The Midsumma festival celebrates that we all see the world differently and that it's ok to be exactly who you are, unless you're a theatre critic who doesn't explode a glitter bomb of quotables for every show.
I love reading a review that is so different from my own that I wonder if we saw the same show, and embrace such a diversity of opinion because if we all agreed, I can assure you that the only thing that show would be is BORING.
Matt Hyde in front of his poster. Pic nicked from @Theatre_Works
On Arts Hub, Nicole Eckersly liked the Henry.
"... an epic monologue, veering like a Mad Mouse between endearing, witty, existential, awkward, hilarious, black, insightful, and, more often than not, several of the above simultaneously."
In The Age, Cameron Woodhead wasn't so keen.
"Much of the gay stuff feels grafted on, gratuitous. The stereotype isn't playfully explored. Mainstream gay male culture comes across as superficial and boring and the shallowness represented lacks complexity and affective range - and, therefore, anything in the way of effective critique."
That makes me want to read more and find out why he didn't like it. He tells us. A good review doesn't mean praise.
I was somewhere in between.
"You don't have to believe someone to enjoy their tales, but reviewers never lie, so don't be scared to get to Here Lies Henry before it ends on Sunday. It's intense and mad and will leave you wondering."
"You don't have to believe someone to enjoy their tales ..."
Reviewers are writers. Writers tell stories.
I read other reviews to see a show from eyes other than my own. I know what I think. I want to know what goes on inside other people's heads.
PS: "Cameron hated it" will get more people along to see Here Lies Henry than "A-M liked it".
