We usually can credit/discredit a playwright for the dialogue / story / relationships that we see on a stage. But when it comes to interpretation of the dialogue and storyline, the interactions and characterizations, it's not always clear who is to be praised or blamed -- the actor, the director, the choreographer -- or, in some cases, even the playwright!
But, after all, determining who "did" "what" in a particular production, is of course one role of the reviewer/critic. And no matter how knowledgeable or erudite, how perceptive or discerning, it sometimes becomes a guessing game.
Recently, I saw two very disparate off-Broadway shows: one was a new, contemporary musical; the other, a revival of an off-beat play. What they had in common, was that they both left me with the distinct feeling that the performances outshone the material. Each was based on very personal and intimate relationships within their familial settings. Each was told from the point-of-view of the playwright/protagonist. Each had their creator performing their onstage personas -- although the playwright of the revival had played his onstage stand-in for the premiere several decades earlier.
One is a rock-rap, hip-hop, contemporary musical drama expressing the very personal and professional journey of its two characters. The other, a multi-populated, dysfunctional family saga, narrated by the playwright's alter-ego, satirically unfolding his journey to becoming who he became.
In both these well-done theatrical presentations, the performances of both casts were outstanding, despite the shortcomings of the material. Some theatre professionals might argue that it was the material that made these performances possible -- and that unanswerable argument is an ever-present dilemma in the theatre.
scenebyme--ijb
