http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/performing-arts/Section?oid=926723 Comments On: Performing Arts en-us Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader. wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster) Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:30:00 -0600 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by musicalscollecta]]> Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:43:31 -0600 Chicago Reader
1. In an interview last week, Bryan Ryman told me that some sets from 1994 were saved and used in 2008; he clarifies now that he meant backdrops.
2. Los Angeles Times reviewer F. Kathleen Foley, who saw the Kodak Theatre show on opening night (not the preview), wrote that although many of the glitches from that "reportedly disastrous preview" had "apparently been ironed out," the production "is still haunted by more than its share of mischievous spirits. Lights failed to go up, although certain actors invariably did. Prematurely interrupted in their rounds, abashed stagehands could be seen dashing off into the wings after the thunderously elaborate scene changes. And an overly prolific fog machine, meant as a spooky effect, completely obscured Marley." She concluded that what she saw "brings to mind the prize turkey, as big as a boy, that Scrooge buys for the Cratchits. That turkey now hangs in state at the Kodak. Sadly, fancy trimmings aside, it’s gone a bit off."
3. Ryman was listed as "design consultant" in promotional material for both the 2008 and 2009 productions.
4. Gielgud was 90 in 1994. He may not have been advertised last year, but the "special appearance" by Gene Wilder that never happened was.
Posted by Deanna Isaacs]]> Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:47:48 -0600 Chicago Reader
I see from various articles around the internet that you are quick to reply in comments. Why not do the interview that the Reader tried to contact you for?
Posted by Robusensei]]> Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:07:20 -0600 Chicago Reader All of the technical snafus mentioned in the piece were from a preview performance and were corrected. Mr. Ryman is not part of the 2009 production and did not design the 2008 set.....Jeffrey Hile was the designer. It's true..there were a few lunatics crazy enough to think that 94 year old Sir John Gielgud would actually be narrating eight performances a week far from the safe confines of his country home in England....so last year he was not advertised in any fashion.

Kevin Von Feldt
Posted by Kevin Von Feldt]]> Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:41:34 -0500 Chicago Reader Best.
Posted by Mike Garman]]> Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:01:07 -0500 Chicago Reader
I agree! This raw, off beat si-fi / noir-esque approach will brilliantly catch the audience off guard if performed by a talented cast. I can't wait to see the up coming, re-staging of Fishers work. And I hope MANY see it. I am positive they will find themselves entertained by what I've just read, but more importantly, I expect they will find themselves surprisingly challenged. I am glad to see such unconventional, boldly artistic creativity still evolving in Chicago! I trust there will be a community to value, support, and preserve such talent, as Fisher's voice is sorely needed.

- an anonymous reader and new fan
Posted by Magpie]]> Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:05:04 -0500 Chicago Reader Posted by urinetown lover]]> Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:34:37 -0500 Chicago Reader Posted by Justin Hayford]]> Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:30:31 -0500 Chicago Reader Posted by anon-a-muss]]> Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:26:59 -0500 Chicago Reader Posted by xnh02]]> Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:49:48 -0500 Chicago Reader Posted by shannonmarie]]> Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:50:43 -0500 Chicago Reader Posted by Junior]]> Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:46:55 -0500 Chicago Reader Posted by video link]]> Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:52:25 -0500 Chicago Reader
From my point of view, I recall the entire show to be a visceral affair. I was trained by the first few minutes of the play not expect meaning from anything that was unfolding in front of me. Yet once in that mind set, I found the play to contain many moments of indescribable truth, the most obvious of which is revealed in the title of the play: that the problem with deranged killers is not the killers themselves, but the absurd world (portrayed throughout the play) with which they are asked to understand, yet without helpful guidance. This play puts the audience in an omniscient position -- watching the blind leading the blind; and from that point of view, the absurd is entertaining, humorous and almost makes sense. I love this play.
Posted by BenjaminPaint]]> Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:35:17 -0500 Chicago Reader Posted by Spartacus]]> Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:23:27 -0500 Chicago Reader