I’ve been exceedingly lax on the whole blogging thing since the RTCC awards two weekends ago, trying to regain some perspective on the rest of my scattered life. I am tentatively and somewhat gingerly stepping back in the saddle because there is just so much activity going on, I can’t refrain from writing about it.
If you were one of the unfortunates (me included) who missed the Henley Street Bootleg Shakespeare event last weekend, here’s a nice write-up at RVANews. Though the write-up is pretty comprehensive, I’m sure it’s no substitute for having been there. I hope everyone had a raucous good time.
Style has an interview with David Lindsay-Abaire this week, signaling that time is running out on seeing “Kimberly Akimbo,” which I keep hearing is excellent.
I dropped in on “Home Fires” at CAT last weekend, a review of which should show up in print next week. It’s a hard show for me to give a capsule review of. I enjoyed much of the show, and truly loved Rebekah Spence’s performance as a single mom making ends meet during World War II. I have issues with Jack Heifner’s script, which I thought was a bit unfocused and layered with subplots that didn’t necessarily coalesce into something bigger than the sum of its part. Those expecting shades of “Comfort and Joy” or “Key West” are going to be disappointed, but those who appreciate an interesting slice of Americana with some potent emotional moments will love it.
We’re coming up on perhaps the most theatrical of holidays and, among the many other events going on, you might consider checking out the [vampire]Medea show happening at VCU’s Shafer Alliance Laboratory Theatre. Beyond the promise of a spooky take on an already gruesome tragedy, among the attractive elements of the production is the admission: free! (Production details are here.)
Beyond that, I don’t know of any other shows opening this weekend so it’s also a good chance to check out currently running shows like “Becky’s New Car,” “Akimbo” and “Home Fires” before the curtain rises on a slew of new shows in November.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Tie
Before I let the 2011 Artsies fade in the rear-view mirror, here’s one more award-centric post to tie up some loose ends. In case you didn’t see it, the T-D printed a correction to their initial story on the event. Also, here’s the link to a recap of the awards from someone not wrapped up in the theater scene like so many of us. It makes me feel good that we could entertain someone at least moderately even if they didn’t get all of the inside jokes and references. (UPDATE: Style's recap of the event is in this week's edition.)
Oh, also, before I move on: the T-D had a review of “Kimberly Akimbo” yesterday. Definitely worth checking out.
So as with every year’s awards, the final results did not always reflect my personal choices (e.g., I thought Nick Aliff should’ve received at least a nod for “Love Kills” but that’s just me). Still, I continue to have the utmost respect for the process we critics go through to arrive at a final recipient for each category. There is contention amongst us, of course, but I think it is always tempered by two important things: 1) respect for each other’s opinion, and 2) an understanding that when we get down to the end, all of the nominees did great work and any qualitative difference between many of our choices may be infinitesimal and highly subjective. The high caliber of the options we are choosing from can make for difficulties in reaching a final selection.
The clearest example of the difficulties involved in our process is the tie for Best Musical this year. As a group, we tried several different ways to come to a final choice. We looked at all of the nominees collectively. When voting resulted in a deadlock, we considered just the final two in a few different ways, trying to get past that deadlock. Ultimately, we had serious discussions about whether ending in a tie was OK, discussions that included researching the Tony Awards and finding out that their selections have sometimes ended in a tie.
My perspective on the eventual result was summarized very nicely both by Phil Crosby and Bruce Miller in different ways. There was a glitzy musical full of big moments and technical excellence. And there was a small, uniquely intimate musical full of self-referential wackiness. Both of them had exceptional performances. Phil called them the biggest and the smallest shows of the season; Bruce called them David and Goliath. Another way to look at it is that these shows were like apples and oranges and, among us 8 critics, 4 of us ended up enamored with the apple while the other 4 couldn’t be budged off the orange. After weeks of agonizing, a tie seemed like the only way to go. It’s not a situation I’d like to land in again but it seemed like the best solution.
As to other comments I’ve received: we members of the Circle are always open to constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement. Both the Best Ensemble award (now the Ernie McClintock Award) and The People’s Choice award arose out of suggestions we’ve received. So please feel free to send them on, either posted here or emailed to me personally.
