by Tracey Paleo~
Two women on a roof top, on a very cold New York evening, one a captor, the other captive crying and screaming unintelligibly something about ‘are you going to kill me’, (well, obviously because there is a gun pointed at your head), crawling gorgeously, mascara running, dressed to (gulp) kill and wriggling around. One woman endowed with other-worldly poise, conviction, a weapon, a penchant for fairytales and bent on more than just terror, casually triumphant in her menacing stance. One woman insipid, spoiled and unbelievably confused. The other, hungry for violence.
Miming, snow, stomping on cold toes, cries for mercy, gun slinging, cool threats and sadistic behavior open the show at Bechnya as two sisters meet in the mind of one of them in order to carry out some serious revenge for only the younger having been adopted by rich American parents. The luckier of the two goes on to live a beautiful life, while the other is deserted, left behind to barely survive the atrocities of orphanages and war and then later to make her way to the states to punish her unsuspecting sister for both of their respective fates. “I learned English just so I could talk to you. I came all the way to America just to find you.”
It was a convoluted hot mess.
Life sucks and then you die. That pretty much sums up this tale of two sisters and also pretty much describes this populist and propaganda-ish play that offers a banner cry for the uninitiated, an alternate ending melodrama, a history lesson in the middle, substantially endowed with statistics, war horrors, deformed children, Ronald Reagan and mostly bad acting all around, then goes nowhere.
There are so many problems with this play it is difficult to point them all out one by one without discounting the whole. The writer, Saviana Stanescu, having the best intentions to create a biographical story somehow gets lost in which story she wants to tell in the first place. Is this a parody about modern adoption? Are these vignettes a part of the consequences of the falling of the Berlin Wall, the rise of democracy in the east or the resulting radioactive deformities and illnesses from Chernobyl, which caused adoption rates to substantially lower in Eastern Europe for a period of time? Is this a commentary on war, orphanages, foreign adoption and how much money is actually spent on obtaining foreign babies or just Americans adopting in foreign countries? (We look really bad in this play by the way – stupid, vapid, selfish and not at all adoptive parent worthy thanks to the caricatural portrayals of the parents who come all the way to Bechnya to ‘shop’ for a little white snow princess of a daughter – who, by the way, in all of the years she is raised in America by perfectly good English speaking parents, and although forgets entirely where she has come from, manages to retain the thick accent of her native land many years later – really?) Or finally is this story about the psychotic Grimm Fairytales that the one sister is living out in her mind while locked in a political prison awaiting death? It all wasn’t necessarily difficult to follow. It was difficult to thread together as a coherent statement.
It is supposed to be a contemporary, stylish, classically written story about the clash of the cultures where the east confronts the west in sisterhood. Where loneliness equals ego, ego equals fear, fear equals violence, violence equals passion, passion equals love, love equals family…
Bechnya turns out as an everything but the kitchen soup smorgasbord that falls into its own trap of trying to get away from avante garde, esoteric theater, which in some ways might have been effective as an art installation rather than a full on theater piece. It seems here that the writer doesn’t trust herself to write a straight story without all of the multi-media bells and whistles that distract from what could have been a more compelling drama entirely without them. For dissected, the seriousness, morality, the hurtfulness of the issues are definitely worth paying attention to when just the two actresses, Svetlana Iva (Shari) and Maria Bobeva (Vicky) interact and play out their adult meetings, the whys, the wherefores. These moments have much quittance and merit.
What ultimately saves this play is the absolutely resolute performance of Ms. Iva, the driving lead of the show. Remarkably, Ms. Iva is able to bind all of the elements and characters in this tragedy and miraculously take us from beginning to end adding substance, weight and authority with her powerful presence and pointed delivery.
Everything about this play has something wanting to happen that just doesn’t make it to “the point.” The writer and/or producer would do best not to worry about pleasing what she perceives as a sophisticated Los Angeles audience and tell them why they should pay attention to Eastern Art. Ultimately on a human level, one could say there is no difference. What we all want to hear, basically, simply, is the story.
