Posted: 6/28/15 at 1:29pm
...has anybody noticed the New York Times review of At The Table has over 50 comments saying that the reviewer got it totally wrong, missed the point? Just curious if they ever re-review shows. I bet they do not, but maybe they should in this case. Sounds like it's a good show that just got a weird review. Also I wonder if that is a record for New York Times comments?
Posted: 6/28/15 at 1:38pm
No, I'm guessing, like you, the cast, crew and creative team have lots of friends.
After all, isn't that why you posted this here, to right whatever wrong you feel has been dealt this play?
Posted: 6/28/15 at 1:41pm
No it is not a record.
This show was lucky to get one review; it most certainly will not get another. It is bizarre to think it would, based on the high volume of comments which, if you do a little research, I would not be surprised if you discovered a facebook post to which most if not all of the comments can be traced.
And if what the reviewer says reflects her experience, then I don't think it is "wrong" at all; staging can ruin a show, and that seems like what happened here.
Posted: 6/28/15 at 1:52pm
Can you highlight where I said a wrong had been dealt? I said "maybe they should" re-review because their readership seems to vehemently disagree. As long as we're guessing, I'm guessing that EVERY cast, crew, and creative team of EVERY show has a lot of friends, but their reviews still don't get this many comments.
I just think it's interesting when this many people not only disagree with a critic, but take the time to write a well thought out response, that's all. You really don't think that's worth noting? I do.
Posted: 6/28/15 at 2:11pm
"Can you highlight where I said a wrong had been dealt?"
Yes: "over 50 comments saying that the reviewer got it totally wrong"
You assume that over 50 comments (likely all from friends and family, and likely including you) are "right" and that the reviewer was "wrong."
Why is it reasonable to assume this is a social media-generated response? 50 responses about a show that has been running 2 weeks in a 99 seat house? Not gonna happen without prodding.
Posted: 6/28/15 at 2:17pm
...that's not so much me saying it, as the commenters saying it. I was quoting them, not sharing my own opinion that the critic got it wrong. I have no idea if the critic got it wrong or not, I just thought this would be a good place to discuss a seemingly controversial review. I make no assumptions...although to be equitable, it seems like a lot of the comments are correct that she spends more time talking about theater in the round than this particular play.
I also didn't say that I didn't think the company had/had not asked people to respond. But in my experience, when you ask people to do something, they don't tend to do it unless they have a degree of passion or feelings about what they have been asked to do. Maybe the company did ask, maybe they didn't. Might be worth checking out their Twitter and Facebook pages. But it's still interesting to me. If it's not interesting to you, that's cool too. OK, over and out, this is tedious 
Posted: 6/28/15 at 2:28pm
>OK, over and out, this is tedious.
Shoveling manure is always tedious.
Speaking of which — from the show's Facebook page:
"Writer and Director Michael Perlman got an email yesterday morning from a stranger in Hawaii asking to read AT THE TABLE. This review in the New York Times piqued his interest. Not the article itself, but the comments, he said, made him want to see what AT THE TABLE was really about.
To quote Michael: "I took a look at the comments and discovered quite a few thoughtful, complex and beautifully written thoughts on the show. And it reminded me that so much of what we're trying to ask in this play is what happens when we as a culture are no longer interested in one point of view having the loudest voice. And there are currently about more about people discussing what this play means to them.
If you've seen the show, I hope that you will become part of the conversation that's happening in the comments section - whether you like what we're doing or not. Be part of the conversation. And if you haven't seen it, I hope the comments will make you want to see it and participate in the conversation yourselves. And, of course, I hope that if and when the conversation gets large enough, people who want to go to the theater because it is a social event, and perhaps the last art form that MUST be a social event, will see these comments and say ‘I want to be part of that.’ Perhaps we can make the story about the other voices that want to be heard.”
As for "social events" — this is an indiegogo-funded production — 80+ funders. Little mystery to the huge number of Times review "commenters."
Viva la Revolución!
Updated On: 6/28/15 at 02:28 PM
Posted: 6/28/15 at 7:35pm
I haven't seen the play and I have no connection with it. But the review was really just a whine about "I couldn't see" and "poor me." So the comments, many of which seemed genuine and well thought out, are justified.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
