Free Appitizer
new york, NY 10003
Perusing the newspapers earlier this month just wasn't much fun. Workplace shootings. Record troop deaths. Extreme weather. Good news seemed to have taken a vacation; I wanted one, too. So when it came time to book my tickets to this year's New York International Fringe Festival, the 16-day behemoth running through August 29 that brings 197 shows to 18 downtown spaces, I arranged for an all-escapism holiday.
No confessional one-person shows, no plays plucked from the headlines, no realism at all. Instead, I selected plays about cowboys, extraterrestrials, serial killers, and sorcerers—the theatrical equivalent of a stack of beach reads. Attending 13 shows in three days didn't offer much in the way of R&R, but it did often provide distraction: Who can fret about the consequences of the oil spill or the midterm elections when an alien takeover threatens?
In choosing a Fringe show, one has little to go on—typically, just a few sentences in the program guide. Each ticket purchase is a roll of the (20-sided) die. Receiving an unexpectedly high score: Saving Throw Versus Love, a very funny play disguised as a lame romantic comedy. In Larry Brenner's script, Carol finds her relationship threatened when she learns that her fiancé, Sam, spends one night a week as a seventh-level elf princess, in pursuit of a Dungeons & Dragons–style amusement. If the Sam and Carol scenes are rather tired, those set around the game table are a great pleasure, and I was genuinely sorry that a scheduling snafu made me exit before the play's end. I only hope the fifth-level Scottish dwarf made it out OK.
Brenner's characters would find themselves at home among the elves, wizards, and goblins who populate "epic fantasy musical" Spellbound, although they might question the world's lack of Mountain Dew and narrative coherence. This long and baffling extravaganza should have come with an FAQ. Why do dead characters spring back to life? Why does the Goblin fart so much? Who decided that "The druid spirits. They are talking. There is a darkness. They see . . . something" comprised adequate dialogue?
There is more darkness on display in Baristas, Evan Twohy's black-coffee comedy about two latte slingers obsessed with serial killers. Whenever Ramon and Camille's caffeinated hands touch, they slip off into reveries about their favorite psychopaths, though not a single death actually occurs in the course of the uneven play. Famed murderers Hamlet and Macbeth also make Fringe appearances. Sacred Fools Theater Company's Hamlet Shut Up replaces iambic pentameter with obscene gestures and lots of silly props. Though the gags become repetitive, the performers strut and fret entertainingly. Again, a double-booking necessitated an early departure (Horatio, so sorry for tripping over you), and I had to leave before the finale, which apparently included a shark. I can only assume someone jumped it. Perhaps the odd marine creature would have enlivened MacChin: The Lamentable Tragedie of Jay Leno. While rewriting the classic to include Conan O'Brien, Johnny Carson, and Jon Stewart is the sort of idea that seems genius after a bong hit or two, the execution proved as unfunny as many a Late Show monologue.
Perhaps Hamlet would have proved more decisive and Macbeth less rueful had they followed the example of Hanada, No. 3 assassin and hero of Depth Charge's Butterfly, Butterfly, Kill Kill Kill!—an adaptation of Seijun Suzuki's nonsensical yakuza-flick Branded to Kill. When not becoming aroused by boiled rice or grooving to David Harrington's live jazz score, Hanada offs thugs with little deliberation and less remorse. The plot is unparsable, the Japanese accents deeply offensive, and yet the Nipponese New Wave whole is a wonderfully weird delight.
Even weirder: Strange Love in Outer Space, a gnarly sci-fi musical scripted by Janyia Antrum, a 12-year-old from New Haven. The plot concerns the four-eyed princess Splontusia, her evil worm husband, Dr. Tuscanunin, her merman lover, and his dog pirate bride. At least one song, "Party in My Mouth: I'm a Toilet!," suggests that someone ought to have called Child Services. Or the William Morris agency. Perhaps Ms. Antrum could have script-doctored Invader? I Hardly Know Her, a genial if tedious musical by Jason Powell about an average Joe who discovers that his affianced is an alien. Or she might have productively intervened in Ghost of Dracula, in which Kenneth Molloy mashes up Bram Stoker and The Breakfast Club, though not a single person gets bitten.
Only marginally more toothsome is Stephen Kaliski's West Lethargy, a quasi-Western without cowboys, Indians, or even a lone death from cholera. Ellie and Turner are pioneers bound for California when they unexpectedly meet a couple from the present. And what do they do upon encountering these time travelers? Have a pleasant dinner and play parlor games. At least there are pistols, sheriffs, and sinister landowners on display in Viva Los Bastarditos!, although Jake Oliver's rock comedy makes it only as far West as Adams, Massachusetts. When an evil Welsh-Dutch-Spaniard claims several thousand acres of that fair state, a power pop trio called the Pickles become his unlikely opponents. Much of the script is beyond twee (superheated marshmallows feature as weapons), but it includes at least one genuinely great song ("Western Mass") and several other hummable ones.
