People need to understand that crimes harassment, exploitation, and rape have nothing to do with attraction, chemistry, or even sex. They are crimes whose sole motive is power. They are violent crimes wherein the perpetrator only has one desire, to exert power (physically, psychologically, financially, or socially) over their victim. Like all predators, they are opportunists, all someone has to do to become the object of their assault is be in a position their attacker thinks they can successfully exploit.
Does anyone know what a "homeless gal" is? I've never seen an homelot, so I have no idea what a "homeless" is. Gal? I assume you mean woman and, like the predators I mentioned earlier you thought since no one could I identify you, or the woman discussed in the article it was a prime opportunity for you to demean her individuality and attempted to assault it with misogynistic language.
BTW, I've met this woman and she is exceedingly lovely. Anyone would be lucky to earn her affection.
The lion's share of your issues are with the wardrobe which is no surprise given your ignorance of the play. Stephen Greenblatt describes Richard as "a perverse erotic champion" due in part to the erotic, almost feral, delight he gets from deception and inflicting pain (even indirectly). Richard's "cheated... feature" does nothing to curtail his lusts. Rather the fact that his body is "not shaped for sportive tricks" is an outward manifestation of his inner depravity. If you had listened to the first forty lines of the play (or read them on your phone) you would have known that BDSM imagery is completely consistent with the play's tone and its protagonist. I will even go one step further and say that translating the Renaissance belief that outward appearances are the effect of an inner state through the language of fetish is evidence of an insightful and sensitive cast and crew.
You appraise without reflection and judge without knowledge all the while looking at the artists as if they're the reason you just don't get it.
All I'll say in response to, "how much leather is too much leather" is that in 1480, (considering clothing's limited fabric choices and the high value of animal hides) unless you worked in one of many tanneries, there was no such thing as too much leather.
If your goal is to lower the level of discourse, and reduce the value of aesthetic endeavors to their lowest common denominator (how the culturally illiterate perceive them) congratulations. In this economic climate artists have to compete more for less every day and you should respect their struggle by struggling a little yourself. Before you pass judgement on anyone's work shouldn't you be at least informed of the theories and traditions behind their work?
The only person who benefits from an uninformed and unperceptive review is the slothful reviewer who wrote it. Please, stick to writing what you know -- how much you love tech.
Your review the performance is based upon an inattentive if not partial (after all you're still doing so as you walk in) "re" reading of the play on your phone. The very phone you blame in the comments section for any flaws in your own performance. Considering that Richard III is the fourth part of a tetralogy, many audience members appreciate (if not need) some context. After all, unless someone is familiar with "Richard Duke of York" (the preceding play in the tetralogy a.k.a. 3 Henry VI) the first line of Edward III will make little sense. It is not odd that the director uses that play to set our scene. The fact that your unfamiliarity with both Richard III and its audience does not stop you from writing a review suggests that you are not only irresponsible but incompetent. Tragically, instead of doing what is conscionable and admitting your incompetence, you claim others (your phone and w"some assistance") and a physical deformity (sausage fingers) are to blame for any mistake you have made. I hope the irony is not lost on you.
By Micaela Watts
download this issue
click here to see more »