Now… this one is an important one in my review repertoire. I get a lot of people commenting on my reviewing and saying I’m a very “positive” reviewer, and I would definitely agree with them. I honestly believe that everything has something good that you can find to say about it, and perhaps it may be bias but I prefer to talk more about that then focus in on the negative. There is enough reviewers that do that.
I’m just generally that kind of person with most things in life.
That is not to say that I don’t have things that I have seen that I really don’t like though. So how would I deal with these? Generally I will simply stick to talking about the plot, and if there is something I did like (maybe the costumes or a particular performance) then I’ll mention that as well. I’ll also find a (somewhat nice) way of saying why I didn’t like it.
This is one of the things unfortunately really wasn’t for me and I had a tough time reviewing it. To be honest I really liked the idea of the story, and so perhaps I was disappointed with the execution which I found to just be… *whispers* really boring.
So you’ll see me write things like “As a multi-playwright project, the interweaving of these different tales, these different characters, each with their own stories, is really engaging.” –> aka. as a project the concept is engaging.
Anyway! Everything can’t be for everyone and I’m sure if the play was refined it itself would be engaging as well.
The review was originally posted on Arts on the AU.
—
Ambrosia is a collection of five different scenes, five different mythical creatures and how these five different stories somehow weave a connection between them despite never converging.
Each of the five Sydney-siders that we are introduced to are, for all intents and purposes, normal strangers. We soon find out that their lives are not so normal though, as each exhibits powers and likenesses to that of mythical creatures. There is a Succubus, Siren, Werefox, Selkie and Naga. These creatures are never specifically revealed through the play, but enough is said in each scene to recognize the creature of legend.
The behavioral traits of these mythical creatures in the present day is what makes this play really intriguing. How would these kinds of “abnormal” creatures interact with other “normal” humans? How would they adapt to their lives? What kinds of traits would be easily concealed, and which would be all too much of a giveaway?
The play itself is really focused around the almost-monologues of each of the creatures. There is always a single other person on stage with them, but this person generally serves only as a support for revealing their secret and their story. Each character goes through their own struggle with their powers and purpose in the world before their eventual acceptance of their status as ‘different’- as one utters “Why can’t I exist?”
As a multi-playwright project, the interweaving of these different tales, these different characters, each with their own stories, is really engaging. The bringing of the mythical into our world is an intriguing concept, and I do indeed wonder if the imaginings of people are what bring these stories (and creatures) to life.
“Stories are just stories, but you still tell them”.
DASMUSICALKAT 