Podcast Review: Open Explores the Perks and Pitfalls of Polyamory

I can't get past the crap sound "effects" going on... I'm sorry, if you're going to trash art perhaps perfect your own medium first.  Posers.

Look, these two are hipsters with shitty attitudes, not critics.  Having a soundboard (that neither of them can operate, I might add) and a opinion, doesn't make you a critic. But when you pepper in a bit of know-it-all bad attitude, mix with opinion and illusions of intellect and grandiosity....VOILA!!! You get a Shitty critic. And how lucky are we to get two of them!  I am not going to defend the play, because it's good, simple, enjoyable fun. It stands on it's merit alone, and doesn't need me to defend it.  But what needs to be brought up here is this so called "critique."  This came off as a personal attack. It seems the play may have been critical of San Francisco culture, and it struck a nerve with king and queen of shitty attitude. In the critique, it's vague, broad strokes as to what makes the play "bad." And the cheap tactics don't end there, they go to that "it's sooo sitcom-ish"place.  God how cheap and boring of a critique.  Next time, just fart your opinion into the mic (learn to control the volume first) because that would be about as informative as Janiak and Wachs.  It maybe a little funny too!  Better yet don't even turn on a mic, next time just type.  That way we don't have to hear your middle school maturity leveled opinions.  Type, so we don't have to hear your voice as you self appoint yourself an intellectual. Type, because this critique is about as good as a half assed hipster's Yelp review. 

"A glimmer of humanity" wow, these reviewers are up their own asses.

This podcast is so vapid, I have a hard time finding any substance in the opinions that Janiak and Wachs try to articulate because I can't take them seriously. Really? It doesn't help that the background music drowns out their voices; wait-- that's the best part of the podcast, but their review fails to deliver substantive insights. Instead these two sound like flippant and opinionated know-it-all hipsters that should have stayed home instead.  As far as the play goes, I saw it and enjoyed it tremendously. It was very entertaining partly because of the ridiculous politics and complications that do arise in open relationships are all delivered in a wonderfully light and hysterical comedic manner.  This is a topic that you want to laugh about;  simply to distance yourself from the its 'complicated' aspects but also to be able to laugh at the idiosyncratic contortions that the characters go through to maintain the marital harmony.  I'm wondering if it is the topic itself, of open relationships, is what these two don't get.  I have no regrets seeing this play and I was very happy and satisfied to support local theatre- go see it!