From: JOHNMairzydoats@***.***
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 23:47:08 EDT
Subject: Mr. Turvin's review of Clue on 5/12/00
To: mspt@goldfishpublishers.com
To Mark Turvin: If I were to read your review of Clue without knowing how you rate this musical performed at Theatre Works, I would be astonished at your 2.5 out of a possible 5 rating. I and others who saw this performance would not consider rating it any lower than 3.5 to 4. Your rating MUST have been from an historical view, since you noted so elequently that "this was never a critical success," nor could "a single number can be removed to stand on its own." How can lyrics be "too quick-witted for their own good?" How does "a penchant for textual rhyming get annoying?" These are what help make the performance enjoyable. Your assessment of the performances of the actors were, to some extent, on target. Damon Bolling, as Mr. Boddy, was excellent. Johanna Carlisle, as Mrs. White, was outstanding. She, as in all of her many previous performances here and elsewhere around the Valley, really carried the show to a success. All one has to do is listen to members of the audience at intermission or at the end as they praised her performance as well as the others. The other performers did admirably well. The director really did mount a "very amusing production." These are most of the reasons that this Clue rates a 3..5 or 4. How could the clues get to be a "bit obsequious?" You really need to adroit in the use of your mental faculties to ascertain the "killer." Again, your review of Clue at Theatre Works is one of anachronistic contradiction. You rate Clue: The Musical low; your revilew of Clue at Theatre Works rates high!! In the future, critique your review itself prior to assesing any rating.
Mr. Mairzydoats,
Thank you for your letter. I'm sorry it has taken so long to get back to you, but I've been having problems with my ISP.
I'm glad to see that we agree on most things in the review. As a writer, I found that the consciously clever lyrics and the odd choice of rhyming Mr. Boddy's addresses to the audience were generally pretentious, which is what I found annoying. Sometimes, the convention worked, but it was overworked.
I must admit, I struggled quite a bit with assigning stars to this review. In fact, my first draft was mistakenly sent to one of the other sites for whom I write, PHXARTS.com with the original *** rating I'd given. After spending an hour considering this before I posted to my own site, I decided to let my general disappointment for the script and the fact that I was not completely impressed with two or three of the cast members evenly balance some of the great performances and those several moments when the show worked for me. If you'd gone to the site at 7:30pm on Sunday, you would have seen one page listing **1/2, and the other listing ***, but by 7:32, both were changed to **1/2
In this case, I think the matter was not glossing over a review and arbitrarily assigning a star rating, but spending too much time agonizing over it, and wavering one too many times. I find it interesting that you picked up on what caused me such anguish, though assumed I hadn't given enough thought. Maybe it's time to ditch the rating system, and depend on straight review to make my point. This will probably be my choice for next season. I'd love to hear your opinion, as well as anyone who cares to make their feelings known.
Thank you again, and please always feel free to "keep me honest." It's what I hope will keep me from becoming too much of an "oracle," and growing as much those in the theatre community that I review.
Cheers,
--
Mark S.P. Turvin, M.F.A