Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
In some ways, Agnes of God and The Elephant Man are almost mirror images. Agnes (1979) and Elephant (1982) opened back when Broadway still regularly offered storytelling in a theatrical style instead of movie-influenced spectacle. Each play is based on a true story, and both have enjoyed long lives at regional and community theaters.
On another level, John Pielmeier’s Agnes and Bernard Pomerance’s Elephant are concerned with societal “freaks,” and with how “normal” people slowly begin to identify with them.
Agnes is a novice nun discovered one night covered in blood with a strangled newborn in a wastebasket. She never knew she was pregnant, knows nothing of the murder and, being cloistered, could never have had contact with a man. So is the father of the child … God the Father? Mother Superior Miriam believes Agnes to be touched by the divine and wants no part of the court-ordered psychiatrist, Dr. Martha Livingstone, assigned to ascertain Agnes’ mental fitness.
John Merrick is a man so hideously deformed that he is exhibited in a Victorian circus as “The Elephant Man.” Exploited and abandoned, he is taken into the Royal London Hospital under the care of Dr. Frederick Treeves, who can’t cure him but can bring him solace and refined society during his final years.
Both Agnes and Merrick are written as innocents, and that purity causes profound changes within those around them. Though Agnes of God is the better-written play — Elephant Man never quite overcomes its gimmicky feel — both are intelligent and entertaining pieces of theater.
Actors Civic Theater’s production of Agnes features strong performances by Robin Beruh, Patricia Cena and Abigail Lis-Perlis, but Mary Chess Randolph’s muddied and haphazard direction continually trips them up.
Kelly Colleen McMahon’s direction for the visiting Ninth Wave version of The Elephant Man is strong throughout, with several moving performances, notably Gwen Morton as Mrs. Kendall, and Patrick Curley and Corey Rieger as Merrick and Treeves.
AGNES OF GOD continues through Sun., April 10. Father Ryan Arts Center, 420 Chartiers Ave., McKees Rocks. 412-394-3353 or www.proartstickets.org
THE ELEPHANT MAN continues through Sat., April 9. Ninth Wave at Pittsburgh Playwrights Theatre Co., 542 Penn Ave., Downtown. 412-394-3353 or www.proartstickets.org
This article appears in Apr 7-13, 2011.
As the Executive Director of Actors Civic Theater, this rebuttal to Mr. Hoover’s theatrical review of Agnes of God may seem self-serving and only reactionary to one reviewer’s opinion. However, we – the readers of this fine paper – are granted this opportunity to comment, and I will take the opportunity afforded me.
While Ted’s theatrical reviews can often be curt, sarcastic, and convoluted, he does have a wealth of experience to warrant the right to this, his employment.
First I must say that being in the business of professional theater as long as both Ted and I have been – all of our adult lives (which is probably many more years than either of us may be willing to share) – we both know that the job of a theater critic is to inform the readers of her/his paper the theater critic’s opinion (hopefully supported by her/his training and experience) of what the she/he thinks important for the reader. Ted Hoover has never failed to do just that. Honestly speaking, it is not the critic’s job to be concerned of the accuracy of her/his comments and how the possible inaccuracy may affect the artisan, affect the production company, or affect the artisans’ work being criticized. In the defense of any well versed art critic, they do not have the opportunity to observe the process and creation of the specific art form being reviewed. Performing arts critics can only get one quick look at the “finished” product. However, can we accurately say that a piece of art is ever truly completed? Performing Arts (Music, Theater, Dance) are truly Ephemeral.
One of the greatest things about evaluating any art form, including live theatre, is that two people can see the same piece of art (or in this specific instance – theater production) and come away with completely differing reactions. Here is a fine example: The audience who witnessed the same performance Ted saw gave a standing ovation. In that spirit, I’d like to offer my rebuttal to Ted Hoover’s quick and curt theater review of ACT’s production of Agnes of God when he attended opening night this past Friday evening (4/1/2011).
Those of us involved in creating theater know that the long and creative process is one of the best examples of true team work and “ensemble.” The writer gets the idea and writes it down on paper. The theater production company chooses to produce the written piece and places a team of arts together (directors, designers, actors, technicians) to create the play the audience will see.
