I really don't remember the movie, but this staging seemed like a novelty that could have paid off. I know the theater company is called "In Your Face" and there are warning signs plastering the entrance. But it seems that they forgot the inherent value of opening up this vivid but sordid world via an environmental staging, and then got obsessed with the novelty of flinging (simulated we can only hope) bodily waste at the audience. Unfortunately the eew factor ultimately distances us from the profound pathos that develops as the play proceeds.
While I can't argue as to the dramatic structure of this piece I am truly perplexed as to why the reviewer failed to mention any of the extraordinary work of this cast or for that matter the direction, which was really engaging. No, it isn't the movie, but why would it be? Who would want to see that? What we do get is a great deal more insight into the characters neglected by Danny Boyle's film. In that film Tommy's death is an accent, a tagline, but in this piece it takes center stage and is afforded the gravity it deserves. I agree that it might have been structured better dramatically, but certainly not performed better. I really wonder about a NYT reviewer who can't get past their own old biases.
3
While the critic thought the accents were "admirably understandable," I found myself wishing that there were subtitles, so I could understand what the actors were mumbling.
And, although we were reassured that all the effluent was water-based, I was very glad I hadn't worn white.
1