To folks who won awards and may want them engraved: I'd recommend K2 Awards (2221 Dabney Road, 804.784.7298) where I think it's still just $8 to get your name inscribed.
To Mr. Deiss (whose contrariness I respect and appreciate): I definitely understand your frustration and disappointment at the Mill not receiving any awards. I also expect there was a similar frustration felt by supporters of Chamberlayne Actors Theatre, which did not receive any nominations this year. I don’t think anything I can say can really alleviate those feelings. However, by way of explanation, I can say that we evaluate every category individually and the results never reflect any bias toward or against one company or another, even if the final results seem to indicate one. I know several Mill nominations had strong advocates but in each case they were outvoted by other choices.
I would also reiterate what Heather said in her opening this year: “Any single one of the nominees could easily have gone home with this year’s awards and for every person nominated, there were several others could have been nominated just as easily.” Those aren’t just empty words; having trudged through the nomination and final selection process, I know it’s true.
Clearly, the People’s Choice award needs some fine-tuning. Tying it to an onsite raffle was done mostly to raise funds – and add fun! – but also to limit anyone from stuffing the ballot box. I’ve heard there was still confusion about how often you could vote and that shows not nominated for anything were probably not voted for because people associated with those shows weren’t in attendance. These are good points and ones that we’ll need to think about as we go forward. Still, I thought the award added a new and interesting twist to the night and resulted in perhaps two of the most persistent benefits of the evening: 1) the Roop-Lauterback video that loses little entertainment value upon repeated viewings and 2) the new necklace for Carol Piersol that I hope she will wear with pride!
While it’s true the event runs long – too long in some people’s perspective – the 3 ½ hours felt pretty svelte to me this year. We packed in 6 musical performances, 20 awards, a couple dozen silly jokes, several special recognitions, 2 intermissions and 1 angry bear into that time. I think 3 hours is probably a good target but, as big and fun as the night is, I wouldn’t want to cut it much shorter than that.
Finally, thanks again to everyone who came together to make the night a success. Bryan and the band were incredible; Chase, Wendy, Hans, Andrew, all of the bartenders and everyone working that night at the Empire did a great job; the crew of teen volunteers were crucially helpful; the singers were exceptional; the presenters seemed game for anything; the audience was boisterous but generally well-behaved; and my producer and partner-in-crime Amy was as calm and cool-headed as always. I’ve received a lot of very nice congratulations, which I very much appreciate, but it took quite a big team to make it all happen and the credit goes to all of them.
So I think I’m ready to call it a wrap (though recommendations and suggestions continue to be welcome). Time to focus on what’s next. I hear CAT’s opening their season with “Home Fires” this weekend…
Oh, also, before I move on: the T-D had a review of “Kimberly Akimbo” yesterday. Definitely worth checking out.
So as with every year’s awards, the final results did not always reflect my personal choices (e.g., I thought Nick Aliff should’ve received at least a nod for “Love Kills” but that’s just me). Still, I continue to have the utmost respect for the process we critics go through to arrive at a final recipient for each category. There is contention amongst us, of course, but I think it is always tempered by two important things: 1) respect for each other’s opinion, and 2) an understanding that when we get down to the end, all of the nominees did great work and any qualitative difference between many of our choices may be infinitesimal and highly subjective. The high caliber of the options we are choosing from can make for difficulties in reaching a final selection.
The clearest example of the difficulties involved in our process is the tie for Best Musical this year. As a group, we tried several different ways to come to a final choice. We looked at all of the nominees collectively. When voting resulted in a deadlock, we considered just the final two in a few different ways, trying to get past that deadlock. Ultimately, we had serious discussions about whether ending in a tie was OK, discussions that included researching the Tony Awards and finding out that their selections have sometimes ended in a tie.
My perspective on the eventual result was summarized very nicely both by Phil Crosby and Bruce Miller in different ways. There was a glitzy musical full of big moments and technical excellence. And there was a small, uniquely intimate musical full of self-referential wackiness. Both of them had exceptional performances. Phil called them the biggest and the smallest shows of the season; Bruce called them David and Goliath. Another way to look at it is that these shows were like apples and oranges and, among us 8 critics, 4 of us ended up enamored with the apple while the other 4 couldn’t be budged off the orange. After weeks of agonizing, a tie seemed like the only way to go. It’s not a situation I’d like to land in again but it seemed like the best solution.
