Leciy- I'm assuming that you must be another F.O.T.O. (Friend of the Oakland). Damn! You transgendered clowns sure love spewing venom on Vindy.com, don't you? If I recall from reading the above review--exceptionally well-written btw--no other local c/theater(s) was/were mentioned by name. But it's pretty obvious that Alan (is that you Franny Baby???) thought the Oakland was being subliminally referenced. And why wouldn't he/she? Everyone knows that the Oakland's sets and lighting traditionally suck. (Remember the wall urinal????) I still can't believe Leciy and Alan are still bummed that Milan gave their sub-mediocre "Monty" a mixed review. It was better than they deserved, but I guess he has to put as positive a spin as possible on his c/theater reviews or the natives will get restless. But they're all so thin-skined and defensive that even a semi-positive review is blown all out of proportion as though it was John Simon calling Liza ugly in a 1973 New York Magazine review. When are you YSU undergrad toddlers going to grow up??? But since you're all taking your cues from Joke Joki, it's no wonder you all behave like a bunch of cranky babies who didn't get their diapers changed properly. And since you mentioned "unprofessional," Oakland whiners, how about the behavior of the "Monty" cast/crew during last Saturday's midight show? (Throat clearing noises.)
...at least they had the good sense (and taste) not to leave a urinal onstage from beginning to end. Do you really expect anyone to take your (clearly biased) rant seriously, "Alan"? It's so obvious that you're an Oakland-er. Maybe you were even in "The Full Monty..."?? I saw both shows and "Titanic" was definitely the superior production on every count. The children at the Oakland still have a long way to go before they'll ever match the caliber of shows being done by the grown-ups at the Ytown Playhouse. And speaking of "set changes," I can still remember Joke Joki changing the "set" himself during the "is it an intermission, or isn't it?" at the Oakland Christmas show last December. Making it all the more delightful was the fact that Joki glared into the audience the whole time like someone who just found out that a dog had ran off with his prized dildo. I still cherish that image: priceless!
..only trust a critic who's a F.O.T.O. (i.e., "Friend of the Oakland"); and only trust the audience if it's loaded with friends, family and various "plants" to "spontaneously" erupt with convulsive, (extremely) well-rehearsed laughter to convince the few non family/friend audience members that they're having a yabba-doo good time. And "Dog Sees God" was more wryly amusing than bust-a-gut funny, Joki: I think it's what's referred to in the trades as a "dramedy."
I'm still trying to figure out how anyone could have interpreted this review (and we're going on week two, sigh) as "terrible." It was a mixed review with positive and negative comments about the production. If Oakland loyalists continue describing this as a "terrible" review, it's only to keep building their self-generated mythology about being poor, victimized underdogs versus the Youngstown Playhouse. Good Lord, people: what would you have done if you had actually gotten a flat-out unfavorable review???
Could someone explain to me why Fran had to play three roles??? I know that they love her down at the O because of all of her volunteer work, but the woman cannot act! Rereading Joki's comments, I found it a little amusing that he took exception to Eric McCrae being singled out for his excellent performance. It almost sounded as if he was jealous. Great sign of support for your actors, Joki! As a loyal patron of community theaters and a regular reader of Milan's Vindicator reviews, I've never seen anything in his work that would remotely suggest he "favors" the productions of one area theater over another. His writing can be bracingly honest at times, yes, but never less than fair. And I think that it's his honesty which tends to ruffle so many feathers. For too many years, "reviews" of local theater productions have generally consisted of a lengthy plot synopsis, a list of the cast and crew and a hearty, "Go see it!" tacked on at the end. (The Tribune doofus is a perfect example of that style of "writing.") I personally think Milan was overly generous in his praise of "The Full Monty." My review would have been a lot more negative. That show needed a lot more work before opening night.