I'm a little torn here, I don't think what she wrote was really a review, so much as it was a tale of her attempt at escapist theater. Hard to pick on seeking escapism when the Fringe is trying to market itself that way. On the other hand I think it's more important to support people taking risks in theater, and thats what I love about fringe. I would rather see someone try something really out there and fail, than see a mainstream bit of theater pretending to be Fringe. And that is the feeling she is missing in her article.
This tiresome whinging is lasting quite a bit longer than the plays which inspired it. Enough already!
When it comes to a an article like this and a reviewer like Miss Soloski I like to reference a wonderful little speech made by food critic, Anton Ego, at the end of the movie Ratatouille. "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new." Your negative criticism about the festival and some of these plays is, in fact, not fun to read. I'm sure some of the plays were rough but if you can't watch a piece in its entirety you should have the professionalism not to publish a, poorly conceived, review about it. Being an avid theatergoer and Village Voice reader, I am very sad the Voice would publish a "Review" article that shows such disregard for a festival that does so much for the creation and discovery of new theatrical works.
There is absolutely nothing about this review which is not utterly unconscionable. If Ms. Soloski does not lose her position at the Voice over this travesty, I can guarantee you that I will personally never so much as glance at this publication again. Shame, shame, shame.
What a poor review. This sounds more like an angry drunken, cynical patron giving an opinion than a proper thought out analysis. I seriously question as to whether the Village Voice has any real reviewers left when I read things like this. Thanks for wasting my time.
While some of the comments here seem unnecessarily personal (questioning the reviewer's pay grade is not helpful), I have to agree with the overall sentiment. The "first impressions" Ms. Soloski offers have much more to do with the conceit of her article than with the plays themselves and are thus less helpful than they could be, even given the limits on time and space. Also, the idea of covering (and dismantling) plays one has not seen the second half of seems irresponsible as a critic and disrespectful to the artists.
Let us look at the process of reviewing a play. The reviewer has time to do research about the author's life, the history of the group performing, the time and place of the setting. The reviewer attends the performance, makes careful notes, and then goes home to polish her work before submitting it. Now, let us examine the phenomenon of the Fringe Festival. For a reviewer, it's like speed dating, only on steroids. How can the reader expect the thoughtful examination of a work when there is not even enough time to travel from venue to venue, let alone present a balanced critique of each play. There is only time for first impressions, and I very much value those of Ms. Soloski.
This article is as irresponsible as any I have seen which purports to cover theatre. What is the reader supposed to gain from reading it? I learn very little about the plays. The main thing I walk away with is that Ms. Soloski is so uninterested in non-escapist theatre that she walked out of an "accomplished" play (AK-47 Sing Along) for no other reason than "summer theatre needn't be" like "real life." Bravo! Way to discourage young theatre artists from using the dramatic medium to wrestle with the problems facing our society. The Fringe may have its flaws, but as A Fellow Theatre Reviewer notes, it is a platform for young companies to take risks. There are few such platforms. In fact, forget the "risks" part. There are few platforms for young companies, period. That doesn't mean the reviewer should use kid gloves. (I've seen some of the shows in this article, and they certainly could have used clear and thoughtful critiques.) What it does mean is that this article will most likely be one of the few reviews each of these show receives. Where else am I to turn to learn about them? Where else are the young companies to turn for professional critique? Of course, the Village Voice is not compelled to offer either service, but if neither service represents the aim of this article, I return to my first question: What is anyone supposed to gain from it? As is, the only person who gains is Ms. Soloski. Having not actually completed her task, as she walked out of several of the plays (plays she is REVIEWING, and for a publication with two seats on the Drama Critics Circle), I suppose this article represents a check on her to do list and (appallingly) a check from her employer.
I echo all the comments that have come before. This reviewer is the perfect example of the decline of constructive theatre criticism. She must idolize the king of overwhelmingly unhappy and negative critics, Charles Isherwood himself. First of all, not one of her single-sentence reviews actually tells what the story is about (a key responsibility of a reviewer). For example, West Lethargy is not a psuedo-western without cowboys and Indians. On the contrary, having seen it in its last NYC run, I found it to be a surreal exploration on the period of life when you find yourself "settled," which for some may be a goal, and for others may be deemed as limbo. It is an extraordinarily intriguing play, and one that has clear relevance to an entire generation of people. Secondly, the criticisms above are made in a bitterly personal manner, with no value whatsoever. There was a time when critics simply said they didn't enjoy a show, or felt it missed the mark. Now there are sad critics like Soloski who prefer to make cruel remarks about 12-year olds, rather than simply focus on the work at hand. It's a shame that people like her get jobs reviewing theatre, with obviously no knowledge of its construction or any class in delving out poor opinions.
