THE FLICK Reviews

[LimelightMike]

Posted: 3/12/13 at 3:42pm

Post 'em here!

[ooblogway]

Posted: 3/12/13 at 10:19pm

NY Times


Flick Review

Updated On: 3/12/13 at 10:19 PM

[NewYorkTheater]

Posted: 3/13/13 at 12:24am

I think it's the responsibility of any reviewer of The Flick to point out that it's three hours and 15 minutes long, and very slow. There are rewards for the patient, but this is at least a full hour longer than Annie Baker's previous works
The Flick Review: Annie Baker’s Play About Movie-Lovers That (Patient) Theater-Lovers Can Love

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/13/13 at 12:37am

An unsurprisingly positive review from Isherwood.

http://tinyurl.com/azt5do4
3 stars (out of four) in the NY POST

http://tinyurl.com/aq7sr6v
Zero stars from Bloomberg.com

http://tinyurl.com/bbg7fxb
Generally positive from the Wall Street Journal

http://tinyurl.com/a2k7wxw
3 stars (out of five) in NY Daily News

http://preview.tinyurl.com/a7cq556
B+ in Entertainment Weekly

http://tinyurl.com/9w8ej5g
Variety is very positive

[April Saul]

Posted: 3/13/13 at 1:41am

I don't care what they say. I love every one of Annie Baker's other plays, and this one is just too, too long. This is not a minor quibble, and the dozens of people that walk out at intermission would agree. She is so talented, and her writing is so wonderful, that it just wasn't necessary to do this.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/13/13 at 7:22am

"And how do you know what's necessary?" ~SitPwG

Except, of course, that there are people (like me and the person I saw it with and, no doubt, many others) who don't feel it's 'too long' and loved every single second of it.

"I do not paint for your approval." ~SitPwG

[kidmanboy]

Posted: 3/13/13 at 8:59am

To me, the length prevented a good play from being great..and it was not because I was bored. I found some of the pregnant pauses unnatural and indulgent - showing the playwright at work - which to me seems to go against the intentions of the piece. For all the talk of the writing being "naturalistic", I did not feel that was the case. I also think the length of the build-up cheapened the pay off a bit for me. Between the two oft-compared Baker and Herzog, I find that Herzog's economy of language (and, seemingly, duration) to be more effective...and affective. And this coming from someone who grew up working in a New England movie theater and found much to relate to in "The Flick."
That said, I very much appreciated the play and truly commend Playwrights Horizons for producing it.

[April Saul]

Posted: 3/13/13 at 9:56pm

kidman boy, I couldn't agree more with your assessment. I felt it was self-indulgent, and I wish the critics had called her out on it more...but I still think she's brilliant and will be in the audience at her next play.

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/14/13 at 12:16pm

"I felt it was self-indulgent, and I wish the critics had called her out on it more."

April,

If ever there was an example of wishful thinking, that was it!

She's already been enshrined in heavenly praise by her fawning adulators.

So to expect the critics to "call her" on anything----
Ain't never gonna happen.

Updated On: 3/15/13 at 12:16 PM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/14/13 at 12:24pm

[aaronb]

Posted: 3/14/13 at 4:26pm

I have to echo what has been said here. Funny, but far too long.
My review of THE FLICK

[April Saul]

Posted: 3/14/13 at 9:32pm

Aaronb, excellent review...and never agreed with you more, After Eight! The critics' darling stuff particularly got to me on this one because I got to listen to Baker discuss The Flick. I felt she really needed to take this particular criticism seriously; and with reviews like that, why would she?

It must be the journalist in me, but I've come to embrace the editing process in both my photography and my writing; and my pet peeve with playwrights is the inability to apply that discipline, especially when they have the goods.

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/15/13 at 1:32am

April,

A poster on ATC referred to an interview she gave in which she referred - none too flatteringly -- to "little old ladies" and "rich old white geezers" of the theatregoing public.

The funny thing is, she allows her plays to be presented at Playwrights Horizons, where I've seen many "old white geezers," (don't know how rich they are) and "little old ladies."

Her attitude is not isolated, either. Through the years, I've read comments by artists, actors, and directors of repertory companies disparaging the very people whose donations and ticket-buying they seek out to support their work. Wholly apart from the ugliness/arrogance/stereotyping of their thoughts and words, talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

http://journalism.howlround.com/interview-with-annie-baker-by-hal-brooks/



Updated On: 3/15/13 at 01:32 AM

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 3/15/13 at 2:29am

Actually, her comment about "little old ladies," though the phrase smacks of condescension, isn't dismissive. She wonders why, in general, they seem open to ideas and visions that are out of the mainstream in visual art but not in the theater. I think she's right.

