My, my Lucy. Aren't you a poisonous little troll sowing your pestilent seeds of malice on Vindy.com? Milan Paurich is the best thing to happen to the Youngstown community theater scene in years: someone who's not afraid to tell it like it is, (clearly) knows his stuff and writes rings around any other so-called local "reviewers." (He received a statewide journalism award for his theater reviews last year in case you didn't know.) Clearly you have some sort of personal vendetta against Mr. Paurich that you refuse to disclose. (Could it have something to do with the Oakland Center for the Arts?) Why not contact Mr. Paurich directly at the Vindicator and address your "issues"? I'm sure that he'd gladly give you a piece of his mind. And since Tyler Clark (what rock did HE crawl out from under???) is an admitted close, personal friend of Todd Hancock's, using him as some sort of beacon of journalistic integrity is rather pathetic and sad.
Wow. I can't believe this is happening again. An innocent "apples and oranges" comment in a stage review has turned into YtownTheaterVet1's right wing crusade bashing Rob Joki, Brooke Slanina and the Oaklanders for staging shows that appeal to "liberal low lifes." Pretty funny; pretty wacko; pretty sad. And the personal attacks against Joki--while mean-spirited and undeserved in this instance--are ironic considering the passion with which Joki himself has enjoyed waging childish public vendettas against the Vindicator theater critic in the past. (It's in the public record on Vindy.com; not to mention Joki's online blogging and Twittering accounts.) Guess you could say that the chickens have come home to roost. I haven't seen an Easy Street production in years, and don't feel the need to rush out the next time they put on a show at Powers. The Vindy "Music Man" review nicely summed up the company's middle-brow appeal/fanbase, and it's simply not for me. Some people like Vegas and/or Danny Gokey; others prefer more cutting-edge fare and/or Adam Lambert.
The Oakland Center for the Arts has been turning out increasingly strong work these days. "Reefer Madness," "Driving Miss Daisy," even their wonderful Halloween trifle "Night of the Living Dead" were all splendidly realized productions. Easy Street hasn't had an original thought in its head since the days of "Pump Boys and Dinettes" at the long-shuttered Uptown Theater. Question: is Easy Street even necessary anymore? It's not remotely relevant to the concerns or interests of 21st century theater mavens. There's wonderful musical theater in the area thanks to Brian Palumbo's Top Hat, Michael Cavalier at New Castle Playhouse and, if "Reefer Madness" is an example, great potential for future terrific, NEW musicals at the Oakland Center. (Their "Full Monty" last season, however, was pretty terrible.) While it's tragic that the John Holt era at the Y'town Playhouse has now passed (bravo "Sweeney Todd" and "Titanic"!), there's still enough terrific work being done locally (or semi-locally) that the musty old warhorses Easy Street routinely churns out for the delectation of gaseous old windbags like "YtownTheaterVet" are beside the point. And since when does "professional" mean good? Easy Street may have the war chest to rent professional props and costumes, but production values don't necessarily make a good show. To quote Mr. Paurich's review, "Pshaw!" Hancock and Collins have gotten a free pass for too long. It's about time somebody calls them on their dreary, cornball "theme park musicales."
From the prejudicial, slantedl tone of your nasty comments about Mr. Paurich, Mgen, I deduce that you must be one of the Youngstown State drama students in thrall to the Oakland referred to in an earlier post. Seriously. Do you really think that "The Full Monty" deserved such unequivocal praise? I saw the show and Mr. Paurich's criticisms were right on target. It was merely okay; nothing remarkable in the annals of this, or any other local theater community. Also, the Playhouse's production of "Titanic" was vastly better than you seem to be giving it credit for. Did you happen to go in with an "agenda" because of your "affiliation"/loyalty to another area theater company? The Oakland boosters all seem to think that "Titanic" was deeply riddled with flaws that Mr. Paurich was somehow "blind" to. And yet they wholeheartedly agree that "Monty" was some sort of "flawless" production, and that Mr. Paurich refused to acknowledge its greatness because of some imagnary "bias." Poppcycock! He simply gave the stronger review to the superior production. And until you begin winning awards for anything, Mgen (I'd nominate you for "Best Sour Grapes"), I'd suggest you quit dumping on Mr. Paurich's "Best Critic in Ohio" award. I've been a real gentleman while posting my messages on this board. I can't help it: I'm from the Old, pre-blogging School of decdency and integrity. But I'm seriously beginning to lose my patience with the ceaseless monotony of all of the "Milan-haters," and their tireless insistence that Mr. Paurich's "Full Monty" review was somehow tainted instead of the accurate critique of a deeply flawled production it was. Your convenient (and persistent) misreading of his reviews points up some very insidious (not-so-hidden) agenda that I find both deeply offensive--as a fan of both community theater in general and of Mr. Paurich's terrific reviews--and anathema to the continued health and well-being of the area's community theater scene. If you actually took the time to READ his "Titanic" review you'll see that Mr. Paurich did indeed point out what he thought were flaws/problems in the performance he saw. He did not give it a "rubber stamp" as you would like to suggest and ignore the weaknesses. On the same hand, he was generous in his praise of the things that he did like about "The Full Monty" (somewhat "overly generous" in my estimation, but so be it). I've been around theater folk my entire life as an actor/director/fan, but I've rarely seen such consistently boorish, juvenile and flat-out obnoxious behavior from theater people as I have since being introduced to these Vindy.com's blogs! Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
