And it really got me thinking about the distinction between the play and the performance. I saw "My Fair Lady," and I enjoyed the performance. Henry Higgins was well-cast, and I only caught his southern accent poke through the British one once, which is quite impressive, because I've heard the actor speak, and his southern accent is quite obvious (at least to me). The woman playing Eliza was fantastic. The dancing was good, especially for community theatre (although I could definitely see a difference between the couple that I take ballroom classes with and the rest of the cast!). The costumes were beautiful, and the set at this theatre always amazes me - it's a small stage, but they definitely make the most of every inch. I really had a good time, and I liked the performance!
However.
I don't like the play.
The ending of it was, well, unsatisfying. I really felt like there were a dozen things that needed to happen between scene 5 and scene 7 (the final scene) for the ending to make sense. Although I suppose some of that is because of the time period it was set in... It turns out that I'm way more of a feminist than I ever thought I would grow up to be! But it just didn't make any sense, the complete turnarounds made by the two main characters in that last little bit.
And there was a random character, Freddie, who was, well, random. He sang two songs about how wonderful Eliza was, but he didn't serve a purpose that could not have been filled by another, existing character.
Hmm. Can you tell I'm in an editing phase?
No comments:
Post a Comment