buzz and controversy
Eye gave us 4 stars and a beautiful, sympathetic capsule review. Now gave us 2 N's (out of five) and accused the show of amateurism and even an ugly set.
People seem often very intrigued by "The Fugue Code" when I try to sell it to Fringing lineups, but judging by the audience posts on the Eye website, it can't be everyone's thing. What amazes me is how MUCH it is or isn't someone's thing. I have been people's favourite show of the festival and I have been "the worst by far of 18 shows" that one man has seen. Some come up to me after, even days after, amazed and thankful and full of questions. Some walk out (or blog that they would have walked out had the door been less close to the stage - as though telling me (and all) about wanting to walk out is all that less bad than actually doing it! (I'm anti-walkout for almost anything btw, but others of course feel differently)
It's easy to dwell on the negative. I wanted to build a show that everyone would want to grab onto and follow through to its end, but some people just don't want to take the (admitedly roller-coaster-of-a-) journey with me. But the truth that I need to hang onto is that art is not always for everyone. Entertainment aims to be for all, for now, but art is built to last longer. And (or so I feel right now, with this play) that means building it in a place where people have to come to it to see it. I just don't think that the purpose of all Fringe plays should be universal, immediate comprehension. Music is a mystery and an abstraction, and so "The Fugue Code" is enigmatic, abstract, and apparently to some (who usually assume that their reaction is shared by all around them), insumountably baffled. And people get angry when they see others following and they can't (this happened to me yesterday at "Legoland", for reasons I'm not sure about but partly because I was tired from my own show. And btw I didn't let myself get angry because I remembered that these things are subjective - and that I can't account for the rest of the audience nor even really know what they're thinking).
People seem often very intrigued by "The Fugue Code" when I try to sell it to Fringing lineups, but judging by the audience posts on the Eye website, it can't be everyone's thing. What amazes me is how MUCH it is or isn't someone's thing. I have been people's favourite show of the festival and I have been "the worst by far of 18 shows" that one man has seen. Some come up to me after, even days after, amazed and thankful and full of questions. Some walk out (or blog that they would have walked out had the door been less close to the stage - as though telling me (and all) about wanting to walk out is all that less bad than actually doing it! (I'm anti-walkout for almost anything btw, but others of course feel differently)
It's easy to dwell on the negative. I wanted to build a show that everyone would want to grab onto and follow through to its end, but some people just don't want to take the (admitedly roller-coaster-of-a-) journey with me. But the truth that I need to hang onto is that art is not always for everyone. Entertainment aims to be for all, for now, but art is built to last longer. And (or so I feel right now, with this play) that means building it in a place where people have to come to it to see it. I just don't think that the purpose of all Fringe plays should be universal, immediate comprehension. Music is a mystery and an abstraction, and so "The Fugue Code" is enigmatic, abstract, and apparently to some (who usually assume that their reaction is shared by all around them), insumountably baffled. And people get angry when they see others following and they can't (this happened to me yesterday at "Legoland", for reasons I'm not sure about but partly because I was tired from my own show. And btw I didn't let myself get angry because I remembered that these things are subjective - and that I can't account for the rest of the audience nor even really know what they're thinking).
<< Home