Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

Subject: A first review of Major Barbara Author: Cinéphilia [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 05:20:24 07/13/01 Fri http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010713/en/review-stagebarbara_1.html [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: NYT review Author: Cinéphilia [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 05:24:26 07/13/01 Fri http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/13/arts/theater/13BARB.html?searchpv=nytToday

[> [> Subject: Don't bother filling in their questionnaire... Author: Jen [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 21:12:58 07/13/01 Fri Here are the two passages that actually talk about the actor instead of just his character: "Mr. Warner, lanky, long-faced and silver-haired, plays Andrew, a brilliant, tunnel-visioned despot - he's a weapons manufacturer - as a sleek, rumbly-voiced executive, more than comfortable in the unambiguous conviction that his selfishness is good not only for him but for the nation and even for the souls of its citizens.... [The director] has Mr. Warner deliver Andrew's third-act soliloquy, with its magnificently convoluted and passionate logic, summing up his lunatic views - as though it were a boilerplate stump speech. Mr. Warner is poised on a raised platform, gesturing like an imploring candidate. It is a platform, however, that supports a cannon, its gray barrel extending behind him with phallic emphasis."

[> Subject: Here's to 2 1/2 hrs of "subtly inflected" "existential doubt"! Author: Jen [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 21:14:49 07/13/01 Fri

[> Subject: Another: http://www.broadway.com/reviews/reviews.cfm?story_id=1003137&ssection_id=3 Author: Jen [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 18:01:23 07/15/01 Sun

[> Subject: Leave it to John Simon Author: Jennifer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:20:42 07/16/01 Mon We got a free four issue sub to New York and they finally published a review in the July 23rd ish - no pic, one line: "David Warner, though less massive than Undershafts past (e.g., Robert Morley and Charles Laughton), grows into his role as the play progresses and eventually fills it out." Is this faint praise? Or lookism by and for men? Ech.

[> [> Subject: Re: Leave it to John Simon Author: Melissa [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:40:06 07/16/01 Mon John Simon is the most feared theatre critic around and he doesn't gush about performances he likes. His assessment of DW's performance may sound like a back-handed compliment at best, but it's essentially a thumbs up. I was afraid he'd find some fault with his performance and tear him to pieces as he's known to do, so this comes as a relief. Clive Barnes of the NY Post thought DW was great. When their website posts the review I'll post the link here.

[> [> [> Subject: Re: John Simon Author: Jen's back [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:08:13 07/16/01 Mon >I was afraid he'd find some fault with his >performance and tear him to pieces as he's known to >do, so this comes as a relief. I thought he only did that to women he considers "cowlike" (basically anyone over six and a half)...

[> Subject: Bits of NY Post review Author: Melissa [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 18:24:23 07/16/01 Mon Clive Barnes of the NY Post describes DW as 'suavely cunning' as arms maker Andrew Undershaft, and plays him as a 'silky Machiavelli with a handsomely understated yet insidious panache.' What does John Simon know anyway.

[> [> Subject: Re: Bits of NY Post review Author: Jen (off to bed) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 19:16:08 07/16/01 Mon >Clive Barnes of the NY Post describes DW as 'suavely >cunning' as arms maker Andrew Undershaft, and plays >him as a 'silky Machiavelli with a handsomely >understated yet insidious panache.' Now that sounds like our man! >What does John >Simon know anyway. That's right!! Thanks for the cheering up!

[> [> Subject: They're actually expecting us to pay for the rest of this? Author: Jen [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 18:26:46 07/19/01 Thu What are they, nuts? They list practically all the others going back months, why not this one? I tried punching in direct URLs, but I can't figure out their system. Yeesh...

[> Subject: Village Voice Review of Major Barbara Author: Melissa [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 06:31:47 07/17/01 Tue Here's The Vilage Voice review of Major Barbara. Unlike the critic, I thought DW brought out the sly humor and charm of his character very well. Anyway, here's the article: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0129/feingold.shtml

[> [> Subject: Thank God (oops, thank *you*!) Author: Jen [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:19:36 07/17/01 Tue I kept trying to load the Voice but they have some horrendous front page with animated text that crashes Mozilla and forces me to restart the whole computer. The big problem with the Voice is, all the reviewers feel they have to justify themselves by leading into the actual review with some postmodern lit class lecture full of unjustifiable historical "insights" like "That is, assuming you could get them to sit still for an evening of continuous unrhymed talk spouted in a context of relatively naturalistic behavior by people dressed in the quaint fashions of 100 years ago." And how long ago was Titanic released? I can only hope Undershaft isn't the devil; the admission that he's "no gentleman" is right out of Time After Time (though that should press a few peoples' buttons, y'all know who you are!!!). There's some criticism that he's hanging back (echoed elsewhere; the show seems to have been put together quickly to sub for a cancelled play and they all may still be rehearsing onstage) but it's articulate enough that it seems the person was paying close attention and wants to be encouraging.

[> [> [> Subject: My Pleasure, Jen Author: Melissa [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:03:43 07/17/01 Tue 'The big problem with the Voice is, all the reviewers >feel they have to justify themselves by leading into >the actual review with some postmodern lit class >lecture full of unjustifiable historical "insights" >like "That is, assuming you could get them to sit >still for an evening of continuous unrhymed talk >spouted in a context of relatively naturalistic >behavior by people dressed in the quaint fashions of >100 years ago." And how long ago was Titanic released?' I know what you mean, Jen. This tendency of the Voice drives me crazy. It's a critique, guys, *not* a term paper!! 'There's some criticism that he's hanging back (echoed >elsewhere; the show seems to have been put together >quickly to sub for a cancelled play and they all may >still be rehearsing onstage) but it's articulate >enough that it seems the person was paying close >attention and wants to be encouraging.' I didn't get the sense that DW was hanging back. His performance is, perhaps, deliberately low-key until the last act when he raises his voice (magnificently :-)!) in Undershaft's big speech. What I found particularly memorable was just watching him when he had no lines and was just observing and listening to the other actors. He was absolutely riveting. Now that's the sign of a superb actor.

[> [> [> Subject: Y'all know who you are Author: Snake Priestess [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:12:58 07/17/01 Tue Yes, we do. *smiling evilly, and very satisfied.

[> Subject: NY Daily News Review Author: Melissa [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 06:43:02 07/18/01 Wed Here's another good review of 'MB'. Pure, airy elegance and silky seductiveness is what our man is all about, right? http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-07-13/New_York_Now/Theater/a-118163.asp

[> [> Subject: Re: NY Daily News Review Author: Her Royal Badness [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:03:39 07/18/01 Wed >Here's another good review of 'MB'. Pure, airy >elegance and silky seductiveness is what our man is >all about, right? > >http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-07-13/New_York_Now/Thea >ter/a-118163.asp Now that's more like it!

[> Subject: USA Today called him "perfect" Author: Jen [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 18:08:31 07/19/01 Thu http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/2001-07-13-major-barbara.htm

[> Subject: New Yorker magazine review of Major Barbara Author: Melissa [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:15:15 07/23/01 Mon http://newyorker.com/THE_CRITICS/THE_THEATRE/