THE FLICK Reviews — Page 2

I think I can understand why it would be that long, and Circle Mirror is one of my favorite plays I've seen to date. I would love to check this out. And I feel like the pauses and stuff were written into the script? Perhaps I'm wrong though.

Dear ANYONE WHO IS ON THE FENCE ABOUT SEEING THIS PLAY:

Go in "prepared" for the three hour running time. And then sit back and enjoy the play. After sitting thru 10 hours of LIFE AND TIMES at Under The Radar, I feel I can get thru anything , provided I am forewarned.

There is MUCH to enjoy (and even love) about The Flick.

---

Pretentious is just the recipe for a "good play" these days. Look at 4,000 Miles. I hated it and didn't get why we cared about any of those people, but people loved it. I would much rather see an Albee play or a Wilson play any day than this modern hipster theater.

I respect your opinion After Eight, though I rarely share it. I wish you accorded at least some people with whom you disagree the ability to have come by their opposing view honestly. I saw Circle Mirror Transformation before the reviews. You can fault my admiration for it, but I doubt I came my perspective from following a herd. I've also been disappointed by many anointed hits, like Once.

And Ripped Man, what was pretentious about 4000 Miles? I wasn't a fan but, if I remember correctly, isn't its form age-old naturalism?

What is interesting about the reams of love letters conferred upon this work and its now-canonized author, wholly apart from the length issue, the pauses issue, the boredom issue, the self-indulgence issue, is the "great ear for the way people speak and interact" issue. This proves to be the biggest con of all. If she has a great ear, it's made of tin.

In fact, what was most startling about this play was the falseness of both the speech and the interactions between these characters. Sure, the dialogue is peppered plentifully with the obscenities the young (and old) use nowadays, but both the language and phrasing of these characters are too articulate, too literate, too deft for people of their age and milieu, as is the nuanced acuity of their psychological insights. Take away the curses and gross references, their penetrating analytical perceptions of human nature would be more appropriate to a 17th century French salon than to the employees of a run-down movie theatre in Worcester, Mass. So when a character uttered the phrase,"if you so choose," it was the first laugh I had in about about two and a half hours.


So too, the pacing of their speech and actions in no way bears the slightest resemblance to reality. The character of Avery speaks in a dull, zombified tone that sucks all life out of the room. The workers sweep the floor as if in suspended animation. Go to any movie theatre, and you'll find them sweeping up the refuse as quickly as possible, to get the hell out of that miserable auditorium. And so on and so on.

And the whole Chekhov cherry tree bit, telegraphed here a mile away.... please, give it a rest already.

If the play were an hour, if the characters spoke and acted as actual people do, then it might be worth perhaps a D+.

As it is, the rave reviews are trying to pass off a plastic toy car as a Rolls Royce.

The con is on.

SPOILERS

I never felt like the dialogue betrayed the characters. Avery was a film snob- he tells us that some of his favorite movies were Andrei Rublev and Pierrot Le Fou- and Rose is jealous and contemptuous of his education. Avery is way overqualified for his position, and this is what ultimately causes the other two to turn on him.

When Avery wrote in the letter to the new management "If you so please" it did trigger a reaction from Sam. In fact he told Avery to take it out of the letter because it was gay, which was the only way Sam knew how to tell him that it sounded more 17th century French salon than run-down movie theater.

The only reason Avery was working at this particular movie theater was because of the 35mm projector. That alone shows his passion and pretentiousness, and btw I totally know someone who would have done that when he was 20 and needed a college job. He was very depressed and overly analytical which explains the pacing of his dialogue to, IMO, terrific effect.

Baker's ear is made of metal alright, but it's gold, not tin.

---

I'm not April, so forgive my chiming in, but I don't think Bruce Norris intended to write naturalistic dialogue. Clybourne Park, whatever one might think of it, is a highly stylized piece.

Whizzer, I just read Circle Mirror Transformation and it's a really interesting play. I haven't seen The Flick but Baker seems to have a pretty specific style so I would assume that if you enjoy (or, conversely, don't enjoy) one of her plays, you'll probably feel the same way about the others. (Also, I'm completely with you about Clybourne Park...I got what Bruce Norris was trying to do, I just hated it, haha.)

Someone mentioned that the pacing is probably directorial, but if you read Circle Mirror, Baker is extremely specific about pacing in her writing. She even goes so far as to mention how long different pauses should be (like a short pause, a pause, a long pause, etc.), and says that the pauses are integral to the writing and to not include them would make it a different play. I'm sure Sam Gold has something to do with the pacing but Baker is very clear about the length of time in which things should play out.

