![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aviv_b_artworkLet's just say I wasn't exactly swept away by this one.
If you've read anythings about the topic you'll know its a fascinating piece of American history, just packed with action and suspense, daring rescues, heartbreaking stories, right?
Uh no. This play was so boring, so tedious, so poorly constructed that I left shortly after the start of the second act. Some hearty friends informed me that the second half did not do anything to redeem the production.
Yes issues of social class are central to the flood. But to center the play on a family of traveling theater performers to demonstrate the importance of theater bringing social realities to its audience was so condescending as to be laughable.
A few minutes into the second act two characters are discussing the results of the flood. I paraphrase:
#1 - Don't you know why this flood happened?
#2 - Cause da water came down.
#1 - You know why the water came down?
#2 - Cause of da reservoir on the hill.
And on and on as character one asks Who lives on the hill? (rich folks), why aren't you rich? (cause they're smart), aren't you smart? (apparently not and you're boring as well).
Then began the chant of revenge- Let's take it to the hill! Let's take it the hill!...that's when I headed for the hills. Really, if I want to watch idiots ranting - I'll watch Fox News.
The sets designed by Walt Spangler were very cleverly done - in this case moving walls and such worked well with the story. But the flood itself - no water, just about 10 second of lightening and thunder followed by a young couple crawling up a wall of mud (and they say acting isn't a glamorous job) was pretty disappointing.
And then in a display of 'authenticity', the wet, muddy, injured, hypothermic couple have sex. Twenty seconds of muddy fully clothed humping - what an affirmation of life...what a climax, wtf!
(Yo! I was in a real flash flood while hiking in Utah a number of years ago. Speaking for myself, sex was the last thing on my mind - I'm pretty sure the rest of the group wasn't really focused on it either).
That's all we see of the flood - the rest we hear other characters talk about the aftermath. People were burned alive (yawn). Babies were torn out of their mother's arms (yawn). How could such a horrific tragedy be reduced to such a boring production.
Save your money and instead read David McCullough's first book - the Johnstown Flood. Its riveting and heartbreaking and it'll move you to tears. Filled with little anecdotes about the families caught in the flood as well as a very critical look at the wealthy who built the reservoir without real concern for the residents below, its a masterful work on both a personal and historical level. Everything this play should have been, but wasn't.
*****
I see for once the official critics and I agree: (my comments in red)
From the Chicago Sun-Times: (the) play is so stupefyingly bad on so many different levels that the fact that it has been given such an elaborate production defies understanding. (No please, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel).
From the Chicago Tribune: ...when your play promises the "true history" of a flood, the audience is inevitably waiting for the water, even if the playwright wants to ponder social realism. We read the title; everything else feels like foreplay." (really clumsy foreplay much like the 20 seconds of sex on the hillside).
If you've read anythings about the topic you'll know its a fascinating piece of American history, just packed with action and suspense, daring rescues, heartbreaking stories, right?
Uh no. This play was so boring, so tedious, so poorly constructed that I left shortly after the start of the second act. Some hearty friends informed me that the second half did not do anything to redeem the production.
Yes issues of social class are central to the flood. But to center the play on a family of traveling theater performers to demonstrate the importance of theater bringing social realities to its audience was so condescending as to be laughable.
A few minutes into the second act two characters are discussing the results of the flood. I paraphrase:
#1 - Don't you know why this flood happened?
#2 - Cause da water came down.
#1 - You know why the water came down?
#2 - Cause of da reservoir on the hill.
And on and on as character one asks Who lives on the hill? (rich folks), why aren't you rich? (cause they're smart), aren't you smart? (apparently not and you're boring as well).
Then began the chant of revenge- Let's take it to the hill! Let's take it the hill!...that's when I headed for the hills. Really, if I want to watch idiots ranting - I'll watch Fox News.
The sets designed by Walt Spangler were very cleverly done - in this case moving walls and such worked well with the story. But the flood itself - no water, just about 10 second of lightening and thunder followed by a young couple crawling up a wall of mud (and they say acting isn't a glamorous job) was pretty disappointing.
And then in a display of 'authenticity', the wet, muddy, injured, hypothermic couple have sex. Twenty seconds of muddy fully clothed humping - what an affirmation of life...what a climax, wtf!
(Yo! I was in a real flash flood while hiking in Utah a number of years ago. Speaking for myself, sex was the last thing on my mind - I'm pretty sure the rest of the group wasn't really focused on it either).
That's all we see of the flood - the rest we hear other characters talk about the aftermath. People were burned alive (yawn). Babies were torn out of their mother's arms (yawn). How could such a horrific tragedy be reduced to such a boring production.
Save your money and instead read David McCullough's first book - the Johnstown Flood. Its riveting and heartbreaking and it'll move you to tears. Filled with little anecdotes about the families caught in the flood as well as a very critical look at the wealthy who built the reservoir without real concern for the residents below, its a masterful work on both a personal and historical level. Everything this play should have been, but wasn't.
*****
I see for once the official critics and I agree: (my comments in red)
From the Chicago Sun-Times: (the) play is so stupefyingly bad on so many different levels that the fact that it has been given such an elaborate production defies understanding. (No please, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel).
From the Chicago Tribune: ...when your play promises the "true history" of a flood, the audience is inevitably waiting for the water, even if the playwright wants to ponder social realism. We read the title; everything else feels like foreplay." (really clumsy foreplay much like the 20 seconds of sex on the hillside).
