
We are half-way through the run of Pear Slices 2009, and we received our first formal review (and maybe only one). It was a decent one, that focussed on the acting. This is, of course, annoying since Pear Slices is all about "new works" and critiques should be about the writing, but this is not surprising. As difficult as it is to write new works, it's also difficult to review new works in a limited space unless maybe you're a very experienced theatre person/critic.

My part of Kevin Kirby's Palo Alto Weekly review of Pear Slices 2009:
"...In Richard Medugno’s 'A True Apology,' however, [Helena] Clarkson shines. Her long-suffering character is called upon to mediate a dispute between her blind mother (played by feisty Lindi Press) and her deaf brother (believably portrayed by playwright Medugno), after the son runs over the mother’s seeing-eye dog. Insisting that she is only a neutral interpreter between family members whose disabilities leave them unable to communicate with one another directly, she nonetheless gets caught up in both parties’ frustration and anger, until she is seemingly locked in a half-spoken, half-signed argument with herself..."
Kirby did talk about the quality of the new work as a whole, summing up the night in the last paragraph of his review: "...the majority of this year’s 'slices' from the PearPlaywrights Guild feel decidedly safe." I feel "A True Apology" was in the minority then, because it was a far from a safe piece. It was a huge challenge. It could have easily fallen flat without the proper execution.
I hope "A True Apology" has a life after Pear Slices 2009, so I can maybe see a production without being in it and get more reviews in print. The real critics I'm waiting to hear from for this production are my kids, who are planning to see the show on Sunday.