Bechnya is performed Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays at 8 pm through October 22, 2011
The Hudson Mainstage Theatre is located at 6539 Santa Monica Blvd, Hollywood, CA 90038 on Theatre Row
Tickets: Thursdays, Fridays – $25 Saturdays – $30
Reservations by phone at (323) 960-7721 or online at www.hudsontheatre.com or www.benchnya.com
[...] A modern Grimm Fairytale with several kinds of endings, a history lesson and a play that would have done better to present itself as an art installation commenting on adoption, religion, war and family. Click here to read the full review. [...]
[...] A modern Grimm Fairytale with several kinds of endings, a history lesson and a play that would have done better to present itself as an art installation commenting on adoption, religion, war and family. Click here to read the full review. [...]
[...] A modern Grimm Fairytale with several kinds of endings, a history lesson and a play that would have done better to present itself as an art installation commenting on adoption, religion, war and family. Click here to read the full review. [...]
[...] A modern Grimm Fairytale with several kinds of endings, a history lesson and a play that would have done better to present itself as an art installation commenting on adoption, religion, war and family. Click here to read the full review. [...]
[...] better to present itself as an art installation commenting on adoption, religion, war and family. Click here to read the full review. GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]
The subtlety and indirectness of the play combined with the director’s choice of unusual techniques of expressing its ideas and the craftsmanship of the actors, has created the David-Lynchian atmosphere of the debates that followed among us, the members of the audience, toned up by the Balkan topic of the story. We went and saw it last Friday…And keep talking about it 3 days later – a sign that everybody was touched by the contemporary tale “about Love” as the Director has announce it…or unequal distribution of it among us as species, as siblings to common ancestors, as members of the same formula, but in the different side of the equation, where the desired balance could be achieved only if both poles are multiplied by compassion and empathy. I recommend you brave the traffic, go and take this trip even if you don’t miss art in your life. And if you do – here is a great opportunity to catch up
=
Not sure what Mr. Berger means in his comment but I do agree with him on one thing, it was certainly “indirect.” Didn’t hate it. Didn’t love it.
The statement about the “sophisticated Los Angeles audience etc etc and why they should pay attention to Eastern Art. etc etc ” belongs to the director/producer not the writer.
I used to be Saviana’s agent a couple of years ago, when she actually wrote Bechnya in 2004 (it’s NOT one of her new plays, Aliens With Extraordinary Skills, produced off-Broadway at Women’s Project to rave reviews, is from 2008, Waxing West is from 2007) so I am biased, but this review can’t be wronger.
First of all it doesn’t make a difference between the text/play and the director/producer’s choice to use multimedia and to include additional video. Aren’t the reviewers supposed to read the play before writing? Then the reviewer is confrontational and obviously angry. Aren’t the reviewers supposed to be balanced and do their homework before slamming a show?
Kara Kostac, international agent
This review seems some form of retaliation because the reviewer’s perception that “we really look bad in this play”. Plus she’s taking publicity sentences from the press release (written by a press person and the producers) and attributes them to the playwright. As a (Eastern European) journalist, I must say that I was highly surprised by the lack of objectivity and excess of subjectivity of this reviewer. She seems to have taken the show very personally! Plus stuff like – “screaming unintelligibly something about ‘are you going to kill me’, (well, obviously because there is a gun pointed at your head)” – is just mean “irony”, as many times a gun pointed at someone’s head doesn’t necessarily mean that the next step is the killing. Particularly in this play the gun is a way of getting the other person to talk and listen to her anger. The reviewer doesn’t seem to want to understand the subtlety and ambiguity of this play, and generally its poetic beauty. She wants cause-effect linear stories: gun implies shoot implies death. I agree with the comment above that the reviewer didn’t do her homework in this case, especially as she had to deal with a type of material that’s not very often present on American stages. As the agent above, I noticed the phrase from the press release to be attributed to the writer (The writer would do best not to worry about pleasing what she perceives as a sophisticated Los Angeles audience and tell them why they should pay attention to Eastern Art), when it’s very clearly mentioned in the press release that it’s the director’s note. Then the mention of the accent of the American character was nasty too, that accent is the natural accent of the actress, it wasn’t scripted in the play
Well, there are so many other things but I stop here. The self-righteousness of this reviewer made me really sad, especially when it’s focused on a play that deals with such difficult issues, in a trenchant way we don’t see very often here.
