tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740282838839188438.post3133740664484130896..comments2023-12-17T05:31:18.637-05:00Comments on 'kül: Reasons To Be PrettyAaron Ricciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05003634532469211190noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740282838839188438.post-26187627310784751352008-06-05T13:38:00.000-04:002008-06-05T13:38:00.000-04:00Fair enough, Scott. But I don't think LaBute cond...Fair enough, Scott. But I don't think LaBute condemns shallow brutality: he simply ACKNOWLEDGES it. The problem is that he rarely manages to make more than one character do so, for he shows shallow brutality with shallow characters, so the only person ever showing tragic humanity is the person being bullied. It's a crude method of storytelling, very American in its lack of subtlety, but he often seems on the verge of something better. Like Adam Rapp, he may simply find himself with so many opportunities to be produced that he has little time (or reason) to actually revise and rethink his work.Aaron Ricciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05003634532469211190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740282838839188438.post-61051793429092215592008-06-05T13:32:00.000-04:002008-06-05T13:32:00.000-04:00Thanks, Aaron. Unlike you, I don't like Labute, wh...Thanks, Aaron. Unlike you, I don't like Labute, who reminds me of the kids on the playground who'd show you a closed hand and say gleefully, "Hey, wanna see something really gross?" Perhaps I take issue with the theme of "shallowness of human behavior," with which I mostly disagree. To me, Labute wants to have it both ways: he wants to be a moralist who condemns shallow brutality, while at the same time exploiting that shallow brutality to get attention. Not my thing, but apparently there are others who disagree.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740282838839188438.post-5726927783570712582008-06-05T13:24:00.000-04:002008-06-05T13:24:00.000-04:00As with most LaBute plays, I don't think he's mist...As with most LaBute plays, I don't think he's mistaking squabbling for conflict--I think he's trying to show the shallowness of actual human behavior by keeping his conflicts so resolutely mundane: drama of the everyday. The problem is that he no longer even attempts to write realistic characters: he writes buoyant, exaggerated text first, and then makes the characters follow. I like LaBute, that's why I come down hard on plays that don't meet the standards of, say, "Fat Pig," so yes, I think there's a POINT to the play: it's part of a trilogy on physical beauty, and all the mental trappings tied into that. Do I think that LaBute manages to get there? No. He might as well pick up a scalpel and write for Nip/Tuck.Aaron Ricciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05003634532469211190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740282838839188438.post-80838815747672558742008-06-05T11:40:00.000-04:002008-06-05T11:40:00.000-04:00Let me ask this: is there any point to this play? ...Let me ask this: is there any point to this play? Do we learn anything about human nature? Or is this another play that mistakes squabbling for conflict? On one level, the plot has all the makings of farce: inappropriate revelation is overheard by all the wrong people -- chaos ensues! But by your description, it sounds as if Labute is trying for more. More... what?Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.com