SHOWING : April 05, 2002 - June 01, 2002
[REVIEW THIS PRODUCTION]
In this scorching black comedy, a handful of ruthless salesmen battle it out in the high stakes, high pressure world of real estate sales as they scramble for an unfair share of the American dream. The wheeling and dealing never stops in this rat race for a piece of the action. Welcome to this cutthroat, conniving, and sometimes comedic world where losing a sale can mean losing it all.
[REVIEW THIS PRODUCTION]
Theater at its finest.|
Saturday, May 11, 2002 ||
Whole Worlds Production of "Glenngarry Glen Ross" is Atlanta Theater at its finest. I haven't been this impressed with a show in a long time. |
The cast gives such a great performance,it works on so many levels. This is what acting is, Hi's and Low's. Who want's to see an "EVEN" show, how boring.
Mamets words are given new life considering that the movie was, Though expertly acted,somewhat depressing. The Whole World cast convincingly makes it very funny at times, and fuming at other times, again there is such a range.
As someone who loves Mamet's words,what this play brings out is how many ways mamet can be played. I think the reviewer below me was at a different show,has no idea what good acting is, or just plain has delusions of granduer.
This show is a must see. kudos to the director for putting together such a great production.
Just and end note, there are no Steak knives to be won in Glen ross. [POST A COMMENT REGARDING THIS REVIEW]
| || ditto by shellylevine|
| This is a don't miss, best show in town. Patrick Wood is on fire and the rest of the cast doesn't take a back seat. Way to go guys!|
Worthy of the set of steak knives|
Friday, May 10, 2002 ||
Whole World's first venture back into theater should have been a snap with Mamet's "Glengarry Glen Ross," but unfortunately it does not live up to earlier "Whole World" stage productions like "Four Dogs and A Bone" and "The House of Yes." Glengarry is a perfect choice for the hip and irreverant theater, but the production fails to do the script justice. It is enjoyable at times, mainly when Patrick Wood, Dunning Silliman, and Jim Sligh are on stage. These three are the only ones to get the cadence of Mamet's language. Shay Coleman, as Roma, comes around in the Second Act, but unfortunately his Act I seduction scene is so far off base that it almost ruined the entire experience for me. |
On the whole the production is highly uneven. In the first scene I would have been asleep if it weren't for the subtle reactions of Williamson (played by Sligh). Sligh proves that acting can be as much about reacting as anything else. Kudos to Sligh for carrying the opening scene just by listening, too bad that Levene (played by David Skoke) couldn't join him. Someone should tell Skoke that this is Mamet, it should start with a bang not an annoyance. Truth be told, I never could get behind Levene and that's a huge problem. I never bought it that he was down on his luck, because I never believed he could have been a success. Unfortunatley, he plays it a little too whiny and pathetic to keep our interest.
Finally, along comes scene 2 with Silliman and Wood nailing the nuances of the male relationship. Suddenly the show resembles Mamet. Wood's is a natural stand out with his portrayal of Moss. When these two characters started speaking, I wanted to jump up and shout "Finally, someone's speaking Mamet!" Wood's does an even better turn by flaunting his masculinity in our faces and reminding us that the male ego is at stake here. This is about competition, succcess, and winning and these two actors understand that.
Alas, though our spell is broken when Roma appears in the next scene speaking some other language entirely. Admittedly, this is the hardest scene in the entire play and it's evident that Coleman does not have enough experience or sophistication to know how to seduce us with language. Too bad really, this is where the poetry of the play resides and without it the grit and anger take on too much power.
Act 2 was better and seemed like a more typical interpretation of Mamet. The characters seemed to have a much better hold on the rhythm, but with nothing too excpetional too overcome the damage already done.
Maybe Act II, like Act I, Scene 2 worked better because the characters were actually allowed to move around a bit. In Act I there were entire scenes involving no blocking whatsoever. Maybe the director, Andreas, wanted the actors to looked trapped behind the desks and restaurant tables, but for the audience it was frustrating. First of all the furniture is so heavy and cumbersome that I'm surprised the actors can be seen at all. Secondly, unless you have spectacular chemistry or excellent reactions (like Sligh's in scene 1) then sitting still for half an hour only makes the audience want to squirm. In retrospect, it seemed that once the characters were able to move out from behind the massive desk furniture, they suddently became less wooden, more fluid, and a lot more interesting.
The space, though small, could have been used a little better and the set toned down a bit so that the lights hitting stark white did not blind the audience.
On the whole, the show isn't bad and any Mamet is better than no Mamet. If only all of them had been as good as Wood and Sligh, then we would have seen how mesmerizing Mamet can be. As it stands if this were a contest then they'd miss out on the Cadillac and win the set of steak knives. Not a total loss, but not a landslide either.