Bechnya is not a town but a fictional country invented by the author…
“Life sucks and then you die. That pretty much sums up this tale of two sisters and also pretty much describes this populist and propaganda-ish play” – wow, that’s really nasty, cheap cynicism of a person who takes things for granted and has obviously never experienced that hard life that Shari had in the play…
Bechnya is a truly touching play, a life-changing experience… Of course, only if you are able to resonate with people from poor countries who suffer yet maintain their pride
Margo
It is the responsibility of any production to present a show in a way that makes sense to an audience at-large no matter what form it chooses, or what story it desires to communicate, and regardless of what is written as information to the press or in the program or anywhere else. In the end, it is what the audience, sees, hears and experiences in the moment that resonates.
A review, by dictionary definition is a general survey, a critical evaluation, study, or essay of a subject. As a theatre critic it is not my job to re-iterate, re-post, or re-state any part of a glowing description written as part of a press release to induce a review. It is my job to give an independent examination of what I experience, tempered with neutrality, thought, fairness, honesty and knowledge of the subject. Ultimately the viewers (in this case, I can count myself as one of them) decide what is relevant for them.
Personally, I am in love with theatre. I have been a professional, stage, film, TV, radio actress and dancer since age 6. I am also a producer, a freelance publicist for independent artists and an arts & culture blogger for several relevant news outlets in Los Angeles. So I do know just a little something about the subject at hand.
Since the day I landed in Los Angeles, from New York City, five years ago, it has been my personal goal to promote theatre, and arts & culture, in, a city that has maximum artistic potential filled with pockets of artists everywhere bursting with talent only needing a cohesive platform and an interested audience in which to thrive. I am here to help provide that for them. I make it a point to try and excite audiences in whatever way possible. I invite people to investigate, to reach beyond themselves for a more meaningful, fun, critical experience. I do so with honesty and integrity but most of all with a deep love and respect for the art. I walk into every show as an audience member in the highest expectation that I will see something incredible. Because, actually, “I just really want to see a great show.”
Art is a living expression. If it moves you, touches you, changes you, in any way, it has done its job. If my review moves you, even negatively, I have done my job. I commend the writer, the producer, the director and actors for the immeasurable work it took to mount this production. But my review is how I saw it and I stand by my statements.
Thank you for all of your comments. They are most welcome.
The problem is not the way you subjectively saw/perceived the show but the inexact points: You DID quote the press release in a wrong way, attributing to the writer what was the director’s note, you called the fictional country Bechnya a town, etc.
i can only imagine what the real critique could look like if it weren’t commissioned… that’s the only reason why the “mostly bad acting all around” in the middle of the critique turns into a few bashful words at the end for the performance of Ms. Iva (disastrous in fact)… nothing saves that amateurish grotesque! it sucks and the empty theatre last night says everything…
Oh, I just noticed the motto of this website: “The stage is life, music, beautiful girls, legs, breasts, not talk or intellectualism or dried-up academics.”
… I’m outta here, no point to comment any further, these people just can’t get it…
If legs, breasts and legs is what people want from theatre here, then indeed we shouldn’t bother to comment a review that didn’t get a play with a social conscience… I guess these people are not interested in post-dramatic theatre, multimedia theatre and other forms of contemporary theatre except for traditional/conservative linear happyendish cute storytelling, where women show breasts not brains
Dear Jeffery C. if your comment came on October 1-st at 9:08 pm and you are talking about “the empty theatre last night”, it would mean that you saw “Bechnya” on the 30-th of October … right? Now that simply tells me, you haven’t seen the show and you are angry for some reason at these people. I happened to be at the theatre that night and THERE WAS NO SHOW ON FRIDAY
If I can say it with other words: Man … you are a pathetic lier! 
