the creative team of AISLE 7. I do hope that The Austinist continues to check out the work that we are doing at the University of Texas. until then, Greg

Jooley Ann

Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:10:28 -0600

Indeed, the elephant man has a point. I think my age might surprise you. But thanks for calling me "young." I don't get that too terribly often anymore. (Neither am I "old," but somewheres in between. A lady never reveals her age. *sniff*) I understand what you're saying, Greg. However, there's a difference between a challenging and satisfying unconventional work, and a confusing and frustrating unconventional work. To me, "Aisle 7" is the latter. It unravels in a way that leaves the audience wanting. Several of the monologues in the second half of the work are redundant. Further, they have the feel of earlier pieces that the author was proud of, so she shoehorned them into the play...even though they don't really fit. Or perhaps they were the springboard for the narrative? Either way, I found the result to be muddled and very loose. All that being said, I do think the piece has great potential, and I surely don't mean to write off the playwright or her work. I agree that UT has a very impressive force of creative talent -- something I discovered with this performance. That's a powerful resource for a playwright. Nothing gets the creative juices flowing more effectively than seeing one's work come to life. I did struggle, thoughtfully and carefully, to understand this piece. Perhaps it's not a style of storytelling that I can appreciate, though I honestly don't think that's the issue at hand. I appreciate your comments, and hope you'll continue to criticize my criticism. You have a beautiful day, too! --Jooley Ann

the elephant man

Wed, 01 Mar 2006 21:17:28 -0600

holy crap, theater people.nobody in theater in this town can stomach anything besides a glowing review that fits what they want to hear. and i thought I was sensitive. ps. mr. romero, how do you know jooley ann's age anyhow? -the elephant man

the elephant man

Wed, 01 Mar 2006 21:16:31 -0600

holy crap, theater people.nobody in theater in this town can stomach anything besides a glowing review that fits what they want to hear. and i thought I was sensitive. -the elephant man

Greg Romero

Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:51:52 -0600

Dear Jooley Ann: I'm glad you attended this performance-- the work of the Playwriting students at UT is largely under-appreciated in this community, despite the incredible amount of talent within its current roster and among the program's alumni. That said, it is dissappointing to me that you didn't find more merit in this script. It is very dissappointing to me that theatre reviewers, particularly young ones who work for more alternative publications like THE AUSTINIST, are still viewing live theatre through a very very limited lens of expectations. And while the script is not perfect (nor should it be-- this is its first-ever production) I find it unfair that you would evaluate this script based on a conventionally narrative, realistic model of story-telling. Isn't it obvious that the play needs to be understood on different terms? In fact, part of the play's power is that it turns those conventions/expectations on its head in a very satsifying way. It seems you recognize some of the play's unique qualities-- you close your review by calling this performance "unconventional" theatre-- yet you fail to find the play's power by housing your understanding within a framework that clearly doesn't belong. To offer another metaphor-- a grocery metaphor-- you are criticising an apple for being on orange. And to me, this sort of short-sightedness in theatre reviews is an unfortunate obstacle that writers who are taking bold and challenging risks in their work have to overcome. It is my hope that you continue to see the work that me and my colleagues are doing-- experience and thoughtful reflection is the best way to shift this paradigm of understanding. have a beautiful day, Greg Romero

Jooley Ann

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:41:25 -0600

Ha! Awesome! And lighting fast. There's nothing like a challenge to bring out the smarties. I could not, for the life of myself, find this on Saturday. Thanks Rebecca!

Rebecca

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:32:37 -0600

http://www.utexas.edu/cofa/theatre/production.html