With all that said, here is my rebuttal. To say that “the Actors Civic Theater’s production of Agnes features strong performances by Robin Beruh, Patricia Cena and Abigail Lis-Perlis” (which I agree with whole-heartedly), but to say in the very same sentence that “Mary Chess Randolph’s direction was muddied, haphazard and continually trips them (the actors) up” is contrary to all we understand in the evaluation of any collaborative art form. How does Mr. Hoover feel qualified to say that what he saw – in the brief snapshot of time – was “muddled and haphazard” direction when he said that the actors gave strong performances? Are we then to assume that the director – who guides the whole artistic side of the production – had nothing to do with the actors’ “strong” performances?
I would NEVER place myself in the amazingly difficult position all critics have placed themselves in – to inform the critic’s readers their assessment of such a subjective and individually personal view of an ephemeral art form like live theater. But Ted has a job to do and he did it. I, for one, would be much more careful of my accuracy of information to my readers.
For example, the evening Ted came to see the performance (he must have ran out of room in the paper to say) we had a very enthusiastically energized audience who all rose to their feet with a rousing standing ovation for the performance which included ( in my educated assessment) the performers,’ the designers,’ the production team’s work including the this impressive director’s guiding efforts.
I believe Mr. Hoover is mistaken in his statement regarding the direction while the performers’ success cannot be exclusive from the director’s skillful guidance.
I encourage those looking for excellent and affordable live theater (free parking) in a beautiful arts center which is only 5-7 minutes from downtown Pittsburgh to come and see this amazing production. You may agree with the opening night audience and give these worthy performers and their laudable director a standing ovation.
We have performances this Friday and Saturday @ 7:30 PM & Sunday @ 2:00 PM at the Father Ryan Arts Center, 420 Chartiers Ave., McKees Rocks, PA 15136 (Only 5-7 minutes from Downtown Pittsburgh).
Thank you City Paper for this opportunity to rebut Mr. Hoover’s opinion.
I encourage those who have had the opportunity to see this fine production to comment as well.
James Critchfield,
Executive Director
Actors Civic Theater
Regarding Mr. Hoover’s criticism of the Actor’s Civic Theater production of Pielmeier’s, Agnes of God, I attended a performance of the production last weekend and I would have to disagree with Hoover’s review. I attended the show with a friend and she told me that (although having seen the play performed by another professional company), this production was much easier to follow than her previous experience with the show. I was interested in seeing this company’s production, because I was intimately involved in producing this play (in another city) with two other companies.
I would have to agree(with my friend) that this was one of the best directed presentations of this work that I have seen, with respect to audience friendly blocking and understandability. Having been intimately involved with the material previously, I probably know the dialog better than most. Some of the lines spoken by Mother Miriam Ruth and the Dr. Livingston(I still like this portrayal better than Jane Fonda’s) were not the lines as written by Pielmeier. As such, they seemed a little less effective than the playwright’s own words. I might have been prejudiced by having heard the dialog as written (in its entirety) over 75 times. Any variation from the author’s just seems improper.
I’m not sure of Mr. Hoover’s personal relationship with Randolph, but his criticism of the director seems a bit personal. As I stated, I know nothing about their interpersonal dynamics (perhaps a lover’s spat), but the show that my friend and I watched last weekend was one of the better presentations that I have seen (of this play) in years.
After reading the review of the Actors Civic Theater’s production of AGNES OF GOD I sensed that I must
have attended a much different play than the reviewer. Never having seen any movie, television,
or theater production of AGNES OF GOD prior to this I am befuddled as to how it was seen to be other than a successful cooperative alliance between actors and director. The actors’ performances were true to the characters they portrayed. The past sorrows that each one had experienced seemed to culminate as they tried to help one another and deal with their own dysfunctionality. The story as told through the characters could be easily followed which it is not always necessarily the case with a play dealing with spiritual issues and this I can only credit to the director.
Well, this is interesting. I was online trying to find information to send to some friends so they could see Agnes of God this weekend. I saw it last Saturday, and I wanted to recommend it to them. This link came up. I usually don’t read the City Paper, but since there are some comments here, I can’t resist putting in my two cents.
Admittedly, I’m just your regular Joe Theater Goer. My wife and I love to attend local productions, and when we saw that The Father Ryan Arts Center was performing Agnes of God, we decided to go. Liked the movie, interested to see it on stage.
We thoroughly enjoyed this production. The only thing I can say is that it seemed like the two older actresses were having trouble with their lines. Couldn’t tell if it was one or both of them, but the woman playing the Mother Superior seemed to keep cutting the doctor off. Some of it seemed planned,and when that happened it was great, but sometimes the doc couldn’t get two words out before she got cut off. It was like the Mother Superior was reading the doc’s mind, because I sure didn’t know what she was going to ask! None of the other women did this, so I don’t think it was planned. It seemed like it might have been a case of nerves.
Now, I’m splitting hairs. The overall show was really powerful. When we saw the Mother Superior’s memories,(Well I guess it was the doc’s memory of the memories) Agnes looked like an angel. It was really moving. My wife cried, and I came close.
I’m sure they’ll have their lines down by this week. I’m sure my friends will love it. Like I said, just my two cents.
Signed,
Average Joe (aka J. Andrews, Mt.Lebanon)
While it is true it is not a critics job to please the artisan. It IS his/her job to inform readers by giving an intelligent critique. Giving a critique is very different than being critical for the sake of being critical (think of the food critic in “Ratatouille.” He didn’t like anything. He just hated it all.”) A critique involves a well informed opinion. Being critical doesn’t necessarily inform anyone-and in fact-leaves one questioning what is missing. For example, Mr. Hoover says the direction is “muddied and haphazard.” How? Where? In what scene? In what way? Yes, a critic must be to the point, but he/she must also at least have one. I saw “Agnes of God” and saw many points of direction that worked. For instance, when Mother Superior comes into the room to speak with the doctor and sits in the doctor’s chair and leans way down into it, and says, “I’m NOT a virgin, Doctor!”
Another poignant scene that shows excellent direction is the scene where Agnes has been hypnotized and she is screaming in agony. BOTH the doctor and the Mother Superior are NOT looking AT ALL at Agnes. The are facing directly at each other. They NEVER look at Agnes despite her loud cries and screams. This was a beautiful directing choice that shows the subtext of their dialogue and the heart-wrenching truth: they are so consumed with themselves-so consumed with proving the other wrong, that they have lost sight of Agnes. And though both claim to care about Agnes, neither of them care for her at all in this scene. We come to see this transpire not just through “strongly” recited lines, but through compassionate direction that forces us to see what is REALLY being said. Would you think I gave a strong reason to see the production if I had merely said, “It was touching in parts?” I doubt it. Why? Because I didn’t back anything up with intelligent critique. The same goes for Mr. Hoover’s, poorly written critique. I wholeheartedly agree, that if something is wrong with a production, you have the duty and the right to tell the public-potential audience what that was. A critic’s job is not necessarily to be something to save in one’s scrap book. However, an intelligent critique should provide the reader with insight. This “critique” only left me wondering, “What was he talking about?” As Mr. Critchfield stated it is Mr. Hoover’s job to critique. I suppose you could say it was a “muddied” critique.
Because I read this “review” before going to see the show, “Agnes of God”, I feel compelled to comment, upon seeing the production last night. Perhaps if Mr. Hoover had elaborated more on his opinion of the production, rather than spending five paragraphs attempting to show the reader how clever and erudite he is, I would have been able to formulate a comment more effectively. Instead, I am forced to remark on one line, indeed, one phrase. Mr. Hoover -May I call you Ted?- what exactly did you mean when you said Ms. Randolph’s direction was muddied and haphazard? Were you referring to the blocking? In the performance I saw last night, the three actresses moved onstage logically and effectively, seamlessly shifting from scene to scene. Did you mean the performers’ characterizations? As you said, they gave strong performances and, as any person in theater knows, the director has a great deal to do with the building of a character. Was it the set? Sparse and mostly monochromatic, it faded in and out of view as needed. The lighting? I found it effective, but not distracting.
After reading your review we, the readers are left with almost as many questions as the play itself leave with us. If you are going to take the time to see a show and comment on it, at least present the readers of CP with some sort of elaboration of your statements, so that they may have a better sense of what you are saying. Yes, your statement was succinct, to say the least. However,it sounded more like a-to borrow from another comment on this post-regular joe, posturing in front of friends at a bar, attempting to sound smart. Ironically, the “regular joe” gave a more thoughtful and helpful critique than did you.
It’s most unfortunate that readers had to see this one-liner of a review. I hope that it has not discouraged anyone from seeing this fine production. Mr.Hoover-I’ve decided “Ted” is friendlier than I would like to be-you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and you are most fortunate to have been placed in a forum that allows your opinion to be viewed by the reader of CP and online. You have a responsibility to your readers to give them, what I would hope to be, an opinion bourne of experience. It is my sincere hope that each reader remembers that this “review” is just the reviewer’s OPINION. I read five other opinions posted here. And I agree with their assessments. I applaud them for taking more time and deliberation in describing this production than did Mr. Hoover.