Review: Sleeping Beauty at the Vortex Theater ["A fluffy little lesson on whatever"]

Feminists, cultural pundits, and contemporary artists of all forms have discussed it ad nauseum: Fairy tales are fucked up. Snow White? Saved from a poison-happy cannibal queen by a pedophile. Red Riding Hood? Jailbait stripper (seriously, this is how she escapes from the wolf during their first rendezvous). And Sleeping Beauty? Raped in a coma. It's this version of the story that one would naturally expect to be fodder for a show at the Vortex, a home-grown theatrical empire built on, among other things, musicals featuring whacked-out “soundscapes”, rapes, and blood-drenched breasts (see: Vampyress, Pink Sun, Hole, etc). Instead, the company’s latest endeavor ventures into softer, more Disneyfied terrain with a vivid, winking little spectacle stuffed with messages about choosing your own destiny and respecting nature despite having a large part of your life stolen from you by some petty sprite dressed up like a tamarind. Stuff like that.

To be fair, the piece is a fun, all-over-the-place spastic romp (largely due to the music by Content Love Knowles and the mostly impressive vocals of the cast) that nudges all the right thematic notes to qualify for a fluffy little lesson on whatever. However, the follow-through and concision are gigantic issues here, and the devil is nestled in the details. Apparently we’re being preached at about appreciating the natural world, but we never see any destruction of the environment. We do, however, get that some fairy goes all Carrie on everyone’s ass when she’s spurned by a king (who’s advised by everyone not to do so). Maybe it’s a lesson for our state representatives, but none of them are in the audience, so the resulting moral becomes don’t fuck with cat lady fairies when they’re also powers-that-be. However blithe and aphasic it might be when finishing a thought, it is not actually confounding, which makes it an improvement over much of the Vortex’s fare. Fine. Whatever.

But really, it’s simply not good enough.

This last calendar year, the Vortex qualified for $81,000 in city funds as well as a $15,000 NEA grant, one of the most prestigious honors that can be bestowed upon a company. Other winners include such notable companies as New York's Clubbed Thumb, and Civilians Inc., and San Francisco's Cutting Ball, all of whom boast histories of creating visually top-notch work studded with incredible performance in considerably more expensive cities. Considering the Vortex's pecuniary support, peer group, notoriety based upon a 25 year production history, and record of quality design as a saving grace, it is an upsetting wonder that so many mistakes generally perpetrated by amateurs are represented here. Plainly stated: you put 20 people on a stage the size of an efficiency apartment and there’s a greater likelihood that things’ll look straight-up messy. The potential choreography is stifled and the pressure for the details to be all the more spectacular is not well-handled. There are visible tears in garments, which look like they were pulled out of storage and paired with arts-and-crafts project headpieces from an out-reach theater program for troubled youth. The props are obviously what they actually are (a photo reflector, for instance, doubles as a pool, and thread for a loom is obviously garland), and the props table is visible. The lighting by the generally awesome Jason Amato seems inspired by an East German gay nightclub and the set, which juts starkly amidst so much color and vivacity, simply doesn't seem finished. Revolving platforms are neat and all, but completion of an idea and synchonicity with the rest of the world are neater. The performances should have felt informed and accordant (obvious stand-outs in this strange land are Dara Allen-Trainer as a delightful frog-thing, Jennifer Coy as the hammy, charming Fool, and Julia Lorenz, who channels a spunky, pubescent restlessness as Sleeping Beauty). This production is obviously under the impression that it doesn’t have to prove itself and is, as a result, reckless, irresponsible, and apparently guided by congratulatory voices.

What's really upsetting is that this show manages to be so ostensibly insouciant regarding details and polish in the company of younger groups who create sleek shows with a to-shame-putting fraction of a $15,000 budget. Cambiare's 2009 production of Orestes struck the eyes with a tech budget of $1,200. The Getalong Gang Performance Group's Post-Oedipus managed to be evocative and clean on a tech budget of $5,000. Wherever the money was going, clearly it wasn't the most pertinent place. If stipends of your regular designers take too much from the pool, get new blood and treat them like fucking gold. If your focus is strained too far, employ other, brighter eyes. There is an obligation to the community to keep your work consistently challenging (in a constructive way), and it is ironic that a theatre built upon the notion of risk would produce such redundant performance.

