For the record--and out of idle curiosity--I did a little homework on this website and uncovered some potentially damaging evidence re: Mr. Paurich's obvious Playhouse bias. Of the five reviews he wrote of Oakland productions in the 2007-8 season, four were what Variety would deem "favorable" ("Runner Stumbles," "Santaland Diaries," "Colored Museum," "Dog Sees God"); only one ("Monty") would have earned their "mixed" or "inconclusive" classification. Of the four reviews Paurich did of Playhouse shows, two were "favorable" ("Titanic" and "Enchanted April") and the other two were "mixed" ("Beauty and the Beast" and "A Few Good Men"). Plus, in Paurich's top-10-in-community theater piece that ran in December, the Oakland was mentioned for excellence numerous times (as was the Playhouse and NCP). Paurich also did a most excellent interview with Oakland regular Christopher Fidram in January as a kind of "preview" piece for the Oakland's production of "In the Moonlight Eddie." Methinks this latest faux "controversy" is officially over.
Hey Kage- I'm not sure whether you're aware of this or not, but Paurich received an award from the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists as "Best Critic in Ohio" for his Vindy reviews. Just saying....
Nicole- Did you even read Mr. Paurich's review of "Titanic" before bashing him? Apparently not, since you seem to have glossed over the many criticisms Paurich made of the show. Like most of the hate-bloggers on here, you seem to have your own personal agenda that has nothing to do with what's in (or isn't) in the theater reviews published in the Vindicator. I find it amusing that Mr. Paurich's criticisms of "The Full Monty" automatically make him guilty of "favoring" Playhouse productions over ones at the Oakland. Did you ever stop to think that maybe not everybody--at least anyone who's not personally involved with the day-to-day activities at the Oakland--thought "Monty" was, in the words of one of those insipid "cheerleaders" Mr. Bucci referred to in an earlier post, "flawless"? Get over yourselves. It was, by and large, a sloppily directed, generally miscast production with typically abysmal Oakland sets and lighting. In his (sigh, here we go again) "mixed," not unfavorable review of "Monty," Mr. Paurich pointed out what he thought were the flaws in the production--pretty significant ones, true, but all perfectly valid--as well as many positive aspects of the show. While he may have liked "Titanic" more, he also pinpointed what he considered to be the show's weak points. (Reread the review again if you somehow managed to miss them before furiously typing your call-to-arms.) And let me remind everyone who's acting so outraged about Fedup's (admittedly) nasty invectives, Alan84 set the scurrilous tone here with his/her "YOU SUCK, MILAN; YOU SUCK! YOU CLOSET CASE DOUCHEBAG!" remarks. Since Mr. Paurich is too much of a gentleman to respond to such clearly addled hatespeak, I don't see anything wrong with a few brave souls--myself included--coming to his defense. Thank You--David Teplitzky
This is the fusillade that started it all: THE SCRIPT AND LYRICS SUCK YOU DICK.. FUNNY HOW YOU DON'T MENTION THAT ... MY NAME IS MILAN AND I'M PAID BY THE PLAYHOUSE ... HAHAH THAT WAS THE WORST SET CHANGES AND SET I'VE EVER SEE.. LAST TIME I CHECKED THE TITANIC WASN'T MADE OF BRICKS... LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THE LACK OF CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT IN THE SCRIPT> MILAN HOW I WISH I COULD BE SUCH A CRITIC AS YOU. PAID BY THE MASSES TO REVIEW SUCH A HORRIBLE SHOW. YES SHAWN LOCKATON AND CINDY WICHEY WERE AMAZING BUT PLEASE AS THE "LEAD" BARRET HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT... FUNNY HOW YOU'RE ABLE TO POINT THAT OUT YOU CLOSET CASE DOUCHE BAG!!!! It's pretty amusing that all you sensitive souls were so deeply offended by any perceived aspersions against Joki and the Oaklanders, but found nothing remotely objectionable or even offensive about the above comment. Now THIS is the sort of inflammatory bull**** that has turned the local community theater scene into a reprise of the Hatfields and the McCoys: not the reviews in this or any other paper. And I'm still waiting for "Alan84" to "out" himself and finally acknowledge just who he is: besides an igorant, libelous buffoon (and "FOTO," natch) that is.
Who the hell are you anyway, Alan? I regularly attend community theater in the Ytown area and your cryptic ID means absolutely nothing to me. If you're so proud of your hate-spewing vitriol and childish tantrum-rant postings, why not just use your full name? Why be coquettish? And I just checked: it was you--not FedUp--who first hurled the epithet, "You suck." Seriously. Don't you and Lianna (spelling?) realize what a disservice you're doing to the reputation of the Oakland by launching another pissing contest with the Playhouse thinly veiled as the Oakland's latest round of Milan-bashing? If I were Milan Paurich, I'd be flattered and enormously gratified that so many people read my reviews so intently and with such passion. I guess he really is the only critic whose opinion counts in the tri-country area.
