After reading Olivia Cooper’s article, “‘Angels’ plot falls short, but the effects shine,” I find it unfortunately necessary to call Cooper’s attention to the Director’s Notes provided in the “Language of Angels” program. She clearly did not understand the structure of the play, which the Director’s Notes attempt to clarify. The director, Tom Martin, comments, “Set in North Carolina, this story’s three parts are related by an event, but not necessarily by a style nor a linear narrative. Tracing this arc, our approach has tried to mirror the pointillistic style Iizuka has employed.” Neither the play itself nor the SLU production of it attempted to present a logical progression of events. Had Cooper read Martin’s notes, she might have rethought the critical value of her comment that “the plotline is patchy at best.” I only wish such a navigation guide had been provided for Cooper’s article. It was unclear whether her comments were directed at the SLU production or at Iizuka’s play. She commends the actors on doing their best with Iizuka’s flat characters. From a purely literary standpoint these characters are anything but “uninteresting” and “stereotypical” leaving me suppose that Cooper’s dissatisfaction with the characters was caused by flaws in the acting, which she had already complimented. The contradiction is irritating and at times offensive. For example, Cooper writes, “Lauren Hoeing is a natural playing [Billy’s] simple-minded girlfriend Allison.” While perhaps this is an attempt at complimenting Hoeing’s acting ability, it reads as an attack on her intelligence. I can assure you that Hoeing is far from “simple-minded,” and her command of the character of Allison (who actually has her fair share of complexities) was spectacular. The production was not flawless, and I agree with a few of Cooper’s comments, but her critique was unorganized and unsupported. She neglected to consider the Director’s Notes clearly stated in the program. It is inappropriate and unfair to critique Language of Angels as a conventional play. If Cooper had approached the production with the knowledge that it was not intended to be linear, I would have had a much easier time accepting her criticisms. Unfortunately, her lack of consideration for the intended style of the production invalidates the majority of her arguments for me. While I don’t think reviews should be one hundred percent positive, it appears the Cooper wrote her article with the express intention of being negative. In the future, I would recommend someone with a more open appreciation and extensive knowledge of the arts review or edit reviews of Saint Louis University productions.

Emily Guck
Sophomore