As to other comments I’ve received: we members of the Circle are always open to constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement. Both the Best Ensemble award (now the Ernie McClintock Award) and The People’s Choice award arose out of suggestions we’ve received. So please feel free to send them on, either posted here or emailed to me personally.
To folks who won awards and may want them engraved: I'd recommend K2 Awards (2221 Dabney Road, 804.784.7298) where I think it's still just $8 to get your name inscribed.
To Mr. Deiss (whose contrariness I respect and appreciate): I definitely understand your frustration and disappointment at the Mill not receiving any awards. I also expect there was a similar frustration felt by supporters of Chamberlayne Actors Theatre, which did not receive any nominations this year. I don’t think anything I can say can really alleviate those feelings. However, by way of explanation, I can say that we evaluate every category individually and the results never reflect any bias toward or against one company or another, even if the final results seem to indicate one. I know several Mill nominations had strong advocates but in each case they were outvoted by other choices.
I would also reiterate what Heather said in her opening this year: “Any single one of the nominees could easily have gone home with this year’s awards and for every person nominated, there were several others could have been nominated just as easily.” Those aren’t just empty words; having trudged through the nomination and final selection process, I know it’s true.
Clearly, the People’s Choice award needs some fine-tuning. Tying it to an onsite raffle was done mostly to raise funds – and add fun! – but also to limit anyone from stuffing the ballot box. I’ve heard there was still confusion about how often you could vote and that shows not nominated for anything were probably not voted for because people associated with those shows weren’t in attendance. These are good points and ones that we’ll need to think about as we go forward. Still, I thought the award added a new and interesting twist to the night and resulted in perhaps two of the most persistent benefits of the evening: 1) the Roop-Lauterback video that loses little entertainment value upon repeated viewings and 2) the new necklace for Carol Piersol that I hope she will wear with pride!
While it’s true the event runs long – too long in some people’s perspective – the 3 ½ hours felt pretty svelte to me this year. We packed in 6 musical performances, 20 awards, a couple dozen silly jokes, several special recognitions, 2 intermissions and 1 angry bear into that time. I think 3 hours is probably a good target but, as big and fun as the night is, I wouldn’t want to cut it much shorter than that.
Finally, thanks again to everyone who came together to make the night a success. Bryan and the band were incredible; Chase, Wendy, Hans, Andrew, all of the bartenders and everyone working that night at the Empire did a great job; the crew of teen volunteers were crucially helpful; the singers were exceptional; the presenters seemed game for anything; the audience was boisterous but generally well-behaved; and my producer and partner-in-crime Amy was as calm and cool-headed as always. I’ve received a lot of very nice congratulations, which I very much appreciate, but it took quite a big team to make it all happen and the credit goes to all of them.
So I think I’m ready to call it a wrap (though recommendations and suggestions continue to be welcome). Time to focus on what’s next. I hear CAT’s opening their season with “Home Fires” this weekend…
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Stats and stuff
The twin patinas of exhaustion and excitement from Sunday night have started to melt away which has allowed me to focus on a couple of things besides eating and sleeping. Among those are the various statistical reckonings that can be done in the aftermath of this year’s RTCC awards.
First off: attendance. According to the Barksdale ticketing system, 472 people officially attended the event on Sunday. However, my understanding is that the Governor’s boxes live outside the official system and there were 8 people distributed between the two boxes. Also, I had an incredible crew of teenage volunteers working the show and the 9 of them shared 3 seats between them, meaning that there were really an additional 6 attendees, meaning that in my own personal accounting attendance was more like 486. Why do I care whether it’s 472 vs. 486? I don’t really but I expect to be telling people that “nearly 500” people attended and this is my public justification for that claim.
The awards have been held at the Empire twice before. Official attendance was 395 last year and 469 the year before that. So however you slice it, attendance was up this year, which makes me very happy.
