To the Editor:
As a Fairfield student and a theatre major, I was exceptionally frustrated and insulted by the Fairfield Mirror’s review of “Beirut.” In his article, the reporter , Khoi Nguyen completely ignored the fact that this independent project was entirely student produced, performed, and alumni directed. Fairfield theatre students designed the set, lights, and sound – all of which were ignored in the review. The costumes were erroneously mentioned for their “cliché” choices, while in reality the reporter made factual errors that nullify that claim. Instead of accepting the world playwright Alan Bowne presented and the actors portrayed, the reporter cowardly insulted the work by calling it “cheap, soft-core, low-budget porn,” instead of looking beyond the physical aspects of the show. This proves that the reporter completely missed the entire message of “Beirut” and is too immature to even commend his fellow peers for exposing their own vulnerabilities to be strong actors. It is an insult to every student on this campus when the reporter chose to caption a photo “Maybe Fairfield students would’ve preferred beer and ping pong balls instead,” because he insinuates that everyone in the student body approached the show with the same lack of integrity. It makes me ashamed the Fairfield Mirror condones a narrow minded journalist approach and did not support their classmates in a controversial performance that was beautifully finished.
Sincerely, Katie Carroll ’09
To the Editor: As we read Khoi Nguyen’s review of the student independent project “Beirut,” (‘Theatre Fairfield presents flawed “Beirut,”‘ January 26, 2006 we grew increasingly frustrated with the rather shallow point of view from which the review was written. Nguyen uses the word “flaw” three times in his review, including in the headline. Has Nguyen another, better viewing of the play in his mind that makes this one so badly done in comparison? Or, is he just trying to point out all of the elements that he either didn’t agree with or found uncomfortable in the concept of the play itself, since he writes “the flaws continued with the plot”? The flaw that we find with this review was the narrow-mindedness of the author while watching the play. This play isn’t intended to reflect reality, it was set in a futuristic world that doesn’t actually exist-it was heightened to make a point. No one reads “Animal Farm” and finds it flawed because in reality, pigs and cows don’t really talk. We find it hard to understand how, after realizing the grave nature of the characters’ situations – one filled with disease, loneliness, anxiety, and passion-Nguyen can write that the character’s “dramatization” was overdone, making it similar to a bad soap opera. Nguyen also never describes the acting, direction, set and overall performance of the play (all of which were done by students) with the exception of the first sentence that so maturely describes that the actors were in their underwear. Perhaps, however, the worst is how flatly insulting Nguyen is to his classmates by calling the production “cheap” and with “soft-core, low-budget porn quality.” We understand that, of course, reviews will contain writers’ personal preferences and opinions no matter what the readers believe, but to attack a student project that, having properly taken the play into context, depicts nearly hopeless characters who only find a shadow of hope in each other, and parallel it to pornography clearly illustrates how Nguyen completely missed the point of this play. Sincerely, Lorraine DelliCarpini ’04 Danny Williams ’04 Tim Eberle ’05
To the Editor:
After reading the review of Theatre Fairfield’s “Beirut,” I could not help but write a response. As an alumni of the university and the theatre department, I saw “Beirut” last weekend and thought the review was uncalled for and in many instances, wrong. This production was an extremely risky and challenging piece of theatre that the students chose to do for their project, and they should be commended because it was executed brilliantly. Instead, Khoi Nguyen began with the immature comment about the fact that there was nudity in the play and that the main question was, “Will these characters have sex?” He seemed to not get past this nudity or sex for the rest of the article or for that matter the rest of the play. If Nguyen had read the producer’s and director’s notes published in the program, or if he had simply looked beyond the actors’ in their underwear, he would have seen how necessary the exposure of their bodies was to the connection between them and the struggle they were enduring. The story did involve lust and sex but also soul, human connection and love. To begin the review with such immature comments was truly insulting. Furthermore, to end the review with calling the play “cliche” and likening it to “cheap, soft core, low budget porn,” seems as if the reviewer did not even attend the play because he could not be farther from the truth. What should have been commented on were the beautiful and remarkable performances by the actors, Jared Mezzocchi, Lauren Satos, and Jonathan Perez. They were so present in their work that you forgot you were in a theatre and thought you were in their bedroom with them. Also, nothing was mentioned about the unique environmental set-up of the entire building. Upon entering through the side door, because the front door was “quarantined” as if you were entering Beirut, you had to go through a security checkpoint, where the guard, played by Perez, was already on duty. Then upon entering the theatre proper, it went unnoticed by some but you were already in one of the character’s bedroom. Mezzocchi, who played Torch, was already asleep in his bed on stage and remained there for 30 minutes until the play officially began. I could write so much more about this piece of theatre, including the fact that it was completely done by students, from producer to actor to technical director to crew, but this letter is already quite long. I just had to respond and say that I hope in the future, the important and thrilling aspects of the piece are discussed, and that the reviewer has the maturity to handle the challenges that a play like “Beirut” presents to him, because in this case, Nguyen completely missed the point. Thank you.
Sincerely, Kristy Farrell ’04
Leave a Reply