Suicide seems like a weird topic for a play, let alone a business. In “Suicide Incorporated,” Andrew Hinderaker, does just that. From Charles Isherwood’s review I felt that the Hinderaker did a decent job in his production. Charles Isherwood wasn’t on either side of the spectrum in his review, he pointed out what he liked and things he didn’t like. His review seemed a bit on the positive side though, which is kind of ironic since suicide is the main issue.
As a viewer, I felt Charles Isherwood enjoyed the production. He noted it was “brisk and enjoyable” and had some humor in it. He also seemed to enjoy the acting of the cast, all of which were males. His overall tone was positive when he described his experience with the play.
His criticism came when he became a critic. He pointed out the obvious flaws in creating that type of business. He also mentioned that one would have to buy into the belief that this type of organization could belief even with all the legal problems surrounding it.
The two sides that Isherwood presents is interesting because that is the way I sometimes think. There’s the viewer and critic that everyone has inside them. When watching a production, the viewer ultimately determines if the production was satisfying. Then once everything is said and done, the critic analyzes the work and determines if it was properly produced and set up. The viewer is related with certain things like emotions and closure, while the critic is more analytical and logical.
Having these two sides present and obvious leads to a more complete review and Isherwood’s presentation of this makes me interested in “Suicide, Incorporated,” which is showing at the Black Box Theater at the Harold and Miriam Steinberg Center for Theater on 111 West 46th Street.
“Suicide Incorporated” seems like an innovative production with a very offbeat story line. The plot, albeit fictitious, bears an inexplicable plausibility. Although the subject matter is touchy, to say the least, I feel impelled to buy tickets.
I agree with you that it is important to view a performance as a viewer and then as a critic. You must first see whether you enjoyed it or not and then analyze why you felt that particular way. It bothers me when critics have preconceived notions about a certain play and go into it with a negative point of view, which reflects their writings.
“Suicide Incorporated” seems like such a fascinating play. Your review of Isherwood’s review hints at your interest, but you don’t write about what exactly he mentions to keep you captivated.
I agree as well that the point that we should first view a performance as a view then as a critic because if you enter as a critic you might miss the entire point of the performance. While focusing on the stage, you might miss the music or acting so i think its impt. to enter as a viewer.
This seems like a fascinating production and it is interesting to have two different viewpoints, one from the viewer and one from the critic. I agree with Ngawang in that it is probably better to view the production as the viewer first and then the critic. There are definitely subtleties and nuances presented through the eyes of the viewer vs the critic.
I agree with the insightful distinction you make between the viewer and critic within each person. Personally, I think it would be interesting and entertaining to watch a play about a business that deals with suicide but if I were to examine it critically, I would probably find flaws in the logic like Mr. Isherwood does in his review.