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/15/13 at 2:40am

Just curious, Chris, what you think of the citation below from the interview, starting from "is it because".


"That we look to the contemporary art world and figure out why little old ladies are willing to go to the museums and stare at obscene paintings and abstract light installations and feel okay with the shock of the new (is it because there are plaques on the wall explaining things? and audio tour guides?), "

[NewYorkTheater]

Posted: 3/15/13 at 3:26am

I think you guys are being unfair....to the critics. Several were practically angry in their reviews about the length -- Jeremy Gerard of Bloomberg gave The Flick zero stars and called it "slow-motion torture." Erik Haagensen of Backstage gave it a C and said "her characters aren’t interesting enough to justify the time spent with them."
I hope you're not doing what some do which so exasperates me -- and saying "the critics" but meaning "the review in the New York Times." But even Charles Isherwood -- who, granted, swoons over Baker and The Flick -- also calls it "challengingly long," talks of its "inordinate length."
Another point: This is not just about Annie Baker. It's about Sam Gold too. The length of the play is as much about the pacing.

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 3/15/13 at 4:48am

After Eight, I admit that the parenthetical makes little sense to me. She cites museumgoers' receptivity as a hope for the theater. The bit about the plaques and audio guides would undermine that hope, if true - unless she's advocating for explicatory pamphlets and after-show discussions.

I prefer to think she's not a jerk, but maybe that's because, yes, I did love Circle Mirror Transformation and liked The Aliens very much. I wouldn't say she's better than O'Neill, Williams, and Miller combined. By the way, who did say that?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/15/13 at 5:25am

After8 wrote that her fawning adulators enshrined her as such--surely you don't need him to justify such a comment with fact?

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/15/13 at 7:21am

Attn: reasonable people on this thread.

Stop. Just stop.

We're all going to go on pretending that the play received universal acclaim and that no critics mentioned the length of the play and that Ms. Baker wrote the play this way not because she had a reason, but because she's being pedantic and no one would stand up to her and Sam Gold.

You know, just like we pretend all the same things about Stephen Sondheim.

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/15/13 at 7:26am

Chris,

I was using metaphorical expression to convey the ridiculously hyperbolic praise of her fawning adulators. Since that didn't come across, I've now amended it.

[aaronb]

Posted: 3/15/13 at 8:22pm

Thanks, April!

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/15/13 at 8:33pm

April Saul,
I somehow have missed every Annie Baker play so was going to make it a point to see The Flick until I heard about the runtime/long pauses and decided to skip it. After the Times review and Growl's report (whom I trust implicitly) I am once again intrigued to see it, but am still wary. Even though you had some major issues with this production, would you still recommend seeing the play? Do you think there's enough worth to still be gained or is it a lost cause in your opinion?

[April Saul]

Posted: 3/15/13 at 8:55pm

Oh jeez, I hadn't seen the "little old ladies" comment; as a white woman in her 50s, does it then make perfect sense that I would think The Flick was self-indulgently long? Or is it that knowing I have only a few precious decades left, I am more reluctant than younger theatergoers to sit through all those pregnant pauses? Sorry, couldn't resist...

Whizzer, that is a tough question to answer, especially because I rely on you here as being an excellent critic. It wouldn't be the Baker work I'd have chosen, but somewhere within that three-hours-plus is a lovely little play about life's losers, and nobody writes dialogue better. It's not in any way a must-see, but if you missed the others and you have the time, you could check it out. Bear in mind, though, that I might be saying that because I'd love to hear what you think of it

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/15/13 at 9:15pm

Thanks April, the feeling is mutual with your thoughts. The idea of seeing a play of about life's losers is appealing to me, and the small excerpt of dialogue that Isherwood quoted really roped me in. I feel duly warned about the pauses, and knowing they are coming might make a difference than if I were to be blindsided by them. If I can get a reasonably priced ticket I think I'm going to try to see it. I greatly appreciate your comments (and everyone else's) in this thread.

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 3/15/13 at 9:53pm

Hey, I'm a cross between a "geezer" and one of Annie's "old ladies," but you know what? Without peeps like me, no one would buy full price tickets to PH or any of the Broadway shows (and I pretty much see them all).

But Annie's attitude aside, I really liked the play. Way, way too long (director should have cut an hour and moved along those "pregnant pauses") but incisive and moving at nonetheless. Not the best play ever, a la the Times review, nor the worst thing ever written, as per Bloomberg, but worth seeing.