Thanks David. There’s a lot of confusion around this case, and I wanted to write something that addressed some of those erroneous claims and also gave it some context. That’s what we’re here for!

Thanks for the comment, Katie. Would have loved to see it myself!

Thanks Matthew: how interesting! I would have loved to see it again – my partner booked to go back after seeing it with me, and made similar comments on the subtle shifts in the performance.

I’m not sure, though it was certainly beautiful: maybe it was the frogs! One thing I thought of also was the act of performance: in a good production (I’ve seen some bad ones) the presence of the actor in front of me adds to that feeling of lightness, the insistence that there’s only the present moment and nothing more (or less). You can tell…[Read more]

Hi there Peter – thanks for your comment! For me these two things absolutely do square, although perhaps I put it badly in the review. The main reason it’s not a contradiction is that language is not existence, but something we’ve invented that sometimes we use to try to talk about existence. For my part, I found Watt (the novel) the reverse of…[Read more]

Thanks for the correction, we’ll fix it up now! And congratulations to Ethan!

Hello there! Thanks for your comment. It’s clear that you feel passionately about this! I want to point out that it’s not an article, but a review. A review is a response to a particular show, as we outline in our editorial policy, which you can find here. And we welcome discussion on Witness Performance.

I can’t speak for Vanessa, but it seems…[Read more]

Oh no! Will fix up right away. Though if you’re going to mistaken for someone, Laurie Anderson isn’t bad…

Hi Matthew – Your experience sounds weirdly right! If extremely painful. The good hard look at yourself is precisely what she makes happen.

Excellent! I think it’s not to be missed. Quite aside from how rarely Kane is done here.

Thanks so much, Vanessa. I guess I’ve had a lot of time to think about Sarah Kane 🙂

Hi David – Alison here. We didn’t get to Apokalypsis, which was a huge regret in our Next Wave coverage. (We did our best…) It sounds like a big miss.

Hi David – thanks for your comment! I’m all for variousness in performance and theatrical form: there are many ways of making meaning. And “action” too is many things – it’s not merely event. For my part, I want plays, however they play with form, to be doing something more with language than mere explanation, which I can get in any mediocre op…[Read more]

Hi Matthew, thanks so much for your comment, which I only now, very belatedly, have seen – apologies for that! Yes, the actors are truly what make this production, but I really did adore the set. For me, its very sparseness allowed the performances to shine, it was such a relief not to see the usual design tropes while at the same time feeling…[Read more]