Hmmm. Let me get this: according to Leciy, a reviewer is supposed to show their support of community theater by only saying nice things and patting everyone on the head(s) like an indulgent parent. I guess that's the Oakland's problem with Milan's reviews in a nutshell. They're so accustomed to the "book report"-style "reviews" of other so-called local critics that someone who actually tells it like it is and treats them like adult professionals by pointing out the good (and occasionally bad) aspects of a particular production is somehow worthy of demonization. I've sat on the sidelines watching this playground battle of words being waged by Bob Joki and his followers--most of them naive and hopelessly confused YSU students--for months now without responding...until now. I saw "Titanic" last nite and it was outstanding: one of the best area productions I've seen in years. Was it perfect? No, nothing in life (or community theater) ever is, and Paurich pointed out the show's flaws in his astute review. I also saw "The Full Monty" down at the Oakland earlier this month, and Paurich's review (which, to me, read as more "mixed" than "unfavorable"--and I think that any sentient, unbiased adult would agree with that assessment) was pretty much on the money in that case, too. I'm happy for the Oakland that their cynical, Milan-bashing campaign helped generate buzz (and box-office), although I'm pretty sure that the lure of seeing exposed male genitalia surely added to the show's success at selling tickets, too. Really, people. I think you all need to grow up, or at least grow a pair cojones. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, etc. A review is supposed to "review"--point out the good, bad, miscast, underrehearsed, whatever. A review isn't supposed to say only nice things (however untrue and patronizing) and coddle the cast/crew just because the writer is afraid to hurt someone's feelings, or be accused of a lack of civic pride for not playing the role of rah-rah cheerleader every time at bat. Anyone who thinks otherwise is immature, unprofessional and shouldn't bother putting themselves out in public to garner praise (or criticism) for their production(s)/performance(s) in the first place. The Youngstown Playhouse and the Oakland both have their strengths and weaknesses as theater companies, but in a contest to determine which institution has a more grown-up and professional attitude about their work, the Playhouse clearly wins hand's-down. And go see "Titanic" everyone; it's a beautiful show.
‘Titanic’ more than just spectacle
For the record--and out of idle curiosity--I did a little homework on this website and uncovered some potentially damaging evidence re: Mr. Paurich's obvious Playhouse bias.
Of the five reviews he wrote of Oakland productions in the 2007-8 season, four were what Variety would deem "favorable" ("Runner Stumbles," "Santaland Diaries," "Colored Museum," "Dog Sees God"); only one ("Monty") would have earned their "mixed" or "inconclusive" classification.
Of the four reviews Paurich did of Playhouse shows, two were "favorable" ("Titanic" and "Enchanted April") and the other two were "mixed" ("Beauty and the Beast" and "A Few Good Men").
Plus, in Paurich's top-10-in-community theater piece that ran in December, the Oakland was mentioned for excellence numerous times (as was the Playhouse and NCP). Paurich also did a most excellent interview with Oakland regular Christopher Fidram in January as a kind of "preview" piece for the Oakland's production of "In the Moonlight Eddie."
Methinks this latest faux "controversy" is officially over.
May 29, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. permalink suggest removal
‘Titanic’ more than just spectacle
Hey Kage- I'm not sure whether you're aware of this or not, but Paurich received an award from the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists as "Best Critic in Ohio" for his Vindy reviews.
Just saying....
May 28, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. permalink suggest removal
‘Titanic’ more than just spectacle
Nicole- Did you even read Mr. Paurich's review of "Titanic" before bashing him? Apparently not, since you seem to have glossed over the many criticisms Paurich made of the show. Like most of the hate-bloggers on here, you seem to have your own personal agenda that has nothing to do with what's in (or isn't) in the theater reviews published in the Vindicator.
I find it amusing that Mr. Paurich's criticisms of "The Full Monty" automatically make him guilty of "favoring" Playhouse productions over ones at the Oakland. Did you ever stop to think that maybe not everybody--at least anyone who's not personally involved with the day-to-day activities at the Oakland--thought "Monty" was, in the words of one of those insipid "cheerleaders" Mr. Bucci referred to in an earlier post, "flawless"? Get over yourselves. It was, by and large, a sloppily directed, generally miscast production with typically abysmal Oakland sets and lighting.
In his (sigh, here we go again) "mixed," not unfavorable review of "Monty," Mr. Paurich pointed out what he thought were the flaws in the production--pretty significant ones, true, but all perfectly valid--as well as many positive aspects of the show. While he may have liked "Titanic" more, he also pinpointed what he considered to be the show's weak points. (Reread the review again if you somehow managed to miss them before furiously typing your call-to-arms.)
And let me remind everyone who's acting so outraged about Fedup's (admittedly) nasty invectives, Alan84 set the scurrilous tone here with his/her "YOU SUCK, MILAN; YOU SUCK! YOU CLOSET CASE DOUCHEBAG!" remarks. Since Mr. Paurich is too much of a gentleman to respond to such clearly addled hatespeak, I don't see anything wrong with a few brave souls--myself included--coming to his defense.
