PRETTY GOOD REVIEW FROM THE ADVOCATE
'Big Love' is big fun, LSU Theatre's latest
production a spectacle that defies convention

From the Baton Rouge Advocate:

This play is that friend that some of us have -- that crazy, neurotic, chain-smoking fool whose rants are endlessly irritating, luridly fascinating and jam packed with stormy inner dialogue that barely makes sense, yet is the smartest thing you've heard all day.

Some people love plain oatmeal. A million dollars says playwright Charles L. Mee is one of those guys who mixes his Fruit Loops with Captain Crunch.

The result -- perhaps "Crunch Loops" or "Captain Fruit" -- is rather unpredictable and silly, yet sweet as hell and fortified with nutrients nonetheless.

I think I can see where he's going with this...

Ron Reeder, as Giuliano, plays "gay" gorgeously. Enough said.

I knew it!



On the other hand, he might be making a good point.

Anyway, to summarize, it sounds like the reviewer is a bit uncomfortable with non-realistic post-modernism, but enjoyed himself despite his conventional leanings. Actually, he as much as says that:

The themes contradict, and the ultimate bottom line, that love conquers all, seems a bit convenient in the face of such perfectly orchestrated madness.

But these things are forgiven when you consider that Ingulsrud went out on a professional limb to do such an experimental show here.

One small problem though. This show might have been considered "experimental" a couple of decades back, but not today. I mean, it's not Neil Simon, but then, his best work was some forty years ago. Indeed, Charles Mee's scripts are so "experimental" that the local community company, Baton Rouge Little Theater, is doing one of his plays next year. Whatever. I'm thankful for all the praise.

I do have one BIG problem with the review:

While Richardson gave an impressive performance in "Arms and the Man," she was not as appreciated in this role. Much of that, seemingly, has to do with her character Lydia's moral indecision. Essentially she has an identity crisis: deciding if she can be a strong, independent woman and still acquiesce to the love of a man. The complexity of this indecision seemed to make the character less (rather than more) compelling, perhaps attributable to the actress's overtaxed abilities.

Click here for the rest.

He spends an entire paragraph explaining why he doesn't like the moral ambiguity of the character as written, but then completely reverses himself and attacks my classmate's talent, almost as an afterthought. What a back handed cheap shot. It's a low blow that makes no sense, especially in light of the fact that he seems to already think she's a good actress. Perhaps the reviewer was trying to reflect the thematic contradictions of Big Love by writing a thematically contradictory review. Or perhaps this dislike for the complexities of post-modern theater is attributable to the writer's overtaxed abilities.

But like I said, I'm thankful for all the praise.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$