‘Lulu’ in Hollywood

I saw the Hollywood Moguls Theatre production of “Lulu,” and I think reviewer Jan Breslauer is wrong on several points (“This Adaptation of ‘Lulu’ Sometimes Misses the Point,” Nov. 25):

* She says there’s “a crucial lack of sexual chemistry,” but I and my friends found the play and performers very sensual (we went as a group of seven).

* She talks about Kirsten Benton’s Lulu being “bland and unexceptional.” We thought that Benton was very attractive and that the brilliance of her performance was that she really grew on you. By the time she sang her final song, I was nearly in tears for her dilemma, even knowing that she had brought it on herself.

* The review gives short shrift to the musicality of this play: There are lots of group songs, very few solos--the chorus is very textured and enjoyable to listen to.

* The review throws around such words as Brechtian, reductive, Aaron Spelling and anti-naturalist in a hodgepodge of descriptions that describe nothing at all. Tell us what the performance is about, please.

I saw “a play with music” that follows a woman’s journey from the heights of exploited, black-comedy success down a frightening spiral to final tragedy. There is nothing in the review about the story, only about the play’s history. The review is confusing; “Lulu” is not: It is an erotic morality play that is actually a lot of fun to watch, then to think about.

JOANNA KLASS

Corona del Mar

“Lulu” is a ferocious, sensual, moving experience! I am laughing, and then someone dies; I am horrified--and then laugh again. It is tragic and very musical--and I don’t read anything about any of this in The Times’ review. This production jerks my emotions around at its will--a good tug, not manipulation--and your review describes some cold “Weimar” play. I came away from “Lulu” feeling excited about the possibilities of theater again.

ANDREW CHOJECKI

Los Angeles

Frank Wedekind wrote plays that insulted the German society of his time; Breslauer talks about this politely, as if it means nothing. Now, when a play like this modern “Lulu” does this same insult to our society today, her criticism does not mention the fact.

“Lulu” is meant to offend--Wedekind’s original and this adaptation do that. Except for the songs (which are definitely not German cabaret but are very good), “Lulu” attacks the ideal that there can be a normal, moral society. Breslauer misses the point that this is not criticism, it is subversion.

JACK MUSIAL

Upland