Thank You--David Teplitzky
May 27, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Playhouse has ‘Big’ plans for upcoming season
Love the new 7:30 start time, Mr. Holt!
I'm very much looking forward to the Playhouse's 2007-08 season: keep up the great work!
May 26, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. permalink suggest removal
‘Titanic’ more than just spectacle
This is the fusillade that started it all:
THE SCRIPT AND LYRICS SUCK YOU DICK.. FUNNY HOW YOU DON'T MENTION THAT ... MY
NAME IS MILAN AND I'M PAID BY THE PLAYHOUSE ... HAHAH THAT WAS THE WORST SET CHANGES AND SET I'VE EVER SEE.. LAST TIME I CHECKED THE TITANIC WASN'T MADE OF BRICKS... LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THE LACK OF CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT IN THE SCRIPT> MILAN HOW I WISH I COULD BE SUCH A CRITIC AS YOU. PAID BY THE MASSES TO REVIEW SUCH A HORRIBLE SHOW. YES SHAWN LOCKATON AND CINDY WICHEY WERE AMAZING BUT PLEASE AS THE "LEAD" BARRET HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT... FUNNY HOW YOU'RE ABLE TO POINT THAT OUT YOU CLOSET CASE DOUCHE BAG!!!!
It's pretty amusing that all you sensitive souls were so deeply offended by any perceived aspersions against Joki and the Oaklanders, but found nothing remotely objectionable or even offensive about the above comment.
Now THIS is the sort of inflammatory bull**** that has turned the local community theater scene into a reprise of the Hatfields and the McCoys: not the reviews in this or any other paper.
And I'm still waiting for "Alan84" to "out" himself and finally acknowledge just who he is: besides an igorant, libelous buffoon (and "FOTO," natch) that is.
May 26, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. permalink suggest removal
‘Titanic’ more than just spectacle
Who the hell are you anyway, Alan? I regularly attend community theater in the Ytown area and your cryptic ID means absolutely nothing to me. If you're so proud of your hate-spewing vitriol and childish tantrum-rant postings, why not just use your full name? Why be coquettish?
And I just checked: it was you--not FedUp--who first hurled the epithet, "You suck."
Seriously.
Don't you and Lianna (spelling?) realize what a disservice you're doing to the reputation of the Oakland by launching another pissing contest with the Playhouse thinly veiled as the Oakland's latest round of Milan-bashing?
If I were Milan Paurich, I'd be flattered and enormously gratified that so many people read my reviews so intently and with such passion. I guess he really is the only critic whose opinion counts in the tri-country area.
May 25, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. permalink suggest removal
‘Titanic’ more than just spectacle
Hmmm. Let me get this: according to Leciy, a reviewer is supposed to show their support of community theater by only saying nice things and patting everyone on the head(s) like an indulgent parent.
I guess that's the Oakland's problem with Milan's reviews in a nutshell. They're so accustomed to the "book report"-style "reviews" of other so-called local critics that someone who actually tells it like it is and treats them like adult professionals by pointing out the good (and occasionally bad) aspects of a particular production is somehow worthy of demonization.
I've sat on the sidelines watching this playground battle of words being waged by Bob Joki and his followers--most of them naive and hopelessly confused YSU students--for months now without responding...until now.
I saw "Titanic" last nite and it was outstanding: one of the best area productions I've seen in years. Was it perfect? No, nothing in life (or community theater) ever is, and Paurich pointed out the show's flaws in his astute review.
I also saw "The Full Monty" down at the Oakland earlier this month, and Paurich's review (which, to me, read as more "mixed" than "unfavorable"--and I think that any sentient, unbiased adult would agree with that assessment) was pretty much on the money in that case, too.
I'm happy for the Oakland that their cynical, Milan-bashing campaign helped generate buzz (and box-office), although I'm pretty sure that the lure of seeing exposed male genitalia surely added to the show's success at selling tickets, too.
Really, people. I think you all need to grow up, or at least grow a pair cojones. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, etc. A review is supposed to "review"--point out the good, bad, miscast, underrehearsed, whatever. A review isn't supposed to say only nice things (however untrue and patronizing) and coddle the cast/crew just because the writer is afraid to hurt someone's feelings, or be accused of a lack of civic pride for not playing the role of rah-rah cheerleader every time at bat.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is immature, unprofessional and shouldn't bother putting themselves out in public to garner praise (or criticism) for their production(s)/performance(s) in the first place.
The Youngstown Playhouse and the Oakland both have their strengths and weaknesses as theater companies, but in a contest to determine which institution has a more grown-up and professional attitude about their work, the Playhouse clearly wins hand's-down.
And go see "Titanic" everyone; it's a beautiful show.
May 25, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. permalink suggest removal