“Art is a living expression. If it moves you, touches you, changes you, in any way…” Yes indeed, “Bechnya” made me cry and made me smile. It touched the deep down of my soul. I feel sorry for those who didn’t get it because it is about LOVE after all, here, there and everywhere. The motivation from loving someone, the power that loves gives you to survive, to forgive, to hurt… to die. Open your eyes, get deeper than the “native” accent, get over the borders of America and Bechnya and you will understand.
Ms.Iva performance is phenomenal!!!
Due to the lack of viewers’ interest that thing got cancelled and you guys are missing a sincere laugh – Hollywood hasn’t seen more ridiculous thingie in years
Bechnya was a finalist for the O’Neill Conference. I was in a reading of Bechnya in NYC and everyone was raving about it. A very powerful play. I am very surprised to read in this review – in the vindicative tone of the reviwer – that Americans looks bad in Bechnya… The story is told through Shari’s perspective, she has never been in America and perceives the Americans through fairy tales, stereotypes and a few personal encounters. Of course they will look like caricatures. The woman is in a prison, for God’s sake! She imagines stories. Instead of feeling offended people would better become more self-reflective and analyze their own thoughts and actions. A little self-interogation instead of cynical criticism makes all difference…
Claire Tarkovsky
“So I’ve been doing a lot of soul searching about my writing as a theatre critic. Lately I have not been happy with my commentary. I’ve been very nice to a lot of shows that well frankly don’t deserve it.” Or so did Tracey write in her blog on Sept. 21.
Let’s fast forward a week later, and since being “very nice to shows that don’t deserve it” doesn’t make her happy, Tracey decides to trash the next show, so she can get some noise around her! “Nasty” sells better, right? This show turns out to be “Bechnya”, which apparently the self pronounced critic watched on Sept. 24. Do you follow me? It’s not about the play, it’s about Tracey!
Tracey, the next time you are about to trash skills and effort, I suggest you go to “Bechnya”, and play (in crisp “Bechnian”) in front of already prejudiced audience. You are an actress, right, you should be able to do it! Then let me do the reviewing for you. I promise, I won’t mind the accent.
On a brighter note, it was nice to see from this thread that most of the reviewers saw underneath the “thick accent” and appreciated what two talented foreign actresses were able to achieve with no decor and two chairs. It was also nice to read the comments and see that not all of us, “native born” Americans, are so spoiled and wrapped up in our oh-so-perfect world.
You’re right, Claire, a little self interrogation goes a long way!
Btw, Tracey, I didn’t dig that deep (yet), but are you a mom? Because I almost cried when Vicky talked about her kids in the first part of the play. Oh, sorry, I guess the you missed that part due to the “accent”.
Tracey took your question about the kids, amber, and dismissed this whole trend of comments by say “why so they can be attacked as well?”. Nobody attacks you or your children, Tracey. We “attacked” the (lack of) substance of your review, it’s an “attack” of ideas and critical concepts, not a personal one. A critic like you doesn’t have any clear system of criticism besides personal notes and what you “love” about theatre? Do you have any formal education in theatre/performance studies, in some form of theatre theory/criticism? I don’t think so. You’re not a critic, you’re an actress who writes about theatre as a hobby, that’s pretty clear. let’s not offend the real critics by comparing them with you. You’re a wonderful actress, and I loved you in The Departed. keep the good work… there, in acting
cheers! (attack with cheers 
Uh, kids? Seems like two other critics seem to, well, pretty much agree with Ms. Tracey wholeheartedly. Don’t wanna bust up your part or anything, I’m just sayin’. If you’re interested in the opinions of what can only be two other completely “wrong” individuals you can check it out here: http://bitter-lemons.com/2011/10/bechnya-0-bitter/
Uh, kids? Don’t mean to bust up the party but it seems there are two other clearly wrongheaded critics out there who agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Tracey’s evaluation of your beloved play: http://bitter-lemons.com/2011/10/bechnya-0-bitter/
Colin Mitchell´s last [type] ..BECHNYA: 0% – BITTER
It seems to me that after reading the reviews from Backstage and another theater critic / blogger, that this writer’s review was in line with the general criticism of the other critics. And although this writer’s review is somewhat “loud” compared to the others, each one touches upon the same points as to why this show did not work in some instances.
