The DAN Studio Series (DSS) debuted its only theatrical installment of the 2023-24 academic school year.
After the DAN School Undergraduate Society (DSUS) dissolved in the Fall term, DSS and other student theatre groups in the DAN School lost the funding to put on a Fall and Winter term installment of student-written theatre.
In one month, the DSS Producers Sabrina Marques, ArtSci ’25, and Kennedy Montanaro, ArtSci ’25, put together a collection of five student-written shows under the theme Meta. The show went live on Feb. 13 at the Rotunda Theatre in Theological Hall.
The first show, Two Fools At the End of the Universe, holds potential for being a show with dual life lessons, but turned out unpolished and lacking in artistic depth and meaning. For a show about the sun and moon discussing the end of the universe, I expected deeper commentary on the cyclical nature of life and death—how even the universe itself isn’t immune to the end of existence.
The blocking was far too complex for a show of such intended metaphysical meaning and the lighting design could have gone much farther to really encapsulate the feeling of landing amongst the stars.
The opportunity for these characters to reflect complete opposites of each other through costume was overlooked and could have implicitly depicted these characters as sun and moon to an unknowing audience.
Please, student theatre creators, stop using Euphoria makeup in every show —the novelty has long worn off.
The second show, Going Up, was comedic and had the audience easily hooked. The blocking used the alleyway seating to give each audience member a clear view of what was happening inside the invisible elevator; however, there were a few issues with how the script translated onto the stage.
One—where is this elevator? Two—what floor did it start on? Three—there were too many unnecessary characters with inconsistent backstories who didn’t add to the plot.
The moral of the story was unclear. I wasn’t sure if the idea was the cliché of giving people a second chance, or not being a bigoted white man in modern society. The script felt rushed in this sense, despite the show taking a long time to get to the crucial plot point of the elevator breakdown.
Show three, Vignettes on Life (From the Perspective of a Garden Gnome), would’ve been a cute show in any other context but DSS: Meta.
This show was not Meta, and instead could easily be a full-length theatrical commentary on leaving home for the first time and exploring oneself beyond the world they were raised to know. Unfortunately, it felt underwhelming and out of place next to the other shows of the evening.
The fourth show, Magic Eight, was the strongest script and strongest production in the installment. All three characters were distinctive, very expressive, and animated. It would have been nice to have the magic eight ball put up a fight about being tossed in the trash. The characterization was so strong it could have made way for a love triangle showdown between Jones, Riley, and Eight.
The final show, Summer Is Over and So Are We, had many people in tears as two characters slowly came to the realization that they not only did they loved another but could never be obtainable for each other.
Despite being realistic in terms of love story, there were still a lot of inconsistencies that took away from the show’s wow-factor.
The plot felt like three separate stories being forced together. Themes of body image, suicidal thoughts, and obsessive love could easily fit well together if given the opportunity.
On the whole, the transitions between scenes and shows were long, messy, and often unnecessary. It made each show feel sloppy and unprepared for a paying audience.
The blocking across shows lacked meaning and purpose. It felt like characters were moving, sitting, or climbing set pieces for no reason—there was no driving force behind characters’ actions.
The amount of set pieces and props was overwhelming and overcomplicated the simplicity of all five shows. A bare stage would have worked for every show and would have leaned into the concept of Meta. It would’ve resolved many of the blocking and transition issues.
The producers described the theme of Meta in the show program as “becoming the newest, most evolved version of yourself.”
None of the five shows were reflective of this theme at all.
Theatre as a representation of the everyday person is an overdone concept this year in the student theatre community at Queen’s. From the DAN School Major in the Fall to the other emerging theatre companies who have put up shows, the meaning behind Meta didn’t bring anything new to the theatre community.
Very few of the characters ‘evolved’ and none of the shows embodied the direct definition of Meta—an adjective meaning self-aware.
For a student production put together in a month, it was exactly what you expect. As a part of the DSS legacy, Meta could’ve done better with fewer shows and more dedication to polishing the stories they had instead of throwing as much at an audience as possible in one evening.
Corrections
A previous version of this article incorrectly named the theatre company Dan Studio Series as Dan “Students” Series. Incorrect information appeared in the March 8 issue of The Queen’s Journal.
The Journal regrets the error
Tags
DAN, DSS, End of universe, Show
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.
Anom
Why would you write something so hateful? You are undermining all the hard work that was put in.
anna
wow! you must be miserable. not only is this article just pure hatred and negativity, it actually lacks depth! also where’s the cohesiveness in your writing that you bitched that the show didn’t have? seems a little hypocritical to me. I love how you backed up all your statements with examples and facts from the play! oh wait, you didn’t! this is just another example of lazy writing, hating just to hate, from a negative, miserable, talentless person. completely disrespectful to everyone involved. hope you had your 10 seconds of fame darling, because with writing like this, it will be your last. horrible review, save your time reading it. also, thank you for your sympathy to the “paying audience” when the ticket sales went to breat cancer research…
Ben
Perhaps it’s almost as though the show wasn’t intended to have that straight “through line” that plagues the current theatrical sphere. They took a risk, and sure, maybe it wasn’t everything that you wanted it to be, but that’s the beautiful thing about theatre – especially STUDENT theatre. If we can’t embrace, as you’ve called it, a “failed” attempt at character evolution, then what’s the point of embracing students’ creativity in environments with little funding, time, and thousands of extenuating circumstances, and so forth?
Nothing is perfect, and I’m not saying that this review shouldn’t have been published, but maybe we could’ve figured out some more ways to uplift the incredible work that these students threw together in, as you’ve mentioned, “in a month.”
TL; DR: let’s embrace risk-taking and creative expression over putting people down for the aesthetic and stories they’ve chosen to tell perhaps? Where is this energy in other reviews?
P.S: if you’re going to publish an article/criticism, at least get biographic elements correct.
Dan School Student
This Article does not demonstrate an understanding of the concept of DSS, or a general understanding for any of the fun filled shows that were put on. This Article does not offer any constructive criticism or room for growth, and was made to seem quirky and put down student theatre. I LOVE DSS!!! I though I was great so
Deanna Cervi
This article was unnecessarily rude, coming down on student theatre and the hard working individuals who put themselves out there to create something beautiful for the audience. As an audience member of this show, I do not agree with what has been said in this article, and as a part of the DSS legacy, I am offended and angered by the harshness of this reviewer and the downright disrespect within these words. These artists worked tirelessly to continue the DSS legacy when everything was against them this year, and this is what they get in return? I am bothered and upset by this article, and don’t think it should have been shared to the public.
Deanna Cervi
This article was unnecessarily rude and not at all constructive, coming down on student theatre and the hard working individuals who put themselves out there to create something beautiful for the audience. As an audience member of this show, I do not agree with what has been said in this article, and as a part of the DSS legacy, I am offended and angered by the harshness of this reviewer and the downright disrespect within these words. These artists worked tirelessly to continue the DSS legacy when everything was against them this year, and this is what they get in return? I am bothered and upset by this article, and don’t think it should have been shared to the public.
Student
It is genuinely embarrassing to know that this is the culture the Queen’s journal supports – pure support of putting other students down, especially vulnerable artists who work so incredibly hard on top of course loads, jobs, extra curriculars, etc., to make art for the community and spread joy and passion with the lives of others. DSS: META accumulated nothing but a great team, with pure love for one another. And above all, they created an incredible show that received amazing feedback from the community, which has unfortunately now been overshadowed by this review. Yes, you are allowed to have your own opinion and believe in improving works in various ways. But this “critique” with no real structured reasoning for disliking things, and being filled with nothing but comments of detest, is in no way an accurate representation of DSS, or the culture they WILL continue to make. Congratulations on providing a reason for more students to be upset with the Queen’s Journal culture your writer has created.
Queen's Student
Just so you understand, because it is very clear that you didn’t capture the meaning of Meta in any way, shape or form, the DSS team clearly stated at the show that ‘Meta’ is short for Metamorphosis – describing that change, transformation, and evolution of oneself into the best version they can be; not self-awareness, as you referred to it. Perhaps if you had focused on trying to actively understand the meaning of the work DSS put out and appreciate the hard work everyone put into the show, you wouldn’t have completely overlooked the piece, solely focusing on your hatred for student theatre. If you feel so passionately about putting others’ work down, I’m sure all the artists would appreciate that you refrain from reviewing Queen’s shows filled with hardworking and dedicated individuals.