Also, I reviewed the People’s Choice vote last night and was pretty amazed at the broad range of selections. Twenty-four different productions received at least one vote, plus there was a vote for Hairspray (which wasn’t officially eligible), one vote in general support of Swift Creek Mill Theatre, and one vote that didn’t actually have any production selected. I also know that a couple individuals used the People’s Choice voting just to make donations, as the money collected exceeded the number of votes – thank you generous people!
There was a total of 101 votes cast and the top five productions in order were This Beautiful City, [title of show], Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Once on this Island. While the popularity of these productions didn’t surprise me, it was interesting to note what shows were tied for 6th: Dog Sees God and Theatre IV’s The Velveteen Rabbit. While those shows didn’t garner a lot of love from us critics, the productions clearly had their fan bases.
I’ve just started to peruse some of the pictures on Facebook from the evening. And while it was mentioned several times on Sunday what a great and supportive theater community we have here, I’d just like to add that it’s a pretty damn attractive crowd as well. Later today or tomorrow, I’ll address some of the questions and comments that I’ve fielded in the wake of the awards. And then I expect it will be time to (reluctantly) move on…
First off: attendance. According to the Barksdale ticketing system, 472 people officially attended the event on Sunday. However, my understanding is that the Governor’s boxes live outside the official system and there were 8 people distributed between the two boxes. Also, I had an incredible crew of teenage volunteers working the show and the 9 of them shared 3 seats between them, meaning that there were really an additional 6 attendees, meaning that in my own personal accounting attendance was more like 486. Why do I care whether it’s 472 vs. 486? I don’t really but I expect to be telling people that “nearly 500” people attended and this is my public justification for that claim.
The awards have been held at the Empire twice before. Official attendance was 395 last year and 469 the year before that. So however you slice it, attendance was up this year, which makes me very happy.
Also, I reviewed the People’s Choice vote last night and was pretty amazed at the broad range of selections. Twenty-four different productions received at least one vote, plus there was a vote for Hairspray (which wasn’t officially eligible), one vote in general support of Swift Creek Mill Theatre, and one vote that didn’t actually have any production selected. I also know that a couple individuals used the People’s Choice voting just to make donations, as the money collected exceeded the number of votes – thank you generous people!
There was a total of 101 votes cast and the top five productions in order were This Beautiful City, [title of show], Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Once on this Island. While the popularity of these productions didn’t surprise me, it was interesting to note what shows were tied for 6th: Dog Sees God and Theatre IV’s The Velveteen Rabbit. While those shows didn’t garner a lot of love from us critics, the productions clearly had their fan bases.
I’ve just started to peruse some of the pictures on Facebook from the evening. And while it was mentioned several times on Sunday what a great and supportive theater community we have here, I’d just like to add that it’s a pretty damn attractive crowd as well. Later today or tomorrow, I’ll address some of the questions and comments that I’ve fielded in the wake of the awards. And then I expect it will be time to (reluctantly) move on…
Monday, October 17, 2011
And the 2011 Artsie award goes to...
Wow. What a night. I was trying to think this morning of what I would highlight about the evening if I were trying to recap it for someone who wasn’t there and realized that there were so many exceptional moments both big and small that it would be impossible. I’d basically just have to recount the entire evening and try to capture just a fraction of excitement and fun and fellowship I felt throughout the evening.
There are things that probably could use some ‘splainin’, the tie for Best Musical being one big example, highlighted in the Times-Dispatch article this morning. But I’m still a little too exhausted for cogent thought so I’ll talk a little more about that perhaps later in the week.
In the meantime, I’d just like to extend a huge heartfelt thanks to everyone who played a part in making last night work out. There are literally dozens of people who came together and did incredible things all focused on the success of last night. All of their work is very deeply appreciated.
Finally, below is the list of Artsie award recipients that were announced last night. Congratulations to those honored for some well-deserved recognition. But even greater congratulations to the community at large for coming together and supporting this event. I probably won’t know the final numbers for a couple weeks, but I expect we raised somewhere in the neighborhood of $7,500 for the Theater Artists Fund last night, 2.5 times what we raised last year and 3 times what we raised to years ago. A good time for a great cause – it doesn’t get much better than that.