That is indeed true, Mardonda: Mr. Paurich has been introduced as such when he reviews films on a few of the local television stations. As for Ms. Coven's accusation of the Vindicator review of "The Full Monty" "'oozing' and 'gushing' with jabs at the Oakland and its cast," we apparently read two entirely different reviews. As stated in my earlier post, Mr. Paurich's "TFM" review seemed quite fair and accurate. It seems to me that anyone looking to take offense at that review--or any review that they happen to disagree with--is simply unfamiliar with the entire concept of "criticism." Let the man continue to do his job, people. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that Mr. Paurich is a top-notch reviewer if an organization like the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists singled him out as the best critic in the state! I look forward to continuing to read Mr. Paurich's pithy and informed reviews in the Vindicator--whether it's of a production at the Youngstown Playhouse, the Oakland, the New Castle Playhouse or anywhere else in the tri-state area. Whether you agree or disagree with his critiques, no would dare argue that they're not exceptionally literate, well-written and clearly informed with a true knowledge of theater. I'm a life-long theater buff (and veteran community theater actor/director myself in my home state of Washington), and even I've learned things just by reading Mr. Paurich's reviews. If you're reading this, Mr. P.: please keep up the good, solid work. Some of us really do appreciate the thoughtfulness and skill you bring to what must be an exceedingly tough job. And remember: you can't please all of the people all of the time! R. Bucci
Quite frankly I'm astonished at the nastiness of so many of these postings. I recently moved to this area from Seattle, and being a long-time fan of community theater back on the west coast, have been checking out some of this area's theater companies (the Playhouse, Oakland and New Castle Playhouse among others). One of the biggest helps I've found in steering me in the right direction has been the excellent reviews here in the Vindicator. I'm not sure whether many of you know this or not, but the Vindicator's pilloried theater critic is actually a darn good one. His reviews are knowledgable, smartly written and, as far as I can tell, unbiased. It's a credit to this paper that they didn't hire one of those--to quote one of the above posters--"cheerleaders" whose mission is to give you a plot synopsis, a list of the actors and a "Go see it!" tagline. That's not criticism, people; it's pandering and more than a little condescending. I'm speaking as someone who has worked in various capacities in numerous community theater shows over the years. Nothing is more useless for actors, directors, lighting people and so on than to read a "critic" who has nothing but gushing praise, even when (especially when) you know that you really haven't done your best work. And since it is the review of the Oakland's "The Full Monty" that seems to have riled up so many people, let me just say that I found it to be a very fair and honest review. I saw the production in question and found Paurich's comments to be entirely appropriate and not remotely "below the belt." Also, anyone who thinks that that was a terrible review--yes, "mixed" sounds about right--clearly hasn't read a lot of unfavorable reviews before! I had a featured role in a production of "Sound of Music" once, and a local critic lambasted the show so resoundingly it's a miracle that any of us could show our face in public again! (I think she said something like, "The production of Rodgers and Hammerstein's THE SOUND OF MUSIC that opened Friday night should put the kibbosh on audiences' long-standing love affair with the show once and for all. The Sound of Mucus is more like it!") Yes, I did see "Titanic" over the weekend, and was thrilled by the level of ambition, and talent! on display. It was unquestionably one of the best community theater productions I've seen in quite some time. (My previous local favorite was New Castle's "Man of La Mancha" last July!) The fact that so many people on this board would actually criticize the "Titanic" review says to me that many of you clearly have some sort of agenda (vendetta?) against Milan Paurich that has nothing to do with anything he has to say. You should be celebrating the fact that your town has such a talented writer reviewing local theater. Trust me: not every city is as lucky as you/we are! Richard Bucci
Posted on May 14 at 10:06 a.m.
My, my Lucy.
Aren't you a poisonous little troll sowing your pestilent seeds of malice on Vindy.com?
