thoreau: (Default)
[personal profile] thoreau
Our first review came out today - from Kedar Adour. Adour has a reputation for being mean and cutting in his reviews (and he gets in a few weird jabs in the review) - so this is actually a pretty favorable review. His review shows his age - and lack of connection with today's pop culture. (Using the Golden Girls as the comparison vs. Sex in the City) His review also contains the entire plot of the play - but it is not like the play is a murder mystery....




GAY MALE VERSION OF “GOLDEN GIRLS?’
By Kedar Adour

The “Golden Girls” TV show has been running for years and any gay worth his salt can quote the delicious, double entendre, sidesplitting lines at the raising of a little finger. The characters in “Friends Are Forever” bring back memories of the Blanche, Rose, Dorothy and Sophia, friends who share space and intimate moments. This is only to suggest that Tom Kelly’s play is reminiscent, not derivative, of that show and as a compliment to his sharp witticisms. It is also reminiscent of “Boys in the Band.” With the exception of the ubiquitous use of cell phones, the action is more appropriate to the age of sexual freedom before the specter of the Big A.

It unfolds on an attractive utilitarian set (Javier Rodriguez) with a silhouette outline of the San Francisco skyline on the back wall, three rectangular window frames hanging from the ceiling, two high wallpapered screens defining the entrance/exit area, three simple white tables and six chairs. For scene changes, the cast smoothly reconfigure the chairs and tables in choreographic fashion converting the set into a Starbucks Café, a masseur parlor and apartments of the characters.

And what diverse characters. We first meet flamboyant, insecure, esthete James (Dann Howard), handsome, blonde haired, sexpot masseuse Steve (Gerrad Bohl), and older, staid city employee Mike (Leo Lawhorn) at a Starbucks Café. Each is in a relationship with varying degrees of success and complications. As girls will be girls, and because they are friends, they share (sometimes) talk about their conquests and problems.

Then things get complicated. Mike is just starting a love affair with simple-minded Roger (Robert McDiarmid). James, after six months in love with George (Christopher M. Nelson) is having second thoughts and a nervous breakdown. Steve, to the consternation of James and Mike, is in a secret l ½-year partnership with Bill (Brian Patterson) who has had a side fling with an airline steward. Because sexpot Steve and Bill, who is working his way through medical school as a male escort, named Dak Dixon, have had sex with all concerned, there is trouble in River City. Poor Roger keeps asking if he and Mike are in an open relationship. Of course, silly.

Kelly integrates our penchant for cell phones into the action to carry forth plot, define character and interject humor. There is a touch of an Alan Ayckbourn device (“How the Other Half Loves”) keeping three sets of couples performing their individual shtick and carrying on cell phones while simultaneously sharing the stage. Throughout the play, the clichéd zingers elicit lots of guffaws and rare uproarious laughter. As the friendships wax and wane and friendships are strained, Kelly devises an off-beat resolution by staging a leather “party.” Happily, four members of the cast are great eye-candy.

Running time one hour and 45 minutes with intermission.

Date: 2008-08-25 05:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pagerbear.livejournal.com
Steward? Masseuse? "A gay"? Does this reviewer always use language that dated?

Without even getting into just which four cast members are eye candy!

Date: 2008-08-25 06:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com
yeah the four members comment is needlessly bitchy (as he's a known bear chaser) - - but - also - his use of "the big A" is pretty ridiculous - and shows that he's not really in touch with today's gay experience in San Francisco.

Date: 2008-08-25 06:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stivalineri.livejournal.com
That's a good review if you can see past all the bitchy comments.

Date: 2008-08-25 07:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com
yeah - I'll be sure to post the more balanced opinions that say less about the reviewer and more about the show itself.

Date: 2008-08-25 06:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bootedintexas.livejournal.com
but then he says "four of the cast" not all of the cast are eye candy. rather flippant.

Date: 2008-08-25 07:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com
yeah - some of his other reviews have had even higher bitchyness factor.

Huh.

Date: 2008-08-25 10:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capy.livejournal.com
That's what passes for a review? He did see the show, right?

Lord.

We had a wonderful, wonderful time, by the way... Fun show, great ensemble.

Re: Huh.

Date: 2008-08-25 10:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com
yeah - I thought his review was almost like he slept through it - and it really shows his age and disconnect from most of the references in the story. and it's bitchyness factor is apparently really low compared to other reviews.

Date: 2008-08-25 11:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] musicbearmn.livejournal.com
He writes like one of our local reviewers. Once you wade through the crap, not too bad. Me, I'd come see it in person and I know I would like it.

August 2011

S M T W T F S
 1234 56
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 18th, 2026 07:45 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios