Stagegrade on By The Way, Meet Vera Stark

[sskeats2]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 12:11am

Shame Ben Brantley.

Vera Stark Updated On: 5/11/11 at 12:11 AM

[sskeats2]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 12:15am

Not included in Stagegrade. More shame to Ben.
Teachout

[sskeats2]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 12:17am

Also not included.
LA Times

[sskeats2]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 12:20am

And yet another exclusion. If you tote up these additional raves, what's its grade?
NYObserver

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 12:23am

This site never makes much sense. Seems very biased. But I still like checking it.

[sskeats2]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 12:27am

How biased? Reviews weren't posted here which was unusual until now. Grades aside, stagegrade still is a composite of the reviews of this very fine play. So forget the grades and check the reviews.

[sskeats2]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 5:38pm

Word has it on ATC that it's extending again!

[Popular]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 5:48pm

YEP! 2nd extension

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/12/11 at 12:46pm

The Village Voice got the year wrong, I think, as to when the panel discussion takes place. I don't have my Playbill in front of me but I think it was 2003. I think a lot of critics got it right about the second act. I mentioned in another thread that the panelists in Act 2 were just not beleivable for the time the scene is set in. I agree with one critic in that they were too broadly played. It didn't ruin the second act but, for me, wasn't as good as act one. As i stated before, I could see those types of people maybe in the 80's or possibly the early 90's but not in the 2000's. She should have just set the panel discussion in the 80's.

[sskeats2]

Posted: 5/12/11 at 1:32pm

I think you may be a bit concrete. I know a number of present day academics who thought the farce or satire of the panel was dead on. And just as many critics adored the second act as those who didn't. I think those who didn't were disturbed by the non-linear shift of the second act and the deconstruction. Certainly, the mood of the play changes.

I've attached an article that I think is quite insightful of Nottage's intent. But careful, if you haven't seen the play, there are spoilers.
family tree **spoilers**

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/12/11 at 2:07pm

I get a blank page with that link sskeats.

I am sure there are some of those type of "intellectuals" still around and Nottage got those characters right. They just aren't widely the type you find these days. I have, over the past 15 years, worked with a lot of black "intellectuals" in my work with the African American Task Force in Denver and while the college educated black people can tend to have a bit of an "air" about them, these characters are more of what you would see a long time ago. I will even say in the 70's also. So yeah, she nailed it, but it was just weird seeing characters you associate with another time period set in the recent past. I get what she was doing but for me, and a number of people I know who saw the play, it didn't work. Especially the moderator. He reminded me of black people Richard Pryor used to imitate back in the 70's. JMO

Edit: I was able to open it. It really doesn't address the problem I had with Act II

Updated On: 5/12/11 at 02:07 PM

[sskeats2]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 8:05am

A pal from LA asked me to go again last night. I was in full alert for uncageg's sense of misplaced time for the panel in the second act. I still wasn't disturbed by the panel. I see them as farce/satire and couldn't quite give a damn if its the 90s or 2003 or back in Greece AD. It's all laugh at them and with them.

Sanaa Latham is even better than when I saw her the last time. I think this woman has gotten reviews as good as Mark Rylance. Truly amazing. She deserves them.