It doesn't have to work like that. There are a plethora of young, scrappy, passionate people who’ll work for crumbs and experience and churn out incredible products and new perspectives with a budget that wouldn't pay rent for a month. For now, the notion that the Vortex is a haven for the "cutting edge" is, in effect, a fairy tale.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Bastion Carboni in Arts & Entertainment on April 16, 2010 1:50 PM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

nataliecn

No matter your opinion of the review, we can all agree that Bastion did his job: he created conversations centered around critiquing art. Whether that art is the Vortex's "Sleeping Beauty" or Bastion's well-penned, thought-out, detailed review of multiple elements of the show, look: art discussions! Whee! I won't delve into the ridiculousness of some of the comments (seriously, you think that Bastion meant that the Vortex should build a bigger stage? That is hilarious. And another person who thinks that a series of photographs of the show on flickr can prove that it was good? Really?), especially since Dan addressed most of the crazy already, I am simply commenting in order to put up another voice that is glad that a reviewer can, *gasp!*, actually review a show. And it is refreshing when that reviewer is someone as intelligent and capable as Mr. Carboni. If we, as artists, have not learned how to take criticism, what are we doing in the field of art? Hurrah, Bastion, keep them coming!

stolicmenace

Im not always good at writing comments, but what I do feel about the above review is that the "reviewer" was commenting about the way the resources at hand were put to work. It is very true from my experience with the vortex that much is promised in a performance, but a lot of times falls short of that. If someone has the resources to make something great, than those options should be exhausted. I think that much more goes into something like that than meets the eye. Its behind the scenes, its the planning. And it comes across to the viewer very intensely. It matters because if you want to get a point across you have to focus in on it. I always enjoy the reviews I have read by Bastion Carboni. He is upfront and is not afraid to say what he honestly feels. The recipient can either take it as an insult, or can objectively look at what the person is saying..and whether or not they believe it to be all truth, can build themselves up to be a better artist. Art/music/theater is about communication. And critiques don't always have to feel good. It just is what it is.

Kat

This IS a review, in that it engages with Sleeping Beauty, using it as a stepping stone to address larger issues with the Vortex itself. Read some New Yorker reviews- they use this approach all the time.

And I haven't seen the play yet, but I do know that you don't have to make a stage or a theatre larger to gracefully fit a ton of people on it. The Gate, a fringe venue in London, became known for fitting huge casts into a tiny space and for it doing it extremely well.

And I understand why people are up in arms, but it seems like every time Bastion writes a review that people don't agree with, they like to attack Bastion and call him ill informed, stupid, pedantic and a lot of other insults instead of acknowledging that he might have a valid opinion. Whether or not you agree with what he says, the insults are unnecessary. As is the reference to Peter Hall. I've read The Empty Space and I don't really see how it supports that person's point. Except that they've read a book. Congrats.

rollingsamus

"As if this presentation is a master's thesis or piece of postmodern lit crit or something"

No one ever promised you that? No one at all. Why do you get to decide that this article is irrelevant? The second you're able to do things that is the second we can stop calling anything art. You don't get to decide those things.

"someone who obviously had their own preconceived ideas going into a performance and not open-minded enough to understand what was being presented"

I'd shudder to think of what a dark world it would be were we not allowed to reflect ourselves off of art: music would be completely obsolete; music, painting, and especially theatre. It's rare (read: unheard of) to see ANYONE approach a discussion without their own "preconceived ideas" (Read: PERSONALITY), because those people? Are usually unable to make their own decisions. Regarding the fate of their BREATHING TUBES. It's why art EXISTS. Reacting to other people's reaction of the expression of a manifestation of THEIR OWN REFLECTION is a privilege that you are proud to call your own. Try not to disrespect another person's ability to exercise that.

"someone who comes across like a high school girl text messaging at the mall in their review, e.g. 'Fine. Whatever.'"

I'm honestly not sure what to make of this. Your disagreement with the unique writing style of this reviewer is supposed to be taken as evidence of your ... inherent correctness? How big of a jerk you're allowed to be over the intarwebz, maybe? Setting up a strawman and BURNING HIM DOWN isn't really a very good argument. It might look cool to all the bratty kids at your lunch table, but it's really not all that constructive.

"a perusal of Peter Brook's Empty Space might come in handy"

"I could not be more pretentious IF I TRIED."

"and, really, the griping about the Vortex's funding comes across as very petty--it makes one wonder whether the reviewer was involved in a competing project that didn't make the cut?"

