Below the Belt (not what you think)

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-09 01:22pm

I have to go see the play 'Below the Belt' for Theater class. Anyone seen it? I'm getting nervous cause some kids in class have said it really sucks and drags on.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-09 01:28pm

As long as it's not a one-woman show, you might survive.

Then again, I dislike most theatre in general (no offence, but I just can't tolerate its presentation).

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-09 01:31pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:As long as it's not a one-woman show, you might survive.

Then again, I dislike most theatre in general (no offence, but I just can't tolerate its presentation).

That's a reasonable statment. Most plays suck, they aren't that great. Just becuase it's on stage doesn't mean it's any good. There a conciet that theater is always superior when they can be every bit as bad as movies or tv.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-09 01:38pm

Supposedly, only three people are on stage the whole time.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-09 01:52pm

The thing I'm trying to get at is that I can't watch something that's on a stage. It doesn't seem "Real" to me, as it does in a film. I can't get into it because the disruption between the two realities is too distracting. I can watch a recording of a play just fine, but not when it's seen performed live. I'm a film person.

The best play that I've seen was the Cedar Rapids Washington High School production of Wait Until Dark (one of the few non-musical or comedies we did, so there wasn't any chance of the "Drama People"* screwing it up). I thought the play was great, but when I later saw the film, I thought it was fan-fucking-tastic. So clearly my problem with theatre has nothing to do with the story or the execution (sets, acting, etc...), but with the medium itself.

That's not to say that I don't think that theatre as a whole is stupid or a worthless occupation, quite the opposite, actually. It's just that I personally don't like it and have difficulty watching it.

*By "Drama People," I'm refering to that group of 10-20 kids in virtually every high school who are in practically every play, and you can spot them in an instant. Their continually constant presense can detract from the plays that their in (WHS's West Side Story *shudder*).

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-09 01:55pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:*By "Drama People," I'm refering to that group of 10-20 kids in virtually every high school who are in practically every play, and you can spot them in an instant. Their continually constant presense can detract from the plays that their in (WHS's West Side Story *shudder*).

Hey, I'm one of those people! I feel insulted!

In my HS, we really threw ourselves into working on the plays, and didn't waste time runing around school trying to make ourselves look good. We did what we did because we enjoyed it, not because we wanted recognition.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-09 02:03pm

I didn't say they were doing it for recognition, but that they are too easy to recognise, and that hinders a production.

But there should be some kind of quota so that there's some variety in the casts.

Do you know how many times in play previews I thought "There's that guy again who's been in the last two plays, there's that guy again who's been in the last four plays, there's that girl again who's been in the last three plays...".

Don't you see what's wrong with having the same 10 or so people in every single play? It doesn't give any chance for the unrecognised kids to be really exposed.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-09 04:48pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I didn't say they were doing it for recognition, but that they are too easy to recognise, and that hinders a production.

But there should be some kind of quota so that there's some variety in the casts.

Do you know how many times in play previews I thought "There's that guy again who's been in the last two plays, there's that guy again who's been in the last four plays, there's that girl again who's been in the last three plays...".

Don't you see what's wrong with having the same 10 or so people in every single play? It doesn't give any chance for the unrecognised kids to be really exposed.

That's a very good point, Spanky. On the flip side, you have the fact that you don't get a huge amount of people turning up to try out.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-10-09 06:14pm

From my experiences (1 play), it's more enjoyable to act in a play than it is to watch one. As for that one play, I probably didn't ge a bigger part because the school didn't like me, even if I was about 10 times more talented that the other boys in the cast. It's just one of the ways schools prefer the teacher's pet that sucks up all the time.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-09 06:15pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote: I probably didn't ge a bigger part because the school didn't like me, even if I was about 10 times more talented that the other boys in the cast.

Modest, aren't we?

What was it?

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-13 09:03pm

Anyway, I saw the play, and here's my report:

(my name deleted)
Art of the Theater

I once heard a joke that TV critics are only allowed to rate films from 'excellent' to 'good'. If that's true, then 'Below the Belt' was a good play. Let's face it: BtB has a pathetic story, unrealistic characters, and a moral that got lost in the confusion. Hanrahan seems to have spent way too much time working alone, and apparently has a college degree-ability to twist other people's words and logic. Merkin probably has at least one-third of the psychological diseases known to man, being desperate for approval and a need to talk to others. Dobbitt is a stammering, whimpering, yes-man who seems to have just come out of his naiveté shell, although to tell the truth, I'd be stammering too if I had to deal with Merkin and Hanrahan on a daily basis. Although I felt the actors were very good, they were hampered by material though up by an asylum inmate.

I think the author of this play had two things in mind when he wrote this play. First would be the wish to write a play depicting the evils of corporate greed. Second would be the psychological effects of ingesting a handful of paint chips. Although having only three characters does keep the play focused, the focus is lost somewhere between Hanrahan's yelling, Dobbitt's stammering, and Merkin's fawning tone. The characters are one-dimensional and uninteresting, as is the plot. Although the play is indeed unique, writing down what the little voices in your head tell you probably won't do well on the market.

In conclusion, if I found that the author of this play was a recovering drug addict and schizophrenic, I would not be surprised in the least. BtB is a psychotic play written by a psychotic mind, and plays like this are the reason people of all ages and walks of life avoid the theater like the plague.

It's long enough, and I think it conveys my opinion, thus accomplishing both of its objectives. Your reactions?

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-13 09:18pm

bump bump bump.

Can I have a reaction, please?

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-13 09:26pm

BUMP.

Hello? Am I talking to myself? I gotta turn this in tomorrow, does anyone have a reaction?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-13 09:29pm

if i were a tv critic i´d say it was good

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-13 09:30pm

[sarcasm] thanks a whole lot[/sarcasm]

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-14 12:01am

Since I haven't seen the play, my evaluation of your review might not mean a whole lot, but...

... I think it sounds good. Really objective, and your dislike of it really comes across.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-14 01:02am

thanks, Spanky