‘La Mancha,’ Part II

In response to C. Richard Allen’s Saturday Letter on Dec. 14, I must take exception to his criticism of Times Theater Critic Sylvie Drake’s review of “Man of La Mancha” (“A Musty ‘Man of La Mancha,’ ” Dec. 7).

Drake’s review was, in fact, right on the money. If anything, she was too kind . After having suffered the dubious pleasure of sitting through a performance of the embarrassingly bad production of “La Mancha,” my first impression was that the musical no longer seemed to work. I was pleased, therefore, to see my own impression of the production confirmed in print by Drake. The headline word “Musty” is in fact a most apt assessment.

Believe me, Drake’s review was kind; she very generously pointed out the indisputable fact that Sheena Easton sings beautifully. And she equitably overlooked several other glaring defects--defects well deserving of more pointed criticism.

Never noted in Drake’s review, for instance, were Easton’s atrocious black wig, her cute but glaringly out of place Scottish accent--which she only made sporadic attempts to conceal--her all-too-obviously phony tears, in addition to (as Drake noted) her vacuous contemporary attitude and delivery.

Easton’s tame, chipper approach is so wrong for the part of the wild and weary Aldonza, a woman supposedly badly battered and abused. During the performance, I was unfortunate enough to witness Easton’s “bruise” was actually peeling off her face! And where in the world was Raul Julia’s dashing demeanor? His was an infuriatingly ossified Don Quixote, short of charm and entirely lacking the requisite panache.

The word musty definitely applies. So, I’m afraid, does the word miscast .

I had hoped that this production might evoke some emotion, but that hope was, sadly, nothing more than an impossible dream. Take my advice: If you want to be moved, catch Davis Gaines again in “The Phantom of the Opera.”

CAROLE EASTMAN

Los Angeles