Updated On: 3/18/13 at 02:27 AM

I just went on amazon and purchased Baker's "Vermont Plays" collection. 4 plays for $12!

perfectlymarvelous, I perused the first pages of The Aliens on amazon and saw she had a similar set of instructions for the pauses in that play too. I guess we can't put the blame at the feet of Sam Gold then for the long pauses in The Flick. I didn't hate all the pauses, but some could have been shortened, and some eliminated all together. (I'm glad we're on the same page about Clybourne Park, btw ha)

---

April,

I passionately despised Body Awareness, I LOATHED Circle Mirror Transformation as a perfect example of a self-indulgent, pleased-with-itself pretentious bore, liked The Aliens, and thought the Flick was like hearing a 78 rpm record played at 16 speed, and just about as appealing.

Chris,

You raise an interesting point on the question of coming honestly by one's opinion. Think about this. Once one has read a series of raves spearheaded by the one Isherwood gave, is it really possible to come by by one's opinion "honestly?" For now, the fault lines have been drawn, and the fault, as Isherwood and others here have made perfectly clear, lies with the audience-- not the play -- if they don't like it. You notice how Isherwood savvily framed his review; the patient theatregoer will find rewards in the play. And if you don't find said rewards? Well, it's obvious. You're to blame. You're not patient enough. Or willing to be challenged, or, whatever. Or maybe you're just plain stupid, for
that's the implicit message in all these charges.

So tell me, Chris, how can one come by one's opinion "honestly" when the argument is framed in such terms? Even if a person states what he/she feels is an honest opinion, if one is brainwashed, indoctrinated, intimidated, put on the defensive, how can one speak of an opinion in terms of "honesty?"

"She's said that it challenges the audience to become aware of themselves and meditate on what's being said. "

Here's a perfect example of the arrogance and condescension of our tin-eared (or would lead- eared be more appropriate?) critics' darling, (I guess she's the theatrical equivalent an auteur; soon she'll be written up in Cahiers du Cinéma.) (Oh, and with respect to said ear, I love how the character who confuses semiotics with semantics discourses on the crannies and crevices of the human psyche with the wordly-wise acuity of a character in La Princesse de Clèves. Who knows, maybe that was on the curriculum of Fitchburg College.)

But to get back to our auteur's presumptuous statement:

Hey, Ms. Baker, I don't need your plays to make me aware of myself. My own square mirror untransformed makes me plenty aware of it every morning. As to meditating on what your characters have to say, maybe you should ask us to pay as little attention as possible to what they have to say, for what they have to say is worthless, if not laughably so.

You still don't acknowledge that people may honestly ...simply like the play. Like, really just like it.

And you're clearly biased against the critics and against the writer- by your, uh, indoctrination argument, is your opinion any more pure and honest? Of course not, but you've handily divided all theatregoers into Those Who Are Right and Those Who Are Suckers, and firmly placed yourself onto the side most appealing.

---

Hmmm...let's see, which point to speak to first?

After Eight, I am definitely influenced by critics in the sense that good reviews--here or anywhere else--may make me more likely to see a show. But even though I loved other Baker plays, I had issues with Flick, and the fact that the critics mostly didn't, doesn't change that for me. To be honest, another unfair influence is what I pay to see a show; somehow, I feel a lot worse if I've sacrificed more and it's bad...and if I'm comped and it's pretty good, it's like Christmas morning!

Eight, some people believe you are saying that there's something wrong with anyone who actually likes The Flick. If true, that's just as crazy as Annie Baker dismissing theatergoers who reject this three-hour-plus play as being too old or not sophisticated enough to get it. Part of the reason I felt so compelled to post about Flick was that at the talkback I saw, she and Gold seemed a bit too cavalier about audience discomfort.

Although it's true as one poster mentioned that the ushers at Playwrights warn folks about the length of this play, as one of those volunteer ushers, I can tell you that my warnings about the length of the play were met with quite a few grimaces and looks of horror; one patron even asked me to sit in the empty seat next to him because my cheerfulness made him feel like somehow he'd be able to endure it! (I tend to try to smile a lot when I do this stuff)

There are indeed folks who will rave about something just because the reviews are great; and playwrights who enjoy the status of being critic-proof. I tend to give people, especially the theater geeks here, the benefit of the doubt along those lines.

If there was any doubt as to the unpredictability of who will like what, consider that After Eight liked Baker's Aliens! And that I have to admit to Whizzer that even though Detroit was a disappointment, I thoroughly enjoyed Clybourne Park. Yesterday after Revisionist, I told Jesse Eisenberg that I liked it better than Asuncion. He said--with that quick, quirky delivery that makes you wonder how different he really is from the characters he's played--well, I wrote Revisionist first; so does that mean I'm getting worse?

A while ago, I thought about doing theater reviews for the newspaper where I work and wrote a sample. What I found was that it was really hard to explain or even understand why a piece moved me, or didn't. And that if I had to review a play, I wouldn't be able to enjoy it because the whole time I was watching it, I'd be thinking about how to analyze the experience in print. So being able to share my thoughts with others on this board is just right for me...thanks, guys.