This week's comment contenders. Vote in the comments for this post...
Comment #1: a new comment on your post "Philadelphia's Theatre Alliance Takes a Final Bow":
I for one think this is a positive move. Organizations like the Theatre Alliance were formed to solve a problem, and their disbanding and handing off responsibilities to other theatres means that a lot of the problem has been solved. As cited in the article, the philadelphia theatre scene is way better than it used to be, and a lot of it is thanks to the work of the Theatre Alliance. This should be the eventual goal of many of the outreach programs that exist here in the US-in theory, the exist to solve a problem, and when it is solved, they should cease to be necessary and be able to transition into a different sort of existence, sort of like what's happening here: they put good programs into place, and now those programs will be taken on by others so that they don't die. It's about maintaining now instead of directly growing, and the Philadelphia theatre scene seems to be in the right track.Comment #2: a new comment on your post "Dark of the Moon":
I love Dark of the Moon. I first read it in an acting class when I was a freshman in high school, then went to see a 16-year-old friend play Barbara Allen in a local theatre's production about a year and a half ago. That being said, this review is awful. The author spends the first 3/4 of the review talking about how the underlying concept, the fact that Barbara and the Witch boy sing "The Ballad of Barbara Allen" while living it out, is difficult, and then throws about four sentences in at the end about how Point Park's production is too big for this "pokey little play." Having not seen this production, I can't speak to his analysis of their production, but I will say that I feel the author has taken his poor understanding of the script (which, in my mind at least, is about how right and wrong are twisted in a group setting) and really done a disservice to the production and to Point Park.Comment #3: a new comment on your post "Is it okay to be difficult to work with?":
I think this depends a lot on HOW they are difficult to work with. If they think they're better at their job than anyone else, and that's annoying, but, you know, they ARE...then, I'd say work with them. If you don't get along as friends but they do a great job, work with them. If they make unreasonable demands and show up late everyday and don't follow basic company policies, that's too much to deal with. Don't work with them. I feel like the implied question is, "Does being great at something give people the right to be a little bit of a jerk?" From a moral standpoint, I'd say no. From a work one, I'd say yes. If you shouldn't hire your friends because they're your friends, you also shouldn't hire people you dislike, just because you dislike them. (If you dislike them because they're always late, that's a different matter)Comment #4: a new comment on your post "Former Child Actors Take a Stand Against Molestati...":
I am completely appalled at this article. Not at the bills or laws proposed, but the fact they don't already exist. While I haven't heard about this much on the news, I think that this is something that everyone knows takes place at some point or another and takes a stand. There was actually a episode of ABC's "What Would You Do?" in which an actor poses as an overly friendly producer for child talent and attempts to get the children alone. Now of course he never is truly alone with the child and it is all just a ruse, however the all to real parents give entirely different reactions. Some parents are absolutely adament about not leaving thier child alone and actually refuse the job for that purpose. Some parents, however, agree to leave thier young child alone with a older man with little or no convincing. And this is the most shocking to me. To the producer, they are just money, but to the parents they are their children. Why are they not always present during meetings and events? I know that if my child were to ever audition or get a part, I would always be present during any time with other adults.Comment #5: a new comment on your post "Show Control in Magic/Bird on Broadway":
The technology of this show does not bother me. This is a standard approach to linking light, sound, and video. (I say this AFTER I took a class in show control.) What is concerning to me about his show is the current Broadway tend and a topic that I have address numerous times on this blog. The theatre is becoming more and more of a movie. I felt this way about Spider-Man and the villains of act two, and now, it seems like we are just watching archival footage of Magic and Bird and then watching two actors emote their feelings about it. I have seen a documentary on the parallel careers of Magic and Bird and I am wondering what distinguishs this performance as a Broadway show and that presentation I saw on ESPN Classic. At this point I would say, not much. (Side note: I grew up on Larry Bird. I even played a game based on him for the Apple IIe.)