Let's just say if first prize is a Caddilac then this production might merit the set of steak knives. [POST A COMMENT REGARDING THIS REVIEW]
| || more from me, sorry by StephanoAndreas|
| i think the trick really is to use your own name.|
i'm loving this.
this review warrants a tremendous amount of comment.
first let me say i'm sorry you didn't get to direct this show.
i know how much you love it.
you may well have done a fabulous job, but again, that wouldn't keep anyone from logging on here and ripping you to pieces.
i know you were encouraged to write this review by a member of the cast. i'm cool with it. i'm cool with him, i'm cool with you, it's cool.
but, people...put your name to what you say.
If your name was on here you might have thought twice about actually registering personal insults to performers.
you may have said well, act one takes place in a restaurant with everyone seated at tables so...in actual fact the second scene provides more first-act blocking than prescribed.
"cadence" ? i would say that refering to the "cadence of Mamet's language" is a bit of self proclaimed expertise on your part, so without hesitation,
i will proclaim a greater expertise . I've heard a lot about rhythms and the poetic nature of Mamet, and find it all to be conceit, there's no argument to be made for that very reason. i'll say that i firmly hold that Mamet is not creating rhythms, poetry, etc. but rather a fantastic opportunity for the actors to create vivid dialogue. again anyone could come at me with OH NO's and ARE YOU KIDDING? alas, there's arguing an intellectual conceit.
"speaking Mamet"? more of the same really.
the set was modular, there was no furniture to be heavy or cumbersome. we just had a solid landscape for restaurant/office that served more to create a bare stage than anything else.
your praise seems dead on (fortunately you didn't praise me so i can say that) but the critcism is all very flimsy.
having directed it, of course, i could go on and on and on about the strengths and weaknesses of the show, it's just not appropriate. suffice to say you could have done better than this. I know it, you know it.
Whole World - not just for improv anymore!|
Tuesday, April 23, 2002 ||
I'd never been to Whole World Theatre, but was soundly impressed with Glengarry Glen Ross there. See it for some great acting by some familiar faces (to me, at least). One of the most consistantly acted shows I've seen in some time. Congratulations to all those involved.|
D.B. [POST A COMMENT REGARDING THIS REVIEW]
| || Worst Production in Atlanta by theaterbunny|
| "One of the most consistantly acted shows I've seen in some time." If by consistantly acted you mean constistantly bad, then I would have to agree. This show was painful to sit through. |
| || theatre "bunny"???? by theasphere|
| I'm currently working with one of the actors from glengarry, I saw the show, and I can only say that i shudder to think of anyone so brainless as this "theatrebunny" ?? |
This show was astoundingly well acted. I made a point of meeting most of the people involved, to congratulate them, and see about working with them in the future.
| || dear theasphere by rymoore|
| new to this site??|
you'll get used to morons. see
"just awful" - for 43/43
(this show Kicked Ass)
--never saw glengarry, but i know i've heard amazing things about it.
| || You should really raise your standards by theaterbunny|
| I've been involved in professional theater for over 15 years. I was raised outside of NYC and grew up on Broadway, off Broadway, and professioanal theater in the region. Dispite my attempt to have a cutesy nickname, I know quality theater when I see it. This show had poor lighting, set, direction and acting. Half of the time, the actors were cast in shadows. The set looked like something a high school would put on its stage and, as far as direction, well, I didn't really notice it. I remember some actors showed potential, and I assume if they had some direction they may have made it through. And for this, I paid $15. Biggest theater rip off since moving to Atlanta.|
| || my my my by StephanoAndreas|
| i only recently became aware of this heated litlle exchange.|
a few thoughts:
"who is theaterbunny"?
(not that i don't know... but i find it a bit naive of this site to think of anonimity as some assurance of honesty)
why do you spell THEATRE in theaterbunny with an "ER" ? I know this site spells
it that way, but did you learn to spell theatre after you logged on?
why so late? why bother? anyone with a brain in their head
knows the reviews mean next to nothing here, yet (not being a member of the afore mentioned demographic) you logged on, created an identity, and made your ONE AND ONLY SUBMISSION EVER to gainsay Daniel Burnley's kind words about about our production.
now, would you care to be more specific? because when you venture beyond "bad", you reveal a stupidity and ignorance i find very comforting - as with the lighting comment.
will a lighting designer please log on under their own name
and explain to this person who
"knows good theatre when they see it" that much of the very essence of lighting design (or "darking design" as i often jibe knowingly) lies in the play of shadow? a few comments on the nature of the play itself might be appropriate as well.
keep writing theaterbunny, and keep hiding, it bothers me a little, it probably bothers the actors a little, the designers a little, the producers... etc.
...about like a rainy day.
let me me assure you though, that one smile and nod from me
can make up for all the venom you can spew in a lifetime.
GOOD JOB GUYS!
- Stephano Andreas
[REVIEW THIS PRODUCTION]