Milan Paurich is the best thing to happen to the Youngstown community theater scene in years: someone who's not afraid to tell it like it is, (clearly) knows his stuff and writes rings around any other so-called local "reviewers." (He received a statewide journalism award for his theater reviews last year in case you didn't know.)
Clearly you have some sort of personal vendetta against Mr. Paurich that you refuse to disclose. (Could it have something to do with the Oakland Center for the Arts?)
Why not contact Mr. Paurich directly at the Vindicator and address your "issues"?
I'm sure that he'd gladly give you a piece of his mind.
And since Tyler Clark (what rock did HE crawl out from
under???) is an admitted close, personal friend of Todd Hancock's, using him as some sort of beacon of journalistic integrity is rather pathetic and sad.
Posted on May 11 at 7:14 a.m.
Wow. I can't believe this is happening again.
An innocent "apples and oranges" comment in a stage review has turned into YtownTheaterVet1's right wing crusade bashing
Rob Joki, Brooke Slanina and the Oaklanders for staging shows that appeal to "liberal low lifes." Pretty funny; pretty wacko; pretty sad.
And the personal attacks against Joki--while mean-spirited and undeserved in this instance--are ironic considering the passion with which Joki himself has enjoyed waging childish public vendettas against the Vindicator theater critic in the past.
(It's in the public record on Vindy.com; not to mention Joki's online blogging and Twittering accounts.) Guess you could say that the chickens have come home to roost.
I haven't seen an Easy Street production in years, and don't feel the need to rush out the next time they put on a show at Powers. The Vindy "Music Man" review nicely summed up the company's middle-brow appeal/fanbase, and it's simply not for me.
Some people like Vegas and/or Danny Gokey; others prefer more cutting-edge fare and/or Adam Lambert.
Posted on May 10 at 7:46 p.m.
The Oakland Center for the Arts has been turning out increasingly strong work these days. "Reefer Madness," "Driving Miss Daisy," even their wonderful Halloween trifle "Night of the Living Dead" were all splendidly realized productions.
Easy Street hasn't had an original thought in its head since the days of "Pump Boys and Dinettes" at the long-shuttered Uptown Theater.
Question: is Easy Street even necessary anymore? It's not remotely relevant to the concerns or interests of 21st century theater mavens.
There's wonderful musical theater in the area thanks to Brian Palumbo's Top Hat, Michael Cavalier at New Castle Playhouse and, if "Reefer Madness" is an example, great potential for future terrific, NEW musicals at the Oakland Center. (Their "Full Monty" last season, however, was pretty terrible.)
While it's tragic that the John Holt era at the Y'town Playhouse has now passed (bravo "Sweeney Todd" and "Titanic"!), there's still enough terrific work being done locally (or semi-locally) that the musty old warhorses Easy Street routinely churns out for the delectation of gaseous old windbags like "YtownTheaterVet" are beside the point.
And since when does "professional" mean good? Easy Street may have the war chest to rent professional props and costumes, but production values don't necessarily make a good show.
To quote Mr. Paurich's review, "Pshaw!"
Hancock and Collins have gotten a free pass for too long. It's about time somebody calls them on their dreary, cornball "theme park musicales."
Posted on May 29 at 8:38 a.m.
From the prejudicial, slantedl tone of your nasty comments about Mr. Paurich, Mgen, I deduce that you must be one of the Youngstown State drama students in thrall to the Oakland referred to in an earlier post.
Seriously. Do you really think that "The Full Monty" deserved such unequivocal praise?
I saw the show and Mr. Paurich's criticisms were right on target. It was merely okay; nothing remarkable in the annals of this, or any other local theater community.
Also, the Playhouse's production of "Titanic" was vastly better than you seem to be giving it credit for. Did you happen to go in with an "agenda" because of your "affiliation"/loyalty to another area theater company?
The Oakland boosters all seem to think that "Titanic" was deeply riddled with flaws that Mr. Paurich was somehow "blind" to. And yet they wholeheartedly agree that "Monty" was some sort of "flawless" production, and that Mr. Paurich refused to acknowledge its greatness because of some imagnary "bias."
Poppcycock! He simply gave the stronger review to the superior production. And until you begin winning awards for anything, Mgen (I'd nominate you for "Best Sour Grapes"), I'd suggest you quit dumping on Mr. Paurich's "Best Critic in Ohio" award.