I know! Why don't you totally prove someone wrong by committing the SAME OFFENSE?! Undercutting someone whom you perceive as petty with a PETTY INSULT. Wow. Poke the frames out of your glasses, squeeze into the skinniest jeans you can find, and order a Pabst for this guy; that takes GUTS.

jchapa13

I have to agree with the previous posters. I believe that this is not a review of the play, but an opinion piece of how Vortex gets funded. On NowPlayingAustin com the play has an almost perfect 4.9 star rating from 5 different reviewers. I have not seen this play, but I have seen plenty of plays at the Vortex and I plan on seeing this one too.

jchapa13

I have to agree with the previous posters. I believe that this is not a review of the play, but an opinion piece of how Vortex gets funded. On NowPlayingAustin com the play has an almost perfect 4.9 star rating from 5 different reviewers. I have not seen this play, but I have seen plenty of plays at the Vortex and I plan on seeing this one too.

shadowweaver

This isn't really a review of the show, but rather a diatribe on the author's opinion of the Vortex Theatre. Epic fail.

For those interested in forming an opinion of the show's visual production value through picture, check out Kimberly Mead's shots of the show:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/creative13/

george leake

I find this review utterly astonishing and irrelevant--feminists? Cultural pundits? As if this presentation is a master's thesis or piece of postmodern lit crit or something...there's so many holes in the review one doesn't know where to start. How about the size of the venue--it makes one wonder if only a stage as large as Zach Scott or Bass would do--maybe the reviewer would have felt more at home at Phantom of the Opera?

But how seriously can one take a review on a blog by someone who doesn't seem to appreciate that good theatre can take place in a small space? Especially by someone who obviously had their own preconceived ideas going into a performance and not open-minded enough to understand what was being presented. Or someone who comes across like a high school girl text messaging at the mall in their review, e.g. "Fine. Whatever."

I strongly recommend that the reviewer or whoever does further theatre reviews brush up a bit on the craft--a perusal of Peter Brook's Empty Space might come in handy. And, really, the griping about the Vortex's funding comes across as very petty--it makes one wonder whether the reviewer was involved in a competing project that didn't make the cut?

dansolomon

It appears that the concern wasn't that the stage itself was too small, but that it was too small for the number of actors placed upon it for much of the show's duration.

And regarding the funding -- it's relevant in the context of what one can expect from a production. Your comments that it's not ZACH or Phantom or the Bass are exactly why it's worth talking the numbers. This isn't a tiny-scale, tiny-budget production where the problems can be glossed over because of the constraints of the budget. A number of Austin productions -- with significantly smaller budgets, no less -- are capable of avoiding the flaws that Carboni found throughout Sleeping Beauty. The funding is relevant precisely because there's an impulse to excuse sloppy work because of perceived limitations, and it's worth considering that those limitations may not have been quite as limiting as you'd think.

--d

shadowweaver

"It appears that the concern wasn't that the stage itself was too small, but that it was too small for the number of actors placed upon it for much of the show's duration."

The only real solution for this is to make the theatre larger. My hunch says that would be an expensive undertaking beyond the time and scope of the production. And how is that a commentary on the value of the production?

"This isn't a tiny-scale, tiny-budget production where the problems can be glossed over because of the constraints of the budget. A number of Austin productions -- with significantly smaller budgets, no less -- are capable of avoiding the flaws that Carboni found throughout Sleeping Beauty. The funding is relevant precisely because there's an impulse to excuse sloppy work because of perceived limitations, and it's worth considering that those limitations may not have been quite as limiting as you'd think."

34 costumes (most built entirely from scratch) and about as many headpieces, and two costumers. Sometimes, it's not so much money that is the culprit, but time. Those ladies worked tirelessly to create the visual sumptuousness of the show. It's not perfect, but it is beautiful if you've seen the show.

Bottom line, one can be critical and constructive. "arts and crafts headpieces from an out-reach theatre for troubled youth" is an insult to both the hard work of the designers and to troubled youth everywhere, without being particularly constructive.

Even poor Bastion had to admit the play was fun, the music well written, and the performers "mostly impressive" vocally. And how often can a production be created that can be so accessible to such a wide audience, young and old alike? And how often do we have the joy of seeing such a diverse cast on stage?

The ultimate goal of a production like this with NEA funding is to have a working script and book that can even be performed by other troupes, even high schools, and to expose theatrical craft to those who might not otherwise consider a night out at the theatre as a good time. Those habits have to start early, with children.

And the ultimate goal of a review is to provide concise information for the theatergoers in this city so they can pick and choose what appeals to their sensibilities, regardless of what the author's are. I'm sure they could care less about the drama backstage.

