I’ve never read a more pointless article, one so brazenly disprectful to its subject matter and to the reader.

Please do not write any longer.

Tracy, I think there are two halves to this. Even if you are not familiar with the “history of the American film,” you are always a few Google strokes away from digging up the basics on iconic films and actors that would have registered a big “A-HA!” right before you drafted your review, an understanding that hopefully would have been reflected in your writing instead of a lot of  generalities and question marks that simply make it look like you didn’t bother to research for even one minute. (For the record, GWTW, Fantasia, and Casablanca all opened during the first half of World War II, 1939-42, and Al Jolson probably was not referenced in the play unless Durang decided to use a man singing in blackface as commentary. Search that one and see what you find.) Also, Christopher Durang is a well-known contemporary satirist that, again, you could have briefly looked at his bio and/or CV to distill where he might have been coming from with “American Film” which, I’m guessing, probably runs a bit deeper than being simply a nostalgic revue since you call it a “parody.” (To wit, so to speak: www.christopherdurang.com) I think j’s comment is a reaction to the first-person blog-y nature of your “review,” which is more of a loose opinion than a detailed critique. We’re certainly not expecting several thousand words and a ton of footnotes on the subject, and we’re happy that you enjoyed the experience, but please make the effort to write instead of posting what reads like ill-prepared comments made during a podcast. Unlike j., who is actually the one demonstrating disrespect because he/she apparently doesn’t know the meaning of the phrase “constructive criticism,” I’d certainly encourage you to think things through for future articles and reviews before you hand in your work. That’s all. FWIW.

I understood this totally differently than the other people that posted…this is what I got from it:
- the more background you have going in, the more of the allusions you will understand when watching
- afterwards, you can do a little research to fill in the blanks if needed
- it had a great cast and is definitely worth seeing
never did it cross my mind that there was any sort of disrespect
plus, i’m seeing it soon and have learned what to look into ahead :), all in all this was helpful to me

To get back to the show, if that’s allowed, we saw it last night. I know a lot about the films of the 30s and 40s and appreciated what Durang was trying to do, though some was pretty obvious and the ending was forced. A literal kitchen sink would have been appropriate. I thought the acting was excellent, as was the stage design. I was more impressed with them than with the play itself. One question though, if anyone connected with the show is reading this:
“Why did the American flag in the first act have 50 stars instead of 48?”
 

It appears to me that your reviewer did all that could be expected: she paid her money, saw the play and conveyed her impressions. The review (on the whole, laudatory) may have been rushed, in a generous attempt to publicize the production while it was still available for viewing. Pankoke’s demand on Durang’s behalf for due diligence is ludicrous on its face. If your entertainment requires preparatory study to be appreciated, it has failed from the gate.

Durang’s bruited reputation as a “satirist” aside, I found the script a failed exercise in metacamp, at once lightweight and heavy-handed, and smacking of anachronistic hubris. The play’s partial success as entertainment for me was owed entirely to the sheer muscular brio of the talented and energetic young cast. Frontrunner among the gifted pack was Marty Scanlon as Jimmy, for my money—I remember also his fine work in a very different play, Sam Shepard’s Buried Child, in the small but telling role of Bradley (Or was that character’s name Brandon? Quick, Jason—Google that for me, wouldja? I’d hate for my entire authority as a spectator to be dismantled by lacunae in my frame of reference).

But not even an actor of Scanlon’s demonstrated resourcefulness could make the grapefruit gag funny twice. Grapefruit, Jimmy—yes, Mr. Durang, I get it. Our ancestors were ingenuous savages, mere credulous children, really, lacking the benisons of YouTube and American Idol, hence easily distracted by shiny objects and spectacle. Now kindly remove your elbow from my ribs.

Perhaps Mr. Pankoke will return to enumerate the pearls I’ve trampled underhoof. Maybe, if I’m good, j.ciolino will drop by to observe, with Johnsonian acumen and Wildean pith, that I suck. And it’s possible that, lacking the pantoscopic erudition of a Jason Pankoke, that I’ve misread the subtexts and richly interwoven meanings of Mr. Durang’s play. In that case… he has failed. I have done all that is needful to justify such a judgment. I’ve paid my money, and I’ve seen his play.