Wow; pretty interesting reading. I saw the Oakland's "Monty" this weekend and I pretty much agree with everything the Vindicator review said. Maybe it would have been easier to "suspend" disbelief if the performances in question had been a little more persuasive. Yes, the show was miscast in several key roles (The woman who played Jeanette was all wrong for the part--maybe they should have gone in a different direction while casting the role; the two steel workers in question weren't remotely believable as s/workers; and asking two actors so close in age to play father and son was just asking for trouble.) Yes, that urinal was a major turn-on and incredibly distracting (what were they thinking? was it a subliminal reference to male genitalia: that whole "full monty" thing??). If there was any mention in the script of the suicidal guy moving to Buffalo from Ohio, I apparently missed it, too. The license plate stuck out for me like a sore thumb. Community theaters trim overlong plays and musicals all the time to improve their productions. (The "outrage" at the reviewers' suggestion that the musical's book needed a few cuts was amusing at best, hypocritical at worst. The Oakland has been known to edit plays in the past, so don't act so high-and-mighty.) The production numbers WERE largely zest-less. And the clunky, unimaginative choreography had nohing to do with the fact that the characters were steel workers and not trained dancers. I don't think the review was suggesting that they should have gone all "Chorus Line" on us; just performed their routines with a little more panache. Maybe they were underrehearsed. One thing the review didn't mention was that the orchestra practically drowned out the singers. But since most of the cast couldn't sing anyway--Heidi Davis being a notable exception--that's probably just as well. The score isn't very good either. I thought the review was trying to put as positive a spin as possible on an extremely uneven--and definitely overlong--show. Tony Scarsella easily gave the best male performance. It was interesting that Joki is so thin-skinned about being criticised. If I recall, the Milan reviews of his last few Oakland shows (the Peanuts one and the Christmas double-bill) had very nice things to say about his direction. And using the Tribune's reviewer as an exemplar of theater criticism is hilarious. Andy has been a laughingstock in the community for two decades now, and I doubt whether anyone--except community theater people looking for the type of easy affirmation they know his "book reports" will inevitably give them--even reads his drivel. Or puts any stock in anything he writes. P.S.= Standing ovations in community theater are easy, especially since the audience is traditionally stocked with friends/family members of the cast and crew.
‘Titanic’ more than just spectacle
Leciy- I'm assuming that you must be another F.O.T.O. (Friend of the Oakland).
Damn! You transgendered clowns sure love spewing venom on Vindy.com, don't you?
If I recall from reading the above review--exceptionally well-written btw--no other local c/theater(s) was/were mentioned by name. But it's pretty obvious that Alan (is that you Franny Baby???) thought the Oakland was being subliminally referenced. And why wouldn't he/she? Everyone knows that the Oakland's sets and lighting traditionally suck. (Remember the wall urinal????)
I still can't believe Leciy and Alan are still bummed that Milan gave their sub-mediocre "Monty" a mixed review. It was better than they deserved, but I guess he has to put as positive a spin as possible on his c/theater reviews or the natives will get restless. But they're all so thin-skined and defensive that even a semi-positive review is blown all out of proportion as though it was John Simon calling Liza ugly in a 1973 New York Magazine review.
When are you YSU undergrad toddlers going to grow up???
But since you're all taking your cues from Joke Joki, it's no wonder you all behave like a bunch of cranky babies who didn't get their diapers changed properly.
And since you mentioned "unprofessional," Oakland whiners, how about the behavior of the "Monty" cast/crew during last Saturday's midight show? (Throat clearing noises.)
May 25, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. permalink suggest removal
‘Titanic’ more than just spectacle
Oh, yeah.
You're the one who sucks, Alan.
But then, that's what you Oakland-ites do best anyway, isn't it?
Slurp, slurp.
May 25, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. permalink suggest removal
‘Titanic’ more than just spectacle
...at least they had the good sense (and taste) not to leave a urinal onstage from beginning to end.
Do you really expect anyone to take your (clearly biased) rant seriously, "Alan"? It's so obvious that you're an Oakland-er. Maybe you were even in "The Full Monty..."??
I saw both shows and "Titanic" was definitely the superior production on every count.
The children at the Oakland still have a long way to go before they'll ever match the caliber of shows being done by the grown-ups at the Ytown Playhouse.
And speaking of "set changes," I can still remember Joke Joki changing the "set" himself during the "is it an intermission, or isn't it?" at the Oakland Christmas show last December. Making it all the more delightful was the fact that Joki glared into the audience the whole time like someone who just found out that a dog had ran off with his prized dildo. I still cherish that image: priceless!
