A common aspect of contemporary theater is innovation. New directors stray from the traditional forms of plays by incorporation interactivity and altering essential parts of a play like the stage and music. The play “The Love Letter You’ve Been Meaning to Write New York” by Jonathan Solari is a prime example of the unconventional methods of a contemporary play.
In her review, Claudia La Rocco paints a vivid description of the play by describing the novelties surrounding this play. She starts the review stating that the play is lacking on “conventional levels,” meaning that the plot, script, and acting are subpar. However, she points out that the real success of this play is the creative stage. “The Love Letter You’ve Been Meaning to Write New York” is obviously about New York, but what makes this play so unique is that the audience sits inside a building looking out a glass wall, and the actors take their roles on the streets. The unpredictable occurrences in the streets make this play very enjoyable.
La Rocco does not describe any further than the stage located on the streets. She leaves out information regarding music and plot, making this review weak at explaining all the facts. But, perhaps it was her intent to say that the creative stage is the only thing worth mentioning.
Even though this play sounds extremely interesting to watch and the review makes it sound very cool, I wonder whether or not the stage method is a gimmick. The review said that it lacked in plot and acting; if you take the actors out of a play what is left? I don’t feel confident that a production would be enjoyable solely based on a trick. I remember watching a 3D movie – Sure, it’s great and novel, but if the movie were bad, would I marvel at the 3D effects? I hope not.
Will “contemporary theater” just be an excuse to try gimmicky techinques? I plan to keep on the lookout for new shows that tread new grounds (like audience-actor relationships) and figure out whether this is just a trend or a viable method for a play.