Once again, epic fail.

dansolomon

"The only real solution for this is to make the theatre larger. My hunch says that would be an expensive undertaking beyond the time and scope of the production. And how is that a commentary on the value of the production?"

Well, there are other solutions. Putting on a production that maximizes the space you know you'll be working on, rather than one that overcrowds it, is an obvious one; others might include having characters enter and exit the stage as required, as there's nothing inherent in the story of Sleeping Beauty that requires so many people onstage at most moments for it to be told effectively, is another. Those are just off the top of my head, so the idea that the only real solution involved an expensive, large-scale re-construction project seems a bit disingenuous.

34 costumes (most built entirely from scratch) and about as many headpieces, and two costumers. Sometimes, it's not so much money that is the culprit, but time. Those ladies worked tirelessly to create the visual sumptuousness of the show. It's not perfect, but it is beautiful if you've seen the show.

Money buys time. To borrow a bad line from Mamet, that's why they call it money. I wouldn't dispute that the costumers worked very hard, and put everything they had into the show. But if you've got a show with a budget that dwarfs those of most of your peers, you've also got the means to hire more costumers than they do. If you can't realize your vision with two, hire three, or four. It's not an insult to the ones you have to do so, just like it's not an insult to them to say that they fell short of the goal. Like you say, it may have been a matter of time that kept them from pulling it off - but more money = more people = more time.

Bottom line, one can be critical and constructive. "arts and crafts headpieces from an out-reach theatre for troubled youth" is an insult to both the hard work of the designers and to troubled youth everywhere, without being particularly constructive.

This is true, and as the editor of the piece, I accept that it could come off as mean-spirited. Let me just say now that it wasn't either mine nor Carboni's intent to imply that anyone at any of Austin's fine youth outreach theater programs was involved in the production of Sleeping Beauty. I hope that clears it up.

Seriously, though, hurt feelings aside, there's a reason to use illustrative language in making a constructive point. This is professional theater, after all, and while we don't like to traffic in pointless snark, I'll happily stand by the review as a whole as entirely relevant and fair-minded. That line may have offended you, but its point is to illustrate the piece's shortcomings in an engaging way, so that those shortcomings can then foster a thoughtful conversation (which seems to be happening now, so awesome, everyone wins). That's the constructive goal of the review, and if the way to accomplish that risks the occasional hurt feeling, we will just have to trust than in a grown-up, professional theater community, people will get past that and go on to create good work through their pain.

Even poor Bastion had to admit the play was fun, the music well written, and the performers "mostly impressive" vocally. And how often can a production be created that can be so accessible to such a wide audience, young and old alike? And how often do we have the joy of seeing such a diverse cast on stage?

I suspect that most productions that aim for it could claim accessibility to a wide audience, but that's not really the point - you had a great time without reservation, he had a good time with a whole bunch of reservations. Neither one is wrong - no one's opinion is on trial.

And the ultimate goal of a review is to provide concise information for the theatergoers in this city so they can pick and choose what appeals to their sensibilities, regardless of what the author's are. I'm sure they could care less about the drama backstage.

Really, I think that you may have a fundamentally different idea of how to provide that information than we do - which is fine, though it suggests that you'll find our reviews here to be unsatisfying. The "drama backstage" isn't particularly interesting to us here at Austinist. Providing the proper context for a review is, however. We've long held that it's not fair to judge a show with severe budgetary constraints for failing to provide Broadway-caliber spectacle; our review of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe didn't call City Theater out for failing to bring a real, live, trained lion onto the stage. With that in mind, when a production does have a budget that dwarfs that of most of the other shows in its community, it's fair to hold them to a higher standard. This review was intended - and succeeded - at explaining how Sleeping Beauty failed to prove itself worthy of that standard. The discerning theatergoers who look to Austinist for review, it's clear based on the popularity of this piece, seem to favor that approach, and they are ultimately the people to whom we are beholden.

--d

rollingsamus

I'm so tired of the phrase "Epic Fail". Since when does an online theatre review garner anything close to the title "Epic"? It's not Epic ANYTHING (pardon me, reviewer, but you must agree), it's just a smattering of observations. You can choose to take something from it, or don't. If he chooses this forum to call attention to an underlying local problem within your theatrical community, is it really such a catastrophic failure? Or WILL YOUR LIFE GO ON?!?!?!?1111eleventyone

shadowweaver

eh. This conversation digresses.

Curious how one can defend a reviewer from insults when his review is full of them.

My final thought on this is that everyone is entitled to their opinion (however uneloquently expressed), but there is a difference between a problem and a perceived problem.