Submitted by Pamela Marsen, May 12, 2007 15:36

I've looked long and hard for commentary on Roundabout Theatre's revival of "110 in the Shade." The many reviews I've found have, almost unanimously, consisted entirely of paeans to Audra McDonald, followed by a list of the other cast members. More than cursory assessment of the production was nowhere to be found, until I came across Mr. Grode's remarks. Thank you, Mr. Grode, for exercising your brain, accurately reporting what's up there on the stage, and evidencing some critical thinking! Your comments, including those regarding John Cullum's charming and touching performance, and those recognizing that Lizzie and File share an "aversion for emotional honesty," are accurate and insightful .

There is one important element in this production with which I don't agree with you or, indeed, with any but one of the other critics I read. I didn't find Ms. McDonald's performance all that extraordinary, except for her expected vocal contributions. Her interpretation of "Raunchy" pales next to the Inga Swenson original. (Check out the original cast recording, if you can find it.) Her line readings are often obvious, and fail to give evidence of motivation or moment-to-moment thinking. In this production, Lizzy's pre-Starbuck misery has been disdainfully dismissed by the critics, as if it couldn't possibly be what anyone would or could actually experience. Ms. McDonald does little to make them believe in and accept that the prospect of a life spent alone could engender torment and feelings of emptiness. Without this sense, the play lacks heart and meaning.. If you're going to do "The Rainmaker" or "110 in the Shade," you can't force modern, feminist ideas to override what is explicit in the text. If you don't believe that lonely and unfulfilled people of both genders can suffer terribly from their predicament, move on to dramatic offerings which reflect your point of view. Don't try to twist classic material to suit your political agenda.

I fully concur with Mr. Grode's assesment of the Studio 54 orchestra as "disastrous." I was especially disappointed with the sliced down orchestrations of Jonathan Tunick.. Expert as that gentleman is at his craft, his work here sounds downright hollow next to Hershy Kay's full-bodied originals, How have we allowed things to come to the present pass where we actually accept the assertion that a combined singing AND dancing chorus of nine, and a decimated accompaniment, is better than the lushness of a fully-staged production.? I've had it with cost-cutting economics passing themselves off as minimalism as a virtue.

In any case, I appreciate this review's giving more than lip service to critiquing a play.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.