Comments on: Women At Play

by: testanchor511

Sun, 16 Oct 2005 03:27:14 +0100

testcomment522

by: anon

Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:43:09 +0100

Hey, the original anon writing here again. I’m sorry if I sounded like I was trashing the play, but as anon2 mentioned, I did qualify my statements. I didn’t dislike the the script and the ideas, I just thought some of the acting was pretty terrible, and by default blamed the director for poor casting and direction in this sense. Sorry if that was unfair. I was also trying to make the point that Stephen made (though he did so in a much more diplomatic manner), that in general the standard of theatre here is below average, but you don’t see many criticisms of this fact. I think that’s why got exasperated after the performance and let loose. I stand by my statements. The acting was, on the whole, sub-standard (sorry I didn’t take time to break it down and pinpoint who was bad, but that would have been even more unpleasant), and that is a explanation of why the performance wasn’t great, not a malicious statement. I agree that some actors were better than others. The lead was very talented, some of the others had their moments, but there were at least 3 actors who didn’t have an ounce of talent at all. I refered to the ice cube scene because the acting was particularly, painfully, unforgivably bad during the showing that I went to for that scene. The ridiculous attempt at a French accent was the least of my worries regarding that scene. No, being able to pull off a french accent is not a pre-requisite for good acting, but the performance itself was terrible, I think the bad french accent just made it seem even more ridiculous.
I did think that innovative ideas regarding set changes and breaking the play down into sub components were interesting (something I reiterated in my original comment, but others didn’t pick up on). But sadly the bad acting, and there was a lot of terrible acting in this play it really must be said, detracted from that. In terms of staying anonymous, well I’d rather just keep it like that. Colombo has such an icestuously small society and I can’t be bothered dealing with the repercussions of bravely coming out. It’s not an issue that I am passionate enough about to have to put up with being a pariah. I’m not a patron of the arts or a committed artistic activist. I went to see a play, thought it wasn’t very good, was annoyed by the fact no one else was saying that the emperor had no clothes on so felt that I would write anonymously because I could. I just wanted to give my opinion in the way that I wanted to. It was my choice. I’m glad that this debate has been started though. Tracey, good luck, and I know your other productions have been much better. So looking forward to seeing your next one.

by: Tracy

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:14:09 +0100

thank you all for your comments. i wish the papers had such ready critics - there has been zilch! why do we need to know who critics are? so we can be sure that its not some pissed off wannabe venting his/her spleen. also, it would get you a lot more respect if you had the guts to stand by your statement. i reviewed a play called anna weiss in 1998 or 99, and trashed it whereas everyone else raved in the press. end result - people came up to me and said ‘thank god you said that, some one needed to’. it also meant that certain poeople didn’t speak to me for months. but as a critic i fully analyzed what was wrong with the script, acting and style of playing - which is what a theatre critic is supposed to do. you have to say why something is bad and how it could be better - that is the whole point of criticism.

by: Sonali

Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:15:52 +0100

bravo anon,stephen and anon2!

by: Anon2

Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:27:00 +0100

Have not seen the play, so won’t comment on substance, but do feel the need to jump in, purely on form, to defend the first critic. What is non-constructive about a review commenting on subpar acting and directing? Isn’t the embedded “constructive” criticism in that comment simply that to do a better production the cast/crew must improve their acting/directing skills? Isn’t that typical of a critique/review? Where is the animosity there? and why must a critic be identified or identifiable to be taken seriously?
True, the Colombo art/lit “scene” has evolved and very well so I’m sure. But a little pushing and prodding and needling never hurt anyone. No?

by: Electra

Wed, 03 Aug 2005 16:29:09 +0100

now THAT is ‘criticism’.

by: Stephen

Wed, 03 Aug 2005 08:30:13 +0100

I did enjoy the play and I thank the cast and crew for all the hard work they put into the production. It was very well organized (and I’m here referring to guiding the audience to the different scenes) and was very watchable.

However, I have to agree with the anonymous poster above in his/her criticisms of the play. We in Sri Lanka are used to such mediocre performances, so we still try to find some enjoyment in it. This performance of Fefu would not cut it if we had a more developed English theatre culture in Sri Lanka, simply because of the great disparity in the performances of the players.

I do not have blanket criticism of all the actresses - I do believe that Ruwanthi saved the play for me. Her performance was natural, yet captivating. Anushka was very convincing and Karen soliloquised adeptly. Piyumi and Ruhanie had their moments and more or less came through in their supporting roles. The rest of the cast were either over the top in their acting or failed to realize that they were in the wrong play.

I hope these comments are not taken badly - I do not mean to hurt anyone, it is just that I would like to see English theatre in Colombo get out of the rut it seems to be in.