I've been a real gentleman while posting my messages on this board. I can't help it: I'm from the Old, pre-blogging School of decdency and integrity. But I'm seriously beginning to lose my patience with the ceaseless monotony of all of the "Milan-haters," and their tireless insistence that Mr. Paurich's "Full Monty" review was somehow tainted instead of the accurate critique of a deeply flawled production it was. Your convenient (and persistent) misreading of his reviews points up some very insidious (not-so-hidden) agenda that I find both deeply offensive--as a fan of both community theater in general and of Mr. Paurich's terrific reviews--and anathema to the continued health and well-being of the area's community theater scene. If you actually took the time to READ his "Titanic" review you'll see that Mr. Paurich did indeed point out what he thought were flaws/problems in the performance he saw. He did not give it a "rubber stamp" as you would like to suggest and ignore the weaknesses. On the same hand, he was generous in his praise of the things that he did like about "The Full Monty" (somewhat "overly generous" in my estimation, but so be it).
I've been around theater folk my entire life as an actor/director/fan, but I've rarely seen such consistently boorish, juvenile and flat-out obnoxious behavior from theater people as I have since being introduced to these Vindy.com's blogs! Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Posted on May 28 at 1:03 p.m.
That is indeed true, Mardonda: Mr. Paurich has been introduced as such when he reviews films on a few of the local television stations.
As for Ms. Coven's accusation of the Vindicator review of "The Full Monty" "'oozing' and 'gushing' with jabs at the Oakland and its cast," we apparently read two entirely different reviews. As stated in my earlier post, Mr. Paurich's "TFM" review seemed quite fair and accurate. It seems to me that anyone looking to take offense at that review--or any review that they happen to disagree with--is simply unfamiliar with the entire concept of "criticism."
Let the man continue to do his job, people. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that Mr. Paurich is a top-notch reviewer if an organization like the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists singled him out as the best critic in the state!
I look forward to continuing to read Mr. Paurich's pithy and informed reviews in the Vindicator--whether it's of a production at the Youngstown Playhouse, the Oakland, the New Castle Playhouse or anywhere else in the tri-state area. Whether you agree or disagree with his critiques, no would dare argue that they're not exceptionally literate, well-written and clearly informed with a true knowledge of theater. I'm a life-long theater buff (and veteran community theater actor/director myself in my home state of Washington), and even I've learned things just by reading Mr. Paurich's reviews.
If you're reading this, Mr. P.: please keep up the good, solid work. Some of us really do appreciate the thoughtfulness and skill you bring to what must be an exceedingly tough job. And remember: you can't please all of the people all of the time!
R. Bucci
Posted on May 26 at 3:42 p.m.
Quite frankly I'm astonished at the nastiness of so many of these postings.
I recently moved to this area from Seattle, and being a long-time fan of community theater back on the west coast, have been checking out some of this area's theater companies (the Playhouse, Oakland and New Castle Playhouse among others). One of the biggest helps I've found in steering me in the right direction has been the excellent reviews here in the Vindicator.
I'm not sure whether many of you know this or not, but the Vindicator's pilloried theater critic is actually a darn good one. His reviews are knowledgable, smartly written and, as far as I can tell, unbiased. It's a credit to this paper that they didn't hire one of those--to quote one of the above posters--"cheerleaders" whose mission is to give you a plot synopsis, a list of the actors and a "Go see it!" tagline. That's not criticism, people; it's pandering and more than a little condescending.
I'm speaking as someone who has worked in various capacities in numerous community theater shows over the years. Nothing is more useless for actors, directors, lighting people and so on than to read a "critic" who has nothing but gushing praise, even when (especially when) you know that you really haven't done your best work.
And since it is the review of the Oakland's "The Full Monty" that seems to have riled up so many people, let me just say that I found it to be a very fair and honest review. I saw the production in question and found Paurich's comments to be entirely appropriate and not remotely "below the belt."
Also, anyone who thinks that that was a terrible review--yes, "mixed" sounds about right--clearly hasn't read a lot of unfavorable reviews before!
I had a featured role in a production of "Sound of Music" once, and a local critic lambasted the show so resoundingly it's a miracle that any of us could show our face in public again! (I think she said something like, "The production of Rodgers and Hammerstein's THE SOUND OF MUSIC that opened Friday night should put the kibbosh on audiences' long-standing love affair with the show once and for all. The Sound of Mucus is more like it!")
Yes, I did see "Titanic" over the weekend, and was thrilled by the level of ambition, and talent! on display. It was unquestionably one of the best community theater productions I've seen in quite some time. (My previous local favorite was New Castle's "Man of La Mancha" last July!)
The fact that so many people on this board would actually criticize the "Titanic" review says to me that many of you clearly have some sort of agenda (vendetta?) against Milan Paurich that has nothing to do with anything he has to say.
You should be celebrating the fact that your town has such a talented writer reviewing local theater.
Trust me: not every city is as lucky as you/we are!
Richard Bucci