Comments on: “Frankenstein” is a Little Scary for the Wrong Reasons

By: Elizabeth Hurd

Elizabeth Hurd — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:17:09 +0000

Fabrice,
Thank you! In reading over the comments I detect the negative tone that developed. However, I was so excited by the dialogue that I didn’t concern myself with it. Somehow I missed the deliberateness of the prop selection–perhaps if there had been more 20th century references earlier. Loving the concept of the show I had just suspended my disbelief — and it was like a cold bucket of water. I can see the quality of your work as a director and I tried to indicate that in the review (which cannot be as long as this dialogue) I am not an actress any longer. I had hoped to start auditioning again upon retirement, however I fell into this more or less accidentally. You can’t do both. One day I hope to present I one woman show, if I have the time to write it. It is called “Conversations with a Marginally Self-Aware Narcissist” If I ever get that together I hope that you will attend as well as Mr. Williams and please bring your rotten tomatoes. Outside of that I will probably never act on stage again. It is sad, but I am told that the blog is valuable to the community. I know that I am infallible, and I love the controversy that the disagreement was created. Shall we say that my disappointment was due to a foible that is shared by other members of an audience, but not by all? That “Frankenstein” is not for everyone, but is loved by many? While I hope that any negativity that is being read into this thread is resolved and that no comments are taken personally I would hate to see the dialogue ending. I am only one person, not infallible, but doing my best and the community needs as much feedback as it can get. Please don’t hesitate to encourage and continue as many comments as people would like to make. I seriously do welcome comments and differing opinions!
Thank you for your understanding.
Elizabeth

By: Fabrice Conte

Fabrice Conte — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 04:45:36 +0000

Dear Mrs. Hurd,

Let me compliment you for the vivid conversation you ignited with your blog post. It is quite honorable to unleash such fervor for what happens in the basement of the Civic Center.

I am sorry you misunderstood our approach to props selection. Let me explain briefly: all props and costumes in the story were carefully selected to fit a mid-20th century feel. Therefore they were modern “on purpose”. On the other hand, Shelley and Byron were designed to fit the early 19th century in which they belong. My program notes addressed the duality and fluidity of time periods and locations, dictated by Ms. Louise’s adaptation.

As a long-time discreet member of the OKC art scene, I appreciate your effort to provide a genuine review of the show and raise some valuable questions. But all of us regret the tone, which appeared unnecerally destructive. You mentioned being a member of this community and it’s unfornutate you were not able to provide a more supportive commentary and focus on the humble – but inspiring – achievements of this collaboration between dedicated artists.

We were blessed by a sold-out run and wonderful word-of-mouth. What else could we ask for?

I wish you good luck in your journey as a writer and actress.

Sincerely,

Fabrice

By: Elizabeth Hurd

Elizabeth Hurd — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:40:18 +0000

