Comments on: The Unexpected Man at Lounge Theatre 2

By: David Davis

David Davis — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:53:16 +0000

I’m sorry. I actually meant that as possibility of a good thing.
I saw this play on the advice of a friend and I, too, didn’t care for the material.
I was speaking about Joel’s “seeming” need to understand exactly what
the scenic design/projections “meant” – why they were split, different time periods, ect.
I guess that’s the beauty of the theatre…to me, ambiguity is a welcome device – certainly in a production like this…where there really is no “play” in the traditional sense. Just a personal preference.

By: Ezra

Ezra — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:31:54 +0000

Hi David,
I read the same review as you and it looks to me like Joel got it pretty well. Just didn’t care for it. Care to elaborate?

By: David Davis

David Davis — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:30:13 +0000

I know your editor requires a certain amount of words from you but you could have just said. “I don’t get it.” It’s O.K. You didn’t get it. Don’t worry yourself about it.

By: THE UNEXPECTED MAN: 33% Bitter | Bitter Lemons

THE UNEXPECTED MAN: 33% Bitter | Bitter Lemons — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:07:51 +0000

[...] BITTER I wish I could say that the play’s culmination is worth the investment of the slow buildup or that the enjoyment of art, as life, is in the journey, but on this ride, I would have gotten off around Reims. Joel Elkins – LA Theatre Review [...]