What I quoted above was the end of the review. The beginning is another story.
When the reviewer, Liza Laws, started out the review by saying it was an "impressive double act" (referring to the actors) and "quite a treat" for the audience, I came away with the impression she LIKED the play. Particularly when she said Simon and Michael "held the audience captivated".
I believe she was referring to Michael's
character starting out sheepish in comparison to the domineering character of Simon's role, not that Michael's acting was an embarrassment.
I think she decided that of two impressive lead actors, Simon was the stronger of the two. In context, I don't necessarily see that judgment as a critical review of Michael.
But I certainly could be mistaken in my impressions. What do others think?
PS Haze, I've spotted other "quotes" of my work on other websites, in Michael's stage bios and in reviews, but this is the most extensive. I'm just tickled that
someone is reading the things!
