But like you, I greatly anticipate seeing more of her work. Truly her work is not for everyone: she refuses to spoon feed her audience and her work is layered and complex, perhaps too much for the limitations of a sixty-minute no-frills fringe production.

Limitations aside, I would hate to see a talent like hers leave the Fringe just because the masses seem to prefer jugglers, magicians, and comedians. Many people still want to see thought-provoking drama at the Fringe, so I hope that the (in my opinion undeserved) negative publicity about her work does not discourage her, as she is still very new at this. Pauline Moffat informed me that Pettinella has only been writing plays since November 2007, and that she is “plum-full” of ideas.

The fringe is afterall, amateurs. Most of the performers work 40 hour weeks like the rest of us. The only difference is that they put in another forty hours writing and creating after they are off the clock. And then have the guts to produce it and perform it. I say that anyone who even attempts such a feat is already far more talented and brave than you or I could ever dream of being as mere watchers or reviewers.

Thanks very much.

To suggest that a reviewer should be unbiased is absurd to me. Of course they are biased. Each audience member is biased by what they bring into the theatre upon viewing a production. The playwright was biased during the writing process, the director was biased when directing and the actors were biased and influenced by factors in their own lives.

It has been an interesting discussion. I respect a director’s, playwright’s, actor’s or even another audience member’s right to share their own feelings about the production and/or review, but I don’t respect anyone thinking their opinion is the only correct one. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy Hope’s reviews – she is willing to share her candid thoughts with respect while always urging others to see a performance and form their own opinions.

Seems to me that if she is biased she is biased in the favor of the production.

She walks a fine line because while she sometimes doesn’t speak favorably of the pieces or end result of a show, she always leaves the door open for further education and other opinions.

With respect.
kries

I do, however, agree that having Beverly strip completely would be too much.

I have never said that Beverly should strip completely.

However, showing Beverly dancing awkwardly but NOT showing Beverly dancing well is a weakness, a missed opportunity, in the play.

She does not have to take off more of her clothes in order to demonstrate that she has improved as a dancer.

As it is, we only see the back of the man’s head, supposedly looking at her polished dancing through a crack in the curtain. If she were dancing in front of all of us, the man and the audience, we would all get to see that she has changed AND we would get to see the reactions on the man’s face as he struggles with his own feelings of desire, frustration, sympathy, love, and so on.

I pointed out that I was jealous of the actor’s physique in order to be honest about my bias. I could have pretended to be a theatre authority and simply called the show “tedious” and “self-aggrandizing” (which are the words I have in my notes), but I realized as I was writing my review that I was jealous of the actor.

So…I wanted to let my readers know that I had had a strong, personal reaction to the show that they might not have.

For the same reason, I pointed out that other people who were in the same audience as I had completely different, more positive reactions.

Again, I wanted to let my readers know that not everyone in the room had had the same reaction I had had, and they should therefore take my review with a grain of salt.

However, beyond the jealousy, there are several artistic choices in the show as presented that do not work for me: the recorded narration, the lack of character development, the rushed ending, and so on.

HOWEVER, I encouraged, and still encourage, everyone to see the show for themselves, not in order to “agree” or “disagree” with me (although I welcome further comments), but just to see something new by a promising local playwright.

In reference to your comment that Beverly is simply unbelievable because she continues to make bad decisions and then complains of the consequences, might I suggest a similar scenario?

Say a person is overweight. They hate being overweight. It makes them feel terrible about themselves. But every night they keep over eating and gaining more weight. Then they see someone who doesn’t overeat, and they get jealous and wish they looked like that person.

The character Beverly never felt worthy of the simple and respectable life she once dreamed of having. But just as fat people are able to lose weight, her characer finally changed her behavior to get a more desireable outcome.

I agree with the poster above that you insult other audience members simply because they like something that you don’t.

You also error in your logic. If Pettinella were simply wanting to show off her body, she would have actually stripped. The clothing she wore for the play was no more scanty than anything you would see on a beach, and is more than the Birdmann wore in the final scene of his show, but you did not attack him.

These things make you a reviewer with dubious credibility, but I hope you contiune to hone your craft and will one day offer a service to the burgeoning theater community in Indianapolis rather than just biased opinions and petty complaints.

Best,
Garr

1. I thought that the voice over was an appropriate mechanism because the voice is meant to be an older version of Paul commenting about the past while we (as the audience) watch it. Breaking the fourth wall would have given the impression of Paul in his current age giving comments/feedback about what just happened. The writing would have been completely different (i.e. more emotional) for breaking the fourth wall due to the perspective that Paul would be talking from.

2. I suspect that your desire for a second act and difficulty connecting with the characters are related. I, too, would have liked to have seen the events that lead to Bev’s turnaround. This would have been good material for a shorter second act. Perhaps Pettinella wanted to stress the need for some people to hit rock bottom before turning things around and she wasn’t as interested in the “recovery” process. I would guess that a second act highlighting the characters turnaround may have allowed you to better connect to the character.

3. I don’t agree with the statement that Pettinella wrote the piece to showcase her body. If it was, you surely would have seen Bev’s “polished dancing”.

4. I agree with your comments about the work being driven by Pettinella’s personal experiences, but I believe this is true of ALL writers. Unfortunately for Pettinella most writers don’t take on the multiple roles of writer, director and actor so they never experience this criticism. Part of the beauty of a new work is having the collaborative effort of these three individuals working to shape and polish the finished product. Perhaps this is an area for growth in the future.

All in all I have to highlight your final comment about being excited about a new, local playwright getting it done and putting out a new work with good writing. Pettinella obviously has great potential. I look forward to seeing more from her in the future.