Having just found this site and reading all of the dialog, it seems to me that the comments contain particularly vicious, personal attacks and threats. I should think that this woman is owed a public apology not only from every one of the commenters but also from who ever runs this site for allowing it. Apparently, she wasn’t completely wrong.
I love this lively discussion about Bechnya and have purposefully kept out of it. It seems to be dying down, now, so I thought I would weigh in.
I was mostly intrigued by the problems people had with our review, but not, as Mr. Mitchel and Mr. R. pointed out, by the other reviews in other publications. We must have hit some sort of nerve. I do wonder, Ms. Kostac, that you think a reviewer should have read the play before seeing it. Not sure how a writers’ agent could think such a thing. Even if we wanted to, with many, if not most, of the productions we see, obtaining a script beforehand would be difficult or impossible. However, theater is to be seen, not read. And I would hate for my audience members to have first come to any play I might write having read the script first. After, possibly, but that first encounter, live and breathing, that I would want a viewer to experience is a performance. If it doesn’t communicate then, it doesn’t communicate.
To all of you, I thank you for your thoughts. If you have read any of the other reviews and articles on the site, you know that we love theatre, especially thoughtful and well made theatre. We love a good discussion. I also give my writers a free hand. They see the plays they write about, I don’t, so it is their opinions you read. We have often had two reviewers see the same play with completely different takes on it and I am thrilled to present both when I can.
(Oh, and Margo, just so you are aware, that quote isn’t our motto, it is a quote by Harold Clurman, perhaps one of the most socially conscious theatre directors, teachers and critics of the 20th century. I know you, at least, went other places on the site, as you left a wonderful comment on another piece we have here.)
As for Ms. Paleo, her review was stark and heartfelt. Unfortunately, when you write plays, you open yourself up to criticism. Also, when you write reviews, you open yourself up to people who disagree with you. I have no need to defend her, she did an admirable job doing that herself.
One final note, I received a press release from the writer of this piece stating that she hadn’t agreed on any production of the play in front of paying audiences or, especially, critics. I suspect that may be one reason the play shut down, although I can’t know that.
Yes, this review hit a nerve because the xenophobic accents (the strong accent of the actress, the “we Americans look bad in this play” thing, etc. The other reviewers expressed their opinions in a decent manner. I may have a different opinion but at least I wasn’t offended by the xenophobic tone.
I am an admirer of your wit/writing, Geoff, so I thought I should give you this last comment. I don’t think that you guys got to see the real play in this multi-multi-media conceptual interpretation, but you’re right, you guys analyze the production not the play. The only problem with this review was that she put everything in the playwright’s basket, like the writer decided to do multi-media because “she doesn’t trust herself with writing a story” etc. Those are directorial decisions in Eastern Europe. Eastern European directors can take a play and apply a directorial concept on it, add video, rearrange the scenes, whatever. It’s the director’s telling of the story. So the particular problem of this review is that she couldn’t make the difference between directorial concept and text/play. The Backstage review is a solid one because the critic does make that difference and analyzes the text, the actors, the directing as separate things that of course converge and intersect to create a show. OK, I hope I was clear enough. Now I gotta go, I have better things to do than arguing about this review when obviously our points don’t matter for the reviewer, she takes them as personal attacks, which are not. Peace.