High Reviews — Page 3

April - you're free to have your opinion of the show, and so is every critic who reviews it. Notice that I have nothing against the show, I did not have any comments/rebuttals for any reviews that said anything positive (even the AP, which was also nearly a rave) other than the Inquirer's. I simply enjoy reading through/posting all of the reviews here.

I also have nothing against Howard Shapiro, until tonight, I had never even heard of him. However, these comments made me think there was some bias (bias is ok - it should just be acknowledged, which the reviewer does)
"But it is a special joy to see the young Philadelphia actor Evan Jonigkeit - who grew steadily on so many professional Philadelphia-area stages - in a stunning performance on Broadway as an over-the-edge 19-year-old drug addict and gay hustler in the new play High."
"Turner gives a striking performance, for sure, but I am compelled to pre-empt her in favor of the hometown team. Jonigkeit, 28, has a long list of impressive Philadelphia performances on stages as varied as the Walnut's (both maintage and the third-floor studio), Montgomery Theatre in Souderton, the Arden, Mauckingbird Theatre at the Adrienne and People's Light & Theater in Malvern. If you go to professional theater regularly in the region, you've likely seen him - a solidly built actor with unusual boyish looks and a convincing style."

Sorry - but that sounds like an admission of bias to me, I don't see what's wrong with me pointing it out. Out of curiousity, I found that Shapiro has liked him in the past. Again, I see nothing wrong with that. I never attacked his credentials or himself as a critic. Sorry if you felt that way.

---

Updated On: 4/19/11 at 11:37 PM

Devil, I wasn't mad or offended...it was just obvious that people who didn't like High were looking for any possible rationale for the positive reviews they thought it didn't deserve! Like: Well, that guy Shapiro probably just raved because he liked Jonigkeit in other things. I mean, as much as Ben Brantley loves Sutton Foster, when he reviewed Little Women, he managed to compliment her at the same time he called that show kind of a clunker. (I just checked, since I have no life either!)

The premise of these posts is that High is so bad, you'd have to be crazy about one of the actors to give it a decent review! Hence my comments

I hear you. I didn't agree with the critics who praised Motherf**ker either, but I was still appy for them to get some raves and stay open. It is just such a tough economy right now, and so much competition for a theatergoer's buck on top of it.

It seems like the Philly critic has been following Jonigkeit and enjoys his work. What's wrong with that? And actually you kind of did attack him devil by saying he is biased and that you had nothing against him until tonight. Kind of hard to do that when you know nothing of him, which you have stated, and have never heard of him or read any of his past reviews other than the one you dug up about the actor being discussed. he is simply proud that a Philadelphian is doing good work. I lived in Denver for 19 years and local critics would always mention actors in shows that were from Colorado.

---

uncageg - If you reread my post, I meant that I had never even heard of him until tonight, not that I have anything against him, even still (notice how I use the present tense).

And correct, I'm saying he's biased, which he even acknowledges.

---

Okay one last post from me! Howie would be "biased" if Evan Jonigkeit was his son or nephew, in which case he wouldn't be allowed to review High for conflict-of-interest reasons, which we take pretty seriously down here in old Philly. He's allowed to like the kid's acting, and even like the play. Now I'm done

Thank you, ghostlight. I couldn't have put it better myself. April, you'll also notice that I didn't make any comments regarding the Hollywood Reporter's praise of Evan. He didn't like the show, but he loved the performers. I didn't call that a bias because it's not. The statement that ghostlight pointed out in the Inquirer, however, clearly shows a bias. Whether or not you want to believe that is your business. But don't accuse me of being out for blood with this show. It's not the case.

Everyone is biased-journalists and us nobodies who post on message boards. We all have our leanings.

Oh and for the record, April is always very nice and respectful and smiles alot on the board. She's a good egg. We don't agree on a lot but I always know her to be cool. :)

---

Which review was that from, Namo? Earlier versions also used another old parable, the one where a devout man trapped in his house during a flood refuses all offers of assistance to help because "God will save me". When he drowns, he reproaches God. God says "I sent you a radio warning, a boat, and a helicopter. What are you doing here?".

April, I picked out your one phrase "Deal with it!" as borderline hostile. Only that one, and I suppose it struck me as such because your are so uniformly pleasant. As to the "smiley" issue, someone once said that you can judge the level of your hostility by counting how many times you use the phrase "Just kidding!". "Smileys" are often used as the internet equivalent of "just kidding". They are used to remove the sting from the previous statement. I know you don't use it that way, but its frequent usage always sends up warning flares for me. I won't speak further on the bias issue except to see we are still in total disagreement on it. In any case, I'd never meant you insult. Olive branch?