Charles McNulty, a reviewer for the L.A.Times, recently constructed a review for a theatrical adaptation of Pride and Prejudice performed at the South Coast Repertory and he did so with finesse and feistiness. While I have actually seen the play, I do not know if I necessary agree with how he went about it. Overall though, I loved the language McNulty used and I believe he hit the highlights of the play and still made his opinion clear.
I have mixed reviews about McNulty’s piece. I really enjoyed the way McNulty made his opinions and thoughts about everything abundantly clear throughout the review. He used a lot of creative words and ideas to express what he thought of the production, and because of that, he established the idea that he was a professional whose opinion is to be trusted. He also hit on all the points that needed to be brought up such as the adaptation, the costumes, the acting, the directing, and set design. This made me feel as though he was really looking at every aspect before giving his somewhat harsh opinion. I do not think I liked how he introduced the article in three paragraphs and after all the good things he said about Pride and Prejudice, he turned around and said he was not a fan of the production. It seemed like a waste of space and time to me. After he listed all these good things about it, he still concluded that this theater production was a bad representation of the book. As much as I liked his writing, that just seems like bad form to me. I do not really think he missed anything though. He touched on all the highs and lows and everything in between in this review, so overall I thought this was a good comprehensive review of the play.
When it comes to style and voice, I think McNulty was extremely enjoyable. His words were intricate and elegant and they kept me striving to understand exactly how he wanted his descriptions to be portrayed. He was clear on his thoughts on each particular aspect of the production. The only thing I did not like is that he listed all these great things about it which seemed to highly outweigh what he did not like, so I think his style is a little bit conflicted and unclear with mixed reviews. Overall his style is trying to be a little bit smarmy in that he is trying to act feisty with his cut downs, but highly praiseful with what he enjoyed. He says what he thinks and explains it well; he just does not organize those thoughts to my liking.
The audience members are the readers of the L.A. Times, who are probably those who love theater and are looking to see what good performances are going on in the area. McNulty speaks perfectly to that type of audience because that would be an audience that is sophisticated yet critical, just like him. Compared to other reviews in its tier it is written very well, even though I believe that he does not necessarily match up in opinion. He writes with the same complexity that he should for a reviewer from the L.A. Times and as he should according to what the play has demanded. Although his opinions differed, he is definitely one of the better reviewers of whom I have come into contact. He sets the standards high.
I have really appreciated reading Charles McNulty’s review of Pride and Prejudice and I believe his writings are something of which I should take note. He is a great writer who knows what he is doing. I do not know if I agree with all of his opinions or organizations of thought, but overall, he elegantly described the production at South Coast Repertory and gave accurate information, and that is something to be acknowledged.
No comments:
Post a Comment