Comments on: Once More into the Critical Breach http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/29/once-more-into-the-critical-breach/ Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:36:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0 by: Nathaniel Swift http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/29/once-more-into-the-critical-breach/#comment-134 Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:51:12 +0000 http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/29/once-more-into-the-critical-breach/#comment-134 Ed, I'm conflicted. I've gotten reviews from Hedy that I've felt were unfair in the past (and that's different from getting a negative review; I've had plenty of those from her and other critics that I think were fair even though I've disagreed with their opinions), and on first look this seemed to me to be a very clear example of a critic committing a serious breach of professional ethics, but now I'm not so sure. If you're charging admission and inviting critics, you better be willing to accept both positive and negative reviews. I agree with Hedy on that one - you can't have it both ways, and accepting a positive review last year before raising hell in response to a negative one this year smacks of hypocrisy. That being said, her review was uniquely offensive in her dismissiveness of the plays she reviewed (she acknowledged that she didn't stay for a full performance of any of the plays she reviewed, which I think makes her unqualified to write about any of them) and her unwillingness to review them as works in progress. A few points from the review itself: "None of the shows presented last weekend, whether in semi-staged or concert reading style, was ready for prime time." This is the reason Stages exists - to provide artists with a place in which to try out works that are "not ready for prime time." For her to frame this as a negative, and compare the workshopped plays to a revival of Gypsy, is an insult to anyone who struggles to create new works of art. "In the interest of full disclosure: With just one day to devote to the project and eight shows to sample, I arrived with the notion that if I found any first act particularly compelling, I would stay through the whole show. None of the shows kept me glued to my seat." This makes her unqualified to review the plays. Period. It's a fine approach to take as an audience member; it's unacceptable for a critic. So I agree with Hedy that people are overreacting to the fact that she reviewed these plays. I think just about everybody who'se worked in Chicago bears a little bit of a grudge against her for some review in the past - some warranted, some not - and this was an opportunity for many to vent some frustration. I still think that her approach to reviewing these plays was offensive and demonstrated a serious lack of respect for the craft and the risk of creating new theatre, as well as a lack of understanding of the role and the responsibility of an art critic. That's my two cents (or more). Ed, I’m conflicted. I’ve gotten reviews from Hedy that I’ve felt were unfair in the past (and that’s different from getting a negative review; I’ve had plenty of those from her and other critics that I think were fair even though I’ve disagreed with their opinions), and on first look this seemed to me to be a very clear example of a critic committing a serious breach of professional ethics, but now I’m not so sure.

If you’re charging admission and inviting critics, you better be willing to accept both positive and negative reviews. I agree with Hedy on that one - you can’t have it both ways, and accepting a positive review last year before raising hell in response to a negative one this year smacks of hypocrisy.

That being said, her review was uniquely offensive in her dismissiveness of the plays she reviewed (she acknowledged that she didn’t stay for a full performance of any of the plays she reviewed, which I think makes her unqualified to write about any of them) and her unwillingness to review them as works in progress.

A few points from the review itself:

“None of the shows presented last weekend, whether in semi-staged or concert reading style, was ready for prime time.”

This is the reason Stages exists - to provide artists with a place in which to try out works that are “not ready for prime time.” For her to frame this as a negative, and compare the workshopped plays to a revival of Gypsy, is an insult to anyone who struggles to create new works of art.

“In the interest of full disclosure: With just one day to devote to the project and eight shows to sample, I arrived with the notion that if I found any first act particularly compelling, I would stay through the whole show. None of the shows kept me glued to my seat.”

This makes her unqualified to review the plays. Period. It’s a fine approach to take as an audience member; it’s unacceptable for a critic.

So I agree with Hedy that people are overreacting to the fact that she reviewed these plays. I think just about everybody who’se worked in Chicago bears a little bit of a grudge against her for some review in the past - some warranted, some not - and this was an opportunity for many to vent some frustration. I still think that her approach to reviewing these plays was offensive and demonstrated a serious lack of respect for the craft and the risk of creating new theatre, as well as a lack of understanding of the role and the responsibility of an art critic.

That’s my two cents (or more).

]]> by: Larry Peterson http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/29/once-more-into-the-critical-breach/#comment-133 Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:07:15 +0000 http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/29/once-more-into-the-critical-breach/#comment-133 This is amazing. Now the New York Times has an article about it in their theatre section. It is interesting that they note that the festival is distancing itself from the mess, acknowledging that the policy was rather ambiguous. In the meantime, the biggest names in American theatre have nothing better to do with their time than write individual censures of this woman? People like Kushner, Albee, Auburn, Durang, Hwang, Shanley, Wright and fifteen more actually called this "scary", "shocking", "destructive", "outrageous", "obscene"? Several of them implied they would not open their play in Chicago because of this. Wow. This may be what's wrong with theatre - not that critics are mean or unethical, but that theatre people over-react to the reception of the work. Do your best work, put it out there, if it works, great, if not, get over it and get on with the next one. Bad reviews aren't killing the theatre - but spending time whining about critics instead of focusing on writing, acting, directing, whatever - that will. "Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill. This is amazing. Now the New York Times has an article about it in their theatre section. It is interesting that they note that the festival is distancing itself from the mess, acknowledging that the policy was rather ambiguous. In the meantime, the biggest names in American theatre have nothing better to do with their time than write individual censures of this woman? People like Kushner, Albee, Auburn, Durang, Hwang, Shanley, Wright and fifteen more actually called this “scary”, “shocking”, “destructive”, “outrageous”, “obscene”? Several of them implied they would not open
their play in Chicago because of this. Wow. This may be what’s wrong with theatre - not that critics are mean or unethical, but that theatre people over-react to the reception of the work. Do your best work, put it out there, if it works, great, if not, get over it and get on with the next one. Bad reviews aren’t killing the theatre - but spending time whining about critics instead of focusing on writing, acting, directing, whatever - that will.

“Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.” - Winston Churchill.

]]> by: Sam Louis http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/29/once-more-into-the-critical-breach/#comment-132 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:20:51 +0000 http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/29/once-more-into-the-critical-breach/#comment-132 If there's a dollar price attached to art, you better expect a viewpoint from the buyer of the ticket. I'm not paying to see "crap" or "greatness" and then not say or read something about it. Those folks charge admission, prepare for critics to go fishn. Sam Louis If there’s a dollar price attached to art, you better expect a viewpoint from the buyer of the ticket. I’m not paying to see “crap” or “greatness” and then not say or read something about it. Those folks charge admission, prepare for critics to go fishn.

Sam Louis

]]>