I am encouraged by seeing that others had a similar reaction to mine after reading this article. Fringe is a platform for young companies to risk (and potentially fail). As a fellow reviewer (NYtheatre.com), our primary job must be to 1) clearly portray the show to readers, and 2) offer constructive analysis of the show. In the most idealistic sense, Fringe offers a springboard for shows of merit to continue their professional life. At a minimum, it provides public/reviewer recognition, and within that an opportunity for growth. I am thoroughly disheartened by Ms. Soloski's article, as the Village Voice represents a substantial name in the industry and a dedicated review could have done much in the careers of these artists. Whether or not she enjoyed the shows, it was her responsibility to pay them due attention. It is absolutely unprofessional leaving before the end of a show one is reviewing. I can only imagine how disruptive this must have been to the performers. I sincerely hope the editor takes notice of these comments. Regards, A Fellow Reviewer
Ms. Soloski, I sat a few seats behind you at Sunday evening's performance of MacChin: The Lamentable Tragedie of Jay Leno. Considering how often you were playing with your cell phone that night, I seriously doubt you even watched the play with sufficient attention to judge it funny or not. This belief is backed up by the lack of specific points in your article. Is it standard practice for Village Voice reviewers to text throughout the performances they attend? Considering the state of print media these days, I think you should feel privileged to even have a job as a theatre critic. Many journalists with with far more talent and professionalism than you are currently unemployed.
Congratulations, Ms. Soloski, on successfully letting the world know that you can navigate the streets of NYC accurately enough to attend thirteen productions. You yourself complain that audience members only have a few sentences of a program guide to choose which show suites their taste for an evening. After reading this, It appears I still have those same few sentences, since you have offered little to no description. Next time please avoid MTA and walk. The health and fitness section would clearly benefit more from this article.
As an avid follower of new works and divergent theater, I avidly support and follow fringe works. Understandingly, fringe is often a platform for the goofy, the strange, the sing-alongs and the absurd... however, I don't understand this article's conceit or goal. Alexis Soloski 'arranged for an all-escapism holiday' by picking the 'equivalent of a stack of beach reads.' Then, proceeds to mock, attack, and abuse the works primarily on the grounds by which they were originally chosen. This article reads as a load of pretension, crapped out of some elitist boredom. If there is legitimate criticism to be had, write it. Don't attack a 12 year old, or use a 12 year old as an attack on another author.
so...is this an article of fringe reviews or an article about how unpleasant it is to have the job of going to review a bunch of fringe shows?...cuz in the end what you basically come across as saying is that it is your job to complain about your job. Also...Bastarditos! was top to bottom hilarious! It totes rocked and no, there were no marshmallows used as weapons -someone is accidentally burned by a super-heated marshmallow, which may seem like minor detail but a reviewer not getting basic plot details right becomes signifcant when it is her sole support of the claim that this show is "beyond twee" -which it isn't. Too silly? Maybe (but I don't think so). Twee? Not so much. "Twee" doesn't apply to absurdist comedies, it applies to overly precious and fantastical elements of a story that is ostensibly about ordinary people living in the real world. But I'm sorry that you're job keeps you too busy to actually spend any energy on actually reviewing these shows!
Ms. Soloski, I am utterly confused by this article. I can't tell whether you're saying these shows are dissapointing and I should skip them, or all the "escapist" themes at FringeNYC fail? You've provided very little in the way of recommendation, in fact I believe you've had something quite negative to say about all the the shows mentioned here. In addition, you've made it clear you had to leave early from many of these shows. Obviously you are someone who attends many productions as part of your job so I'd have to think you are aware how rude that is to cast, crew and audience, but even more confusig it seems to be something you feel compelled to mention multiple times. While you are correct in saying that choosing a FringeNYC show is risky, your article leaves me less hopeful about attending any show part of FringeNYC, yet I've heard many of the very shows you write about are standouts at the festival. Is this your intention? Is this article meant to draw attention to the mistakes and failures of the shows mentioned or your personal dissatisfaction with your FringeNYC experience? -Tom Confused Reader
Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...
Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...
More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience
Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info
Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips
Log in or Sign up
Social Connect:Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.
Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:
Sign Up or Log in
Social Connect:Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.
Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:
