Carbomb

1. I find sad the reviewer’s ignorance for other world events; especially the Troubles in Ireland. The worst of the Irish Troubles are not long over and can be proven by the recent resurgences of violence, including an event only one short month ago, when two British soldiers were brutally killed by members of the New IRA. I feel that this play truly shoots at clearing away this ignorance that many people, including the reviewer, have of terrorism in the new millenium.

2. I thought that this play was beautiful and moving and that it provided an intimate view of how something as horrifying as an act of terrorism can affect people on an individual level. Too many people forget that a tragedy such as a terrorist bombing is more than the statistic of the number dead and the number injured. It is also the feelings of loss, anger, denial, regret, sadness, desperation, helplessness, hurt, and confusion felt often simultaneously by those who are left to pick up the pieces. Although there were a few light moments of relief in the play, it is unfortunate that this reviewer was unable to look past that to see that what this group of students created was able to convey all of these emotions and more.

   While I don’t know too many specific details about the Irish Troubles myself, I do know that they are, unfortunately, alive and well. This review is disrespectful to those affected by terrorism, especially those in Ireland, to refer to terrorism itself as a “bizzarity,” the plot as “a crazy, incredible scheme,” and the play as “wobbly” and “bumbling.”

3. What should have been the Review for Carbomb
   By Adabella Belmont

   It is quite obvious from this review that the reviewer is incapable of discerning a plot, unless it is spelled out to her. However, those that enjoy some involvement in shows would truly take pleasure in this one. Although the play does deal with bombings, it in no way glorifies or ignores the issues that result from such events. It doesn’t seem as though the opening of this play purposely coincided with the previously mentioned tragedies.
   After speaking to the writer, it becomes evident that this play was not just an idea tossed together but also a very involved and original making. Despite the fictionality of the play, it is presented in a realistic view. The play listed as a ‘world premiere’, is exactly that. Premieres are first showings and since this is the first time the play has been preformed, it is a premiere. It could have been called a “regional” or “national” premiere, but honestly I don’t see how that makes a difference. Critiquing the designation of the play’s opening seems unimportant when there are many others things that could be looked at. As for John Lane, the director, his selection of actors may have been almost perfect. To call the play ‘a work an progress’ is an ignorant call. I would like to know how the first showing of a play could be a ‘work in progress’, when there is no other version to compare it to. The directionality of the play could not have been done better. Lane may have used his interpretation to start, but Isenberg seemed satisfied with the result. Clearly showing that the intended vision was properly delivered. The clarity of the play was involved, which allowed the audience to take away their own interpretation. The main plot was not difficult to discern and someone that had trouble with this probably shouldn’t be seeing the play anyway.
   The three main characters of the play Liam, Patrick, and Derrick all bring different attitudes to the play. Liam (Chris Brozetti), the loud spoken, assertive leader of the pact remains a constant contributor to the evolving plot line. Whereas soft, spoken Patrick (Jason Bingaman) who clearly suffers from a low self-esteem, is constantly trying to make a stand for himself. Followed by the two year absent return of cousin Derrick (Ash Halli). As soon as Derrick comes into the picture it is clear that there is some deep-rooted emotional issue that he is struggling with. Despite this fact Patrick welcomes him with open arms, but as for Liam he isn’t so acceptable of this unexpected return. It is here that Derrick, wearing a camo jacket in radical form, proudly tells Liam and Patrick the reason for his return, which is to assassinate the British prime minister when he comes to town. Derrick cannot help but be forceful about his plan, even with his twitch and his obvious struggle with himself; Derrick is completely devoted to this feat.
   Despite the unpredicted plot turn, it is hinted that this plan was developed during Derrick’s absence. It isn’t quite obvious if Derrick came up with this on his own or if there are others behind him. This confusion is then cleared up in the first scene of Act 2. Which opens with a vision into Derrick’s mind, but is quickly interrupted by a man (TJ Firneno) and woman (Gail Hofbauer) dressed in business attire. It is clear from their entrance that they have a plan for Derrick and will do anything to get him to agree. The man choices brute force, but the woman opts for a slightly more gentle approach. Here the audience learns that Derrick in fact suffers from schizophrenia do to past emotional traumas.
   The accompanying music does a great job at portraying each emotion involved with the scenes. Without the music, the audience would not have got to feel how each character was feeling. Thoughtfully inserted into the play are Isenberg’s comical reliefs as well as a few jokes caught only by those carefully listening to the dialogue. In no way does Carbomb resemble anything ever portrayed on an episode of The Three Stooges. The superficial humor in a television is the complete opposite of the humor expressed in this play. The ending to the play is carefully constructed so that the audience is able to each character at their worst. The end also presents a new character, Mary (MJ Flott), Liam’s girlfriend. The closing scene, which involves just the two of them, displays the emotional stress of relationships, which is rarely seen. Each character suffers from their own past troubles, and with Isenberg’s creative writing and Lane’s detailed direction the audience is also able to experience these troubles. Which ultimately brings the relationship between the audience and the actors to a much higher level.
   Carbomb, is an interesting and at times emotional and humorous ride taken by any audience member. It was a pleasure to be able to experience this play and I greatly hope and anticipate for another ‘world premiere’ by Robert Isenberg.

4. I’m glad to see that other commenters also disagree with this review, which seems as though the reviewer came in predisposed to dislike this play. The minor flaws in the play are blown out of proportion, with no focus on the dramatically effective elements, such as the third scene with its emotionally powerful nature, and the completely irrelevant matters of the physicality of one actress is brought up for no good reason. It saddens me that the reviewer could not see the good and the message in “Carbomb” which at least a couple hundred others have seen and enjoyed.

5. It makes me sad that the reviewer of this play has not only blatantly ignored the importance of fact checking about current world events (or even the relevance of plays, books and songs referenced) but showed such a level of disrespect for those involved. Carbomb is a moving, complex, pertinent work that yes, requires a bit of brain power to fully appreciate. If the reviewer wishes for more “clarity” in a production, I suggest she stick to reviewing things that are at her level of understanding.
   By the way, the death of 50 people and the loss of a relationship with a family member is hardly a positive note, and I find it offensive that the dark, slightly morbid comedy is compared to the three stooges.

6. Alas, Ms. Pilecki is better at evoking a petulant child than a credible journalist.

   I find it hard to believe that someone could enter the theater with such a closed mind. Ms. Pilecki, I wish you had opened your mind and heart to the message that the playwright and the cast were trying to convey.

   Hopefully, the next time Ms. Pilecki goes to review a play, she will do her research and she will attempt to see the play for what it really is.

7. I have to say that Ms. Pilecki appears to have missed the mark on this one. This play struck a particular chord with me. I recently returned to the United States after spending the past four months in Ireland and I was living there when the tension from the Troubles reared its ugly head in the brutal form of the fallen British officers. And while I was not in Northern Ireland, there was still a sense of fear and sadness hanging in the air. No one could believe that these tensions were still alive and feeding such horrible violence. I think that Robert Isenberg, John Lane, and the cast and crew of Carbomb did a beautiful job capturing that real sense of horror in the face of such violence. It is a shame that Ms. Pilecki appears to have glossed over the most powerful scenes in the play, because it is these scenes that give the production its weight and beauty. One of the scenes I’m referring to is the scene in which the play’s namesake, the Carbomb, goes off. We are shown a small slice of the chaos in this small Irish town. Seanna (Joyce Hinnebusch) lies in a pool of her own blood, her legs broken, sobbing because she knows she is dying. Henry (Joe Jasek), a stranger passing by on his way to get help, takes her into his arms and tries to distract her as she screams in pain, a giant hole ripped into her stomach. I fail to see how this image could not re-create a “palpable sense of horror.”

   Ms. Pilecki, you wrote, “Carbomb seems to have an important message, but doesn’t yet know how to say it.” I disagree with you. I think Carbomb says its message loud and clear. “We’re not going to go back to that.” This violence must end. This killing must end. And this hatred must end.

8. It is obvious upon reading MICHELLE PILECKI’s review that she has no understanding of theatre. I would suggest that the next time she reviews a show, she does so with an open mind and a pleasant disposition. I also sincerely hope that Ms. Pilecki becomes more aware of global events, as her ignorance of other countries and other cultures is offensive.

   And, to quickly note, I am fairly certain that the word “bizarrities” does not exist; if it is a slang word with which I am not familiar, it should not be used in formal writing.

   Finally, as a female, I can attest that most women would object to being called “zaftig.” A performer’s weight should never be scrutinized or commented upon unless it directly pertains to the character that he or she is playing.

9. It is a shame that Ms. Pilecki did not take a moment to perhaps contact the playwright and/or director to gather information about “Carbomb” before viewing the production. Though reviewers often attend shows without prior contact with production staff, actors, or writers, it would be considered a courtesy to prepare oneself for a show new to the stage by having some background information with which to compare, contrast, and support a review.
   I find it highly offensive that, in a need to write SOMETHING about her experience, Ms. Pilecki chooses to use vocabulary and references that in no means give a reader credible information to perhaps find interest in attending “Carbomb.” I agree with previous comments that an ignorance of world events is evident in the review and a lack of compassion for those involved in these events shines. I would also like to agree that to describe an actress’ figure with terminology that is negative toward her physical looks is simply rude. Not ONCE did the dialogue or actions make reference to the actress’ appearance. The comment was rude and offensive.
   “Carbomb” was a fine performance with many strengths. It certainly begged an audience to explore all emotions in a short time. If Ms. Pilecki did not care for the show, she has a right to her opinion, but it is unfair to write a simple review that casually glosses over the heart-heavy story on the stage.

Comments are closed.