Student
This article was not only hurtful to the students who wrote these innovative shows, but it was a disappointing representation of the Queens Journal. Is this not a journal BY students FOR students? This is not what Queens claims to be about! We are supposed to be spreading positivity. This was nothing but a hatful, harsh, surface-level opinion piece. The fact that this was allowed to be published under the “Arts” category rather than the “Opinion” category, let alone be published at all, is confusing to me. Yes, this show was put together very quickly – something to be celebrated. Getting ideas up on their feet is part of the creative process. Anyone who has any respect for theatre would appreciate this. This author, again, has no respect for the students who worked tirelessly for DSS, but also has no respect for the art of theatre as a whole.
I hope this author learns to be a bit more open minded when it comes to the arts… and maybe not be just so rude. And to Queens Journal, look closer into what you allow to be posted under the schools name.
Mic
To start, DSS stands for the DAN Studio Series, not the DAN Student Series. Maybe make sure you at least have the name correct when downright bullying and degrading the people involved in the production. It is clear to me while reading this article that the author just felt like putting people down rather than writing a constructive review. The lack of cohesiveness and blatant disrespect in this article makes me wonder how it was even able to be published. This is a clear use of ‘big words’ being used to cover up a lack of depth and understanding of what these shows were about and to undermine all of the hard work that was put in after the odds were stacked against DSS. As artists, we are open to criticism being a possibility in everything that we do. This article is not criticism, it is just rude.
Queen’s Drama Student
Humor me im curious, do you study Drama? You mentioned in your article that they only had a month to put everything together, yet you’re disappointed with the fact that everyone seemed to enjoy the show but you? Did you also stop to think about who would see this article? Every single person who worked on that show both on and off stage put in hours and hours of hard work considering the lack of time and budget the series had and put on something beautiful. For you to use such negative language with very little constructive criticism makes it painfully obvious that you have no taste and you’ve never had to put on a production of this magnitude. Please, journalists everywhere, stop making harsh criticisms of art you have no business critiquing without even a skid mark of constructive commentary and still expect to be taken seriously, “the novelty has long worn off.”
Kendra Johnston
As someone who has seen the tireless hours that the DSS team and producers have put into META, this article is disheartening and rude. As someone who knows that this critic is a DSS alumni, I expected more sympathy from the reviewer as they know how much work DSS takes. Sabrina and Kennedy did amazing work with the time that they had to prepare and this article highly diminishes the efforts that themselves, their team, the AMS, and the new DDSC presidents took in order to put this instalment on.
Anonymous
Really disagree with this article. As an audience member of the show, I was moved by the work of the students and thought they did a fantastic job bringing the stories to life. On top of the incredible performances, the show progressed smoothly and did not feel uncoordinated at all to audience members. Speaking to others who attended the show made it apparent that my opinion is shared by many – we all went home talking about how great the show was and how talented the performers are. To title this review using the word ‘failed’ is not only disrespectful, but just entirely not true.
anon
this is so hateful! especially considering they are students…
Theo Plouffe
I am appalled that the Queen’s Journal is supporting pieces such as these. Never in my life would I have expected to see bullying given such an open space in the Queen’s community. Not only is this article full of factual errors, but it also relies completely on false ideas of what this show was about.
To the people who allowed this to happen- I hope you understand that your words impact others. It is disheartening to see you use your voices and this platform to tear down hard-working, dedicated students.
To any DSS students reading this – your work was not a “failure”. You worked tremendously hard on a show that was delightful to watch. As an audience member who watched this show numerous times, you should all be incredibly proud of the work you put into this. I cannot express to you how wrong this piece is. I sincerely hope you do not let this deter you from pursuing your art further.
elliot
Such a mean and hateful article that not only brings down the show but also the amazing people who worked on this show. Outright naming people is unbelievable and i hope this gets taken down because it’s caused way too much harm and for no good reason
DSS Supporter
Dear Paige la Fraugh,
I feel pity for you. I feel pity that you are quick to bash the hard work of students producing a student-run theater dedicated to funding breast cancer research given your history of being a DSS alumni according to the comments. As an audience, this show was beautiful in many aspects. The show touched the emotionality of many students–I’ve heard sniffling especially in the last piece. Going Up was extremely refreshing and hilarious and many have agreed with me on this. The other pieces were also well-crafted and we could all sense the amount of thought that goes into this production.
Your article seems like hate speech rather than criticism, and many do agree in the comments section. I think you should give them a read, and reflect on your article. Judging by your tonality, I am hardly convinced that you would even do so. What would the production managers think after reading this article? Do you think this is appropriate especially when one of the manager’s mother, who has breast cancer, came to watch the show to support DSS? Genuinely, shame on you, your article, and the Queen’s journal who approved this. This is exactly the reason why I am concerned about the Queen’s student body.
Proudly written with no regrets,
DSS supporter
Student
This article was snarky, mostly unhelpful, and generally insensitive, yes, but the fact that people in the comments are even remotely implying that Paige’s review qualifies as “bullying” or even “hate speech”? Dude, what? Ben is right, the writer should have been more appreciative of the students’ perseverance despite all the obstacles the faced. Yes, Sabrina and Kennedy deserve the world, and yes, everyone put their heart and soul into DSS… but do those facts really justify the worrying number of comments that straight-up wish ill on Paige for publishing a negative response to the plays themselves?
Drama students support one another, and that is great, but we need to learn that we are not entitled to anything, we need to learn to handle a negative critique, and we need to learn to not be such an echo chamber that we put a curse on a woman because she left a bad review. These comments are bringing light to some serious cultural issues in our community—we need to do better.
Zach Weber
I wanted to say first and foremost that this article is much more aligned with bullying than theatre critique. I would encourage the journal to review articles posted by Intermission Magazine, specifically those which constructively and masterfully critique shows with respect and integrity (https://www.intermissionmagazine.ca/reviews/rockabye-arc/ , for example). This piece is absolutely disgraceful, without being too disrespectful myself I will say that upon reading this it is clear that the author is not educated enough in the realm of theatre to produce a critique that fosters creative growth and instead relies on low punches and underdeveloped opinions. This article is full of spelling, grammatical, and information errors and as such is not even entertaining. It is with all honesty baffling that an entity like the Queen’s Journal would allow this to be posted even without regard to its content. All in all, I believe you as an organization have failed many individuals by neglecting your responsibility to protect the rights of student creators and uphold the values of Queens University, and in doing so owe the entire DSS team an apology.
Noelle
This article is a sad reflection of the bullying and depravity that the Queen’s community has continually exhibited towards the arts, especially as of late.
DSS is a student-run theatre company, their shows are supposed to reflect this. Not one informed audience member walks in to a DSS show expecting to see fully fleshed out, high budget, exceptionally professional theatre; DSS is a necessary space for student playwrights, actors, etc… to experiment on and off stage; it is a learning opportunity before anything else.
To critique a company – to this harsh and unpleasant level- who’s mission is primarily to provide student opportunities and foster community through theatre ironically exhibits how distasteful, unnecessary, and out of touch this review is.
There is an appropriate way to criticize theatre, I hope future pieces from the Journal showcase more decorum and respect to those who put hard work into these shows.
Tiana Lam
While art critique is an essential part of learning, this review provides no educational or technical value when it comes to improving future instalments. The opinions and critiques lack reasoning, while sarcastic commentary do more harm than good. As a past DSS producer, I understand the struggles of creating art that satisfies every audience member. It simply is not possible. However, I expect all audience members to appreciate and have respect for the creators involved; which is clearly not shown in this article. There is a fine line between criticism and bullying, one that has been crossed. The Journal, once again, has chosen to publish unreliable content that fails to reflect the hard work and perseverance of students.
Nate I.
Wait it took a month for this!?
Student
I’ll chime in to say this is such a tame review that speaks about objective, quantifiable things that the reviewer did not enjoy. It’s fine to disagree, but I truly cannot see why people think this is cruel or hateful. At no point did the reviewer attack anyone, say anything ‘hateful’, or even say anything overly rude. They literally just spoke about what they didn’t like. They didn’t even outright call it a ‘failure’, they just said that the evolution of the characters failed.