I reiterate that I did enjoy my evening with Fefu & her friends and I do look forward to more theatre productions from Tracy and co.

Keep up the good work!

by: Electra

Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:47:40 +0100

bravo fazeeha!

the last time i checked, criticism meant saying ‘this play is bad, and this is WHY this play is bad…’. not ‘this is bad.’ the last time i checked, criticism was given in the spirit of generosity, like lending a helping hand to anyone who put any effort into making something work, and helping them fathom why it didnt work, therefore erradicating any chances of the mistakes being made again so as to avoid any of the same mishaps in the future, not downright slandering something from beginning to end without reason or specifications under the pretense of it being criticism.

theatre, especially theatre like fefu and her friends, is complicated. its like poetry, mostly because the overall impact and interpretation of the play depends on an individual. it had different meaning to different people, and different parts of it felt relative and made sense, depending on many things : whether you were male or female, whether you were young or old, whether you’re an adventurer like fefu or a conformist like christina. different people were able to like and dislike different characters in the play, while agreeing with some, and disagreeing with others. that’s natural. each woman in the play is different, drawing likeness to real people. WE are all different.

anon, its sad you didnt like the play. it would probably make more sense to me if you thought that there was room for improvement on certain aspects of the performance, and not that it was downright bad. somehow, having heard varying opinions on the production from very many people (some who loved it, some who weren’t so impressed) you’re still the first person who seemed so totally repelled by it. while not being able to understand that, i must say that when i first read your comment, i thought it must be someone’s idea of a joke. i can’t understand how anyone in their right mind could think fefu and her friends was THAT bad. maybe it wasn’t to your taste, but it wasn’t THAT bad, was it? somehow i wonder if you live in colombo. i honestly can say that, having been to many plays here, fefu and her friends staged some of THE best acting i have seen on a colombo stage in a long time. if nothing else.

hats off, tracy, and the cast and crew of fefu and her friends.

by: Fazeeha

Mon, 01 Aug 2005 06:36:42 +0100

It is sad that there’s no pleasing everybody all the time and while I do value opinions -to which everyone’s entitled- and reviews of any nature it would have been nice to actually know where it comes from. While respecting your need for privacy, if you do want to be taken seriously, it might be wise to come out from behind whatever you’re hiding or we could just as well be taking advice from deranged maniac.

Pardon our French. We’re sorry it didn’t meet your expectations. But if I remember correctly no one actually waged a war against the US for turning English into American. It’s one of those things you learn to live with, so we were never too worried about it in the first place. Non?

“No this was not a well directed or well acted play, and if this can be understood,……” So help me understand. The last time I checked ice cubes or French accents were not included in the essential guide to acting. So what are these basic skills you make reference to? Besides that would leave a huge equation of the cast out. And it would be unfair to label them with a sweeping statement like such quoted above, with too little evidence. Maybe examples or references with a little more substance would have helped prove or in this case, disprove the acting and directing skills.

Our goal was simple - to get a message across. Not to be patronized with “pats on the back”. If you’re looking for pomp and pageantry, you’re not looking in the right place.

You’re right. Criticism, in the constructive form, is important and we fully appreciate and embrace it in the right spirit. After all, it is a fundamental part of growing as actors and individuals. Sadly, I’m having some trouble sieving the constructive part through all the insults and animosity. Could it possibly be that it doesn’t exist??

But thank you - for taking the trouble to attend and give us your views, we hope you will grant us the privilege of your company in future productions too. And next time, Get out there! Show yourself! Like we do, when we have something to say, or the arts scene in Colombo might turn into an even bigger joke than it already is!

Just so there aren’t any mysteries -
… Fazeeha.

by: anon

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:08:00 +0100

For fear of sounds like a stick in the mud, I actually thought the play was quite poor. Some of the acting was decent - and some of the actors better than others - and at moments it was almost decent. The idea of having different stages was good, but the quality of acting detracted grossly from both the innovative set and the script. On the whole it was a rather amateur, poorly acted piece. I don’t really understand how the casting was conducted, as some of the actors didn’t even have the most basic acting skills. The painful scene with the ice cubes and the terrible faux French accent comes to mind. The quality was at the level of a school play. Really depressing that theatre is at such a undeveloped stage in Colombo. I don’t say this to be cruel, but if people aren’t critical, and everyone is constantly patted on the back for producing sub-standard work instead of being challenged to produce something of value, how will the arts scene ever develop? No this was not a well directed or well acted play, and if this can be understood, it will be the first step towards the arts scene moving towards an honest appraisal of its current standards and hopefully striving to achieve greater heights. It has to get better that this guys! Honestly, we can and must do better so that people don’t view the arts scene in colombo as a joke, because that is what it is at the moment, like it or not. Hoping for better things in future.
Anon