In the Throne of Blood critique, I tend to agree most of the critic’s views:
That the costumes were best thing about the play, “Were it not for the gorgeous costumes — sweeping silken kimonos and samurai armor made of glistening black patent leather — Ping Chong’s “Throne of Blood,” a new production from the Next Wave Festival at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, would be as boring to look at as it is to listen to.” (NY Times article)
The language leaving something to be desired “Mr. Chong, the veteran stage artist who adapted and directed “Throne of Blood” with an obvious reverence for the film, cannot replicate onstage the sweep and intensity that Kurosawa’s camerawork brings to the narrative, even as he sticks firmly to the scenic structure. And although the production is performed in English, with the occasional exclamation in Japanese for atmospheric effect, Mr. Chong chose to do without Shakespeare too, aside from a jokey allusion or two.” (NY Times article)
The only part of his critique, I disagree was with the scene in the forest, “The encounter with the ghost in the forest replicates the eerie charge of the scene in the movie, with the spirit (Cristofer Jean) pouring forth his premonitions in a rumbly, mechanically enhanced voice..” (NY Times article). I thought that was one of best scenes of the play where the main characters discover their fortune and the background had the creepy eyes and that turned red when the scene ended.
Overall I feel that the critic had issues with the play based on his comparison of the play to the movie and the original Shakespeare. It seems he was expecting more because he likes the movie and Shakespeare instead of just taking it for what it is.
http://theater.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/theater/reviews/12throne.html?scp=1&sq=Ping%20Chong&st=cse