Wow!
Thank you both for commenting! You are both correct in your assessments of the play. Operating as a critic, I am restrained by the fact that I am reviewing a specific production unless I am functioning in the capacity of a literary critic, which I may do when reviewing original plays. In this comment I will try to address some of the questions raised.
Mr. Williams, I appreciate your pointing out to me that I do not work for the New York Times. My qualifications as a critic come not through journalism but through my background as an actress. Many of the older members in the OKC community remember me as an actress.
When I attend, I request two tickets. My reasoning is that my husband does not wish me to travel from my home in Guthrie to downtown OKC alone. The second reason and advantage is that I can, whenever possible, bring a guest as I did for the show. They get a ‘free’ ticket. But they also are expected to give as honest an answer to any questions I may ask them. During the show I try to assess other members of the audience, and further, I unabashedly eavesdrop on the casual conversation of patrons. Often, the production is so good that I do not assess the audience reaction during the show because I am responding as a member of the audience should. That is equally valuable information.
In this comment I am taking the liberty of commenting on the adaptation of “Frankenstein” by Dorothy Louise. I agree that the script is entertaining and thought-provoking and, if asked, would have given that response as an audience member commenting on the choice of script chosen. I would also state that it is a difficult play, not as a criticism, just as an observation. The actors all did a fine job seperately, in this production, however in all but a few exceptions there seemed to be little or no connections between them. As if they had all come from other productions and had never acted together as a unit. Exceptions occurred with Reese as he responded to his fellow actors and there were moments where the connections were established between Mary Shelley and Victor Frankenstein, although they were inconsistent. Therefore, the connections that need to occur between audience and actors did not occur for me. They seemed not to occur for others from my guest to others I spoke with after the show or overheard, so, I felt certain that I was not alone in this assessment and retaining my objectivity. It is very important to me to maintain my integrity to not allow subjective feeling I might have to interfere with my criticism. The most abrasive part of the problem did happen when the use of 20th century props threw me out of the show completely. While the prop master may be to blame, the ultimate responsibility lies with the director. I feel that my critism is constructive, because, I believe, that it can be corrected.
As my duty lies in the criticism of the production, specifically of the performance I attend, I do not claim to impugn Fabrice Conte’s overall abilities as a director. It is not my place to judge his body of work on one performance of one play. I am quite sure he is brilliant. I am also certain that I might have done a better job of specifically reviewing, as he might also have done a better job of directing this production. I applaud the ambitious choice. I stand by my critique. I hope to see more of his work as I don’t believe Conte is a bad director, I believe he erred in this production. How much the use of the modern props affected me is impossible to gauge, I suspect it is a lot. When an audience member is thrown out of the play it is difficult to be immersed in the story. I liked the story and resented being brought out of it. How much of the connection I wanted to see emanating between actor and actor and audience and actor was lost simply due to 2nd night jitters? No one can really know. How petty is it to notice a seemingly minor mistake? Very. That is why attention to detail is important in good direction. If it throws the audience members who notice out of the story it is not petty to them. How many noticed besides me? I don’t know, but I do know that my guest noticed and was disturbed by it independendly from me. My guest that night is a novice theatre patron, and I have only known her for a short time. I don’t believe I influenced her. It may be petty, but it is an easy fix. It is very likely a fault of mine that I am bothered by obvious but slight inconsistencies. I am also bothered by costumers who persist in dressing actresses in clothing 2 sizes smaller than the actreess should wear. I try to be aware of my peculiarities so as not to impose my reaction on others. If I failed, I truly apologize. Mr. Williams, your response is very well written and passionate. I do not know what your involvement is, however, you might consider walking a mile in my shoes. If you would like to become a contributor, please respond so that we may begin a dialogue.
Once again, I did not mean to hurt anyone’s feelings. I have felt the sting of a critics words myself, but I have also learned from them.
Elizabeth Hurd
Oklahoma Arts: Scene & Hurd
One of several print critics in theatre for the Oklahoman.

By: Paul B. Williams

Paul B. Williams — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 03:54:55 +0000

Every reviewer is allowed his or her opinion, as indeed is Ms. Hurd, as her opinion is nothing more and nothing less than another audience member’s. Thus, my review is as good as hers, yes? I am not a theatre scholar by any means, and yet, to that end, as a proletarian audience member, I was not actually “confused,” as Ms. Hurd condescendingly presumed me to be. I actually understood the playwright’s demanding and monolithic script and appreciated Mr. Conte’s complex interpretation, as if he was taking a huge, galleon ship and cleverly somehow putting it into a bottle– the bottle of the small and intimate stage, where we could all admire its intricacies up close and personal.

I too admired the actors’ prodigious and enthusiastic interface with the small space and the large scope of emotionally rich dialogue and existential issues. Oddly, Ms. Hurd fixates on a glove or a mask, as if such anachronisms were simply too much for her to resolve in her expectations of predictability, while she completely missed the deliberate point of the delicious surrealism enhancing the dreamscape of this production.

So, I feel more compelled to review Ms. Hurd’s review, itself. In fact, I am as perplexed by Ms. Hurd’s review as she is by this Frankenstein. She at once lavishes praise upon most of the actors’ performances, but impugns the director’s talents, as if the director is discredited from informing the actors’ performances. It is like praising an orchestra’s strings and percussion sections, while sneering at the conductor, naively presuming the conductor to have nothing to do with the performances.

As a transplanted Oklahoman, starving for theatre, art, and culture, Ms. Hurd would do well to situate herself in the larger context of her social milieu. She is not employed by the New York Times, afterall. Let’s praise such ambitious productions as this Frankenstein and others. Indeed, let us offer our critique of choices in direction. However, it is one thing to critique an interpretation of a playwright’s work, it is another to question whether he is a “good” director. Has Ms. Hurd followed Mr. Conte’s expansive work to make such a statement of hubris? In Ms. Hurd’s own words on this blog, I seek “not to be kind, but to be accurate”.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:03:58 +0000

Audiences want new and different, not “expected.” Ironically, “entertaining” and “thought-provoking” are the most common reactions our unbiased audience has had. They also enjoy the surprise of how creative the staging, costumes, set design, and lighting. If people want a stumbling, monosyllabic, green monster, this is not the show for them. The fluid approach to period is intentional and adds to the immediacy of the piece. We think it works. Only a very few seats remain for our last three performances, so our audience word of mouth is obviously in sharp contrast to this review. -Rachel Irick OKC Theatre Company Artistic Director