Boston Marriage - the review

Yesterday the Valley News published their review of our production. I'm embarrassed for them. I wrote a response, but couldn't decide if I wanted to post it. I thought I'd give myself a full day to cool down and reflect. I'm cool and reflective and posting my response.

* * * * * 

A review of Boston Marriage was in the paper this morning, and it’s a positive one. Positive, but moronic. It reads like a high school book report, whose author has simply ripped off most of it from wikipedia. It’s a “snapshot of the lives of three women.” That is, among other things, a totally meaningless statement. But that pales in comparison to the assertion that the play is about a lesbian relationship. Sure, in the same way that Hamlet is “about” the divine right of kings or Long Day’s Journey is “about” drug use. Please. Next time, Valley News, send someone who has actually graduated from high school.

Almost all of the review (and I use the term very loosely) is a plot synopsis. Thanks for giving away the dramatically surprising elements that we want the audience to discover for themselves. Perhaps it’s a good way to fill up a column when one has nothing either original or perceptive to say. 

“Catherine . . . provides a bit of comic relief.” Comic relief from what, the constant eruptions of laughter coming from the audience? Anyone who uses the term “comic relief” in a review is holding up a flag that says “I may not know anything about the theatre, but I read a play once in high school English class.” 

I’m still trying to figure out why it’s important to point out that this play was written in the “pre 9/11 age.” Is it because female relationships were so extraordinary way back then? My God, that was twelve years ago! He should have read the program. “Today, a story about a love affair between two women seems almost quaint.” What? So a story about heterosexual relationships would be what - prehistoric? What’s your point?

The fact that he spends one entire sentence talking about the remarkable actors in this production, and does so with the perception of someone who once saw an elementary school Christmas production, is of little consequence. Because he does point out that the play has a “subtext.” Let me point out something that may be of use in any further theatre criticism that you do (God help us) - all plays have “subtext.”  And then I’m still trying to figure out what he means by calling the production “sparse.” He never explains it, and so since it’s an apparently trivial observation I’ll ignore it.

I know I can’t ask for someone with the requisite knowledge of theatre, of acting, of human interaction and the nature of story-telling - but I would like to ask for someone who has been to a play before.

I hope you’ll all be able to see this wonderful production. The acting is amazing and the script is simply a work of genius.