May 25, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Oakland’s ‘Full Monty’: too long, but enjoyable
..only trust a critic who's a F.O.T.O. (i.e., "Friend of the Oakland");
and only trust the audience if it's loaded with friends, family and various "plants" to "spontaneously" erupt with convulsive, (extremely) well-rehearsed laughter to convince the few non family/friend audience members that they're having a yabba-doo good time.
And "Dog Sees God" was more wryly amusing than bust-a-gut funny, Joki: I think it's what's referred to in the trades as a "dramedy."
May 11, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Oakland’s ‘Full Monty’: too long, but enjoyable
I'm still trying to figure out how anyone could have interpreted this review (and we're going on week two, sigh) as "terrible."
It was a mixed review with positive and negative comments about the production.
If Oakland loyalists continue describing this as a "terrible" review, it's only to keep building their self-generated mythology about being poor, victimized underdogs versus the Youngstown Playhouse.
Good Lord, people: what would you have done if you had actually gotten a flat-out unfavorable review???
May 10, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Oakland’s ‘Full Monty’: too long, but enjoyable
Could someone explain to me why Fran had to play three roles??? I know that they love her down at the O because of all of her volunteer work, but the woman cannot act!
Rereading Joki's comments, I found it a little amusing that he took exception to Eric McCrae being singled out for his excellent performance.
It almost sounded as if he was jealous. Great sign of support for your actors, Joki!
As a loyal patron of community theaters and a regular reader of Milan's Vindicator reviews, I've never seen anything in his work that would remotely suggest he "favors" the productions of one area theater over another. His writing can be bracingly honest at times, yes, but never less than fair.
And I think that it's his honesty which tends to ruffle so many feathers. For too many years, "reviews" of local theater productions have generally consisted of a lengthy plot synopsis, a list of the cast and crew and a hearty, "Go see it!" tacked on at the end. (The Tribune doofus is a perfect example of that style of "writing.")
I personally think Milan was overly generous in his praise of "The Full Monty." My review would have been a lot more negative. That show needed a lot more work before opening night.
May 6, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Oakland’s ‘Full Monty’: too long, but enjoyable
Wow; pretty interesting reading. I saw the Oakland's "Monty" this weekend and I pretty much agree with everything the Vindicator review said.
Maybe it would have been easier to "suspend" disbelief if the performances in question had been a little more persuasive. Yes, the show was miscast in several key roles (The woman who played Jeanette was all wrong for the part--maybe they should have gone in a different direction while casting the role; the two steel workers in question weren't remotely believable as s/workers; and asking two actors so close in age to play father and son was just asking for trouble.)
Yes, that urinal was a major turn-on and incredibly distracting (what were they thinking? was it a subliminal reference to male genitalia: that whole "full monty" thing??).
If there was any mention in the script of the suicidal guy moving to Buffalo from Ohio, I apparently missed it, too. The license plate stuck out for me like a sore thumb.
Community theaters trim overlong plays and musicals all the time to improve their productions. (The "outrage" at the reviewers' suggestion that the musical's book needed a few cuts was amusing at best, hypocritical at worst. The Oakland has been known to edit plays in the past, so don't act so high-and-mighty.)
The production numbers WERE largely zest-less. And the clunky, unimaginative choreography had nohing to do with the fact that the characters were steel workers and not trained dancers. I don't think the review was suggesting that they should have gone all "Chorus Line" on us; just performed their routines with a little more panache. Maybe they were underrehearsed.
One thing the review didn't mention was that the orchestra practically drowned out the singers. But since most of the cast couldn't sing anyway--Heidi Davis being a notable exception--that's probably just as well. The score isn't very good either.
I thought the review was trying to put as positive a spin as possible on an extremely uneven--and definitely overlong--show.
Tony Scarsella easily gave the best male performance.
It was interesting that Joki is so thin-skinned about being criticised. If I recall, the Milan reviews of his last few Oakland shows (the Peanuts one and the Christmas double-bill) had very nice things to say about his direction.
And using the Tribune's reviewer as an exemplar of theater criticism is hilarious. Andy has been a laughingstock in the community for two decades now, and I doubt whether anyone--except community theater people looking for the type of easy affirmation they know his "book reports" will inevitably give them--even reads his drivel. Or puts any stock in anything he writes.
P.S.= Standing ovations in community theater are easy, especially since the audience is traditionally stocked with friends/family members of the cast and crew.
May 6, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. permalink suggest removal