| Neal Ozano’s review of Neil LaBute’s Bash was atrocious (Sometimes shock and awe isn’t enough, May 15 - 21, 2003). In the first paragraph he says the play is a "shock-based show that relies heavily on extreme situations." Then in the third paragraph he explains, in detail, all of those situations. Why would I ever see the play now? The suspense and mystery of Bash are gone, because of his poorly written review. The Herald and Sun are notorious for giving away plot points, but even they managed to keep the final secret of each monologue in Bash an actual secret in their reviews.
I wish my criticism of Ozano’s article could end there, but I am nauseous at the thought that he would ask, "would a man really consider killing his infant daughter?" and "would a woman kill her son?" while stating the brutal murder of a homosexual man is a "commonplace and dated story." Does he really think this is "commonplace"?
Furthermore, I am flabbergasted at the lack of research Ozano put into his article. Did he read material about the play before attending? If so, he should not have been surprised into stating, "…the monologue format isn’t particularly compelling." Bash is a series of three monologues. If he doesn’t like monologues, why did he go see the play in the first place?
Finally, I must say I am shocked to hear a reviewer say the play is "far less interesting than actually seeing some action." Did Ozano listen to any of the Greek mythology references in the play? (One monologue is even named "Iphigenia in Orem" while another is called "Medea Redux.") The action is meant to be offstage, just like in ancient Greek plays, because, especially in this particular instance, hearing tales of unspeakable evil is far more interesting than seeing a man, on a stage, pretending to suffocate a baby.
Calling Neil LaBute, one of the most original playwrights of our generation, a failure of an "author" is beyond unforgivable. And it will not be forgiven.
|
Copyright ©2003 FFWD. All rights reserved.