It’s great that people worked hard on this. That doesn’t mean they are owed praise or should be ‘uplifted’. Journalism is certainly not about ‘spreading positivity’ as another comment suggests. It is so crazy that people are saying this shouldn’t have been published. All the comments on this article are 10x as hateful and cruel as this review.
If this review was attacking people personally, mocking those involved, or using disrespectful language, I would completely understand the calls to take it down. But it did none of those things. Do we really want student journalism to be censored just because it presents a negative review of something people worked hard on?
UW Student
I do agree that the reviewer didn’t use overtly hateful language, but the tone and manner in which the critique was delivered were extremely dismissive and condescending. There’s proof of that everywhere within the article. And the fact that the title included the word ‘failure’… deep down, you must understand where the other comments are coming from regardless of whether you agree or not. The lack of perspective in discussing the efforts of the student performers and creators undermines their hard work without offering enough substantial critiques for it to read as constructive criticism. And I again agree that journalism is not about ‘spreading positivity,’ but it should strive for fairness and professionalism. The article’s failure to acknowledge the complexities of student productions and its overly critical stance reflect poorly on the integrity of the journalistic process of the Queen’s Journal. Also, while censorship is a concern, criticism should be held to a standard of accountability. If student journalism aims to foster thoughtful and meaningful discourse, it must ensure that critiques are grounded in thorough analysis and respect for the subjects involved.
I am not here to dispute the origin of the article’s critiques; I don’t know enough about theatre to speak on that, but I do know about journalism. And I do agree some of these comments included unnecessary hate towards the author of the article; in no way am I trying to defend those individuals. However, it seems like you missed the valid points made by some of the more thoughtful comments. Journalism should include negative reviews! It should be able to critique performances and comment on situations! I agree with you once again. However, the fact that the article gave a negative review was not the issue. The delivery was. If you or the Queen’s Journal are willing to overlook the true constructive criticism given by certain comments, then there’s even more of an issue. If this article was truly meant to be constructive and not meant to be overly critical or rude, then I would only assume that the author (who I honestly believe had no malicious intent) must also be willing to receive constructive criticism and that they and the Queen’s Journal would jump at the opportunity to address and learn from these comments. Do we really want student journalism or theatre to lose its integrity or professionalism just because it feels better to protect our pride?
We UW students look forward to how the Queen’s Journal will address these comments and take actionable steps to strive for higher standards in journalism so we can all learn from and reference this situation moving forward.
Don’t censor reviews
I’m writing this comment in support of this review, in the wake of many negative comments. As a trained theatre professional in the area, I’ve read my share of unflattering reviews for shows that plenty of people “worked hard on”, but in no other situation have I ever seen such negative and demeaning reactions from the people close to the show.
Sometimes, you work hard on something, and it still has flaws. This reviewer provided a fair and honest assessment of both the positive and negative elements of this performance without ever naming any specific actors- for folks concerned about the “learning process” of this student work, many of the reviewers points are valuable feedback that can aid them in future artistic endeavours. If we pretend all theatre is good, theatre never gets better. As a DSS alum myself, I see nothing wrong with providing honest reviews of student work.
Reviews ARE opinions fundamentally, so folks discussing how this is an opinion piece and not a review are mistaken. The Queen’s student theatre scene is so used to only reading reviews written by their friends, that when critical thought is presented and not sugar coated, clearly some feelings got hurt- that is not the reviewers fault. Frankly, it’s refreshing to read an honest review. Many student theatre shows suffer for their sloppy transitions, and pointing that out can only benefit shows in the future if artistic parties involved look past their hurt feelings and assess where they can do better next time. This honesty is a key piece that’s been missing from our student theatre scene, so I’m glad this reviewer was brave enough to write this.
It is possible to do good student theatre. I’ve seen it, even in a DSS context with the same budget and timelines. Retaliating against a reviewer with excuses for the show or comments about how the intentions were good or the work was hard negates the valuable insight provided by listening to feedback. Take it or leave it, but don’t have your army of friends bombard the comments because you can’t handle critique.
Critique and feedback is a key part of the creative process, and if any of the artists involved in DSS want to be involved in theatre industries after graduation, I’m glad they can have this experience of realistic theatre critique, and I hope that they can learn a lesson about critique etiquette and how to properly respond to a review – keeping in mind the difference between private reactions between friends and cast, and unjustified public complaints