2011 RTCC Award Recipients
Best Play
Last Days of Judas Iscariot
Best Musical
Tie: Dirty Rotten Scoundrels & [title of show]
The People's Choice Award
This Beautiful City
Best Direction - Musical
Chase Kniffen, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Best Direction – Play
Rusty Wilson, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Best Actor in a Leading Role – Play
Alan Sader, King Lear
Best Actor in a Leading Role - Musical
Scott Wichmann, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Best Actress in a Leading Role – Play
Laine Satterfield, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Best Actress in a Leading Role - Musical
Rachel Abrams, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Best Actor in a Supporting Role - Play
J. Ron Fleming, Jitney
Best Actor in a Supporting Role - Musical
Andrew Hamm, This Beautiful City
Best Actress in a Supporting Role - Play
Maggie Horan, Legacy of Light
Best Actress in a Supporting Role - Musical
Kathy Halenda, White Christmas
Ernie McClintock Best Ensemble Award
Jitney
Best Choreography
Leslie Owens-Harrington, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Best Musical Direction
Sandy Dacus, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Outstanding Achievement in Set Design
Brian C. Barker, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Outstanding Achievement in Lighting Design
Lynne Hartman, Legacy of Light
Outstanding Achievement in Costume Design
J. Theresa Bush, Legacy of Light
Outstanding Achievement in Sound Design
Derek Dumais, White Christmas
Special Awards:
Outstanding Achievement in Puppetry
Terry Snyder
Liz Marks Memorial Award
Michael Gooding
Don Warren & Jay McCullough
There are things that probably could use some ‘splainin’, the tie for Best Musical being one big example, highlighted in the Times-Dispatch article this morning. But I’m still a little too exhausted for cogent thought so I’ll talk a little more about that perhaps later in the week.
In the meantime, I’d just like to extend a huge heartfelt thanks to everyone who played a part in making last night work out. There are literally dozens of people who came together and did incredible things all focused on the success of last night. All of their work is very deeply appreciated.
Finally, below is the list of Artsie award recipients that were announced last night. Congratulations to those honored for some well-deserved recognition. But even greater congratulations to the community at large for coming together and supporting this event. I probably won’t know the final numbers for a couple weeks, but I expect we raised somewhere in the neighborhood of $7,500 for the Theater Artists Fund last night, 2.5 times what we raised last year and 3 times what we raised to years ago. A good time for a great cause – it doesn’t get much better than that.
2011 RTCC Award Recipients
Best Play
Last Days of Judas Iscariot
Best Musical
Tie: Dirty Rotten Scoundrels & [title of show]
The People's Choice Award
This Beautiful City
Best Direction - Musical
Chase Kniffen, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Best Direction – Play
Rusty Wilson, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Best Actor in a Leading Role – Play
Alan Sader, King Lear
Best Actor in a Leading Role - Musical
Scott Wichmann, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Best Actress in a Leading Role – Play
Laine Satterfield, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Best Actress in a Leading Role - Musical
Rachel Abrams, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Best Actor in a Supporting Role - Play
J. Ron Fleming, Jitney
Best Actor in a Supporting Role - Musical
Andrew Hamm, This Beautiful City
Best Actress in a Supporting Role - Play
Maggie Horan, Legacy of Light
Best Actress in a Supporting Role - Musical
Kathy Halenda, White Christmas
Ernie McClintock Best Ensemble Award
Jitney
Best Choreography
Leslie Owens-Harrington, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Best Musical Direction
Sandy Dacus, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Outstanding Achievement in Set Design
Brian C. Barker, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Outstanding Achievement in Lighting Design
Lynne Hartman, Legacy of Light
Outstanding Achievement in Costume Design
J. Theresa Bush, Legacy of Light
Outstanding Achievement in Sound Design
Derek Dumais, White Christmas
Special Awards:
Outstanding Achievement in Puppetry
Terry Snyder
Liz Marks Memorial Award
Michael Gooding
Don Warren & Jay McCullough
Friday, October 14, 2011
Where the action is
I've spent much of the last week swamped under RTCC awards related stuff and an unexpected bout of single parentage but I'm emerging just a tad, at least enough to show up on the noon news at NBC 12 WWBT to talk up the awards show. But luckily while I've been submerged, my pal Mr. Porter put out a good summary of some of the things that are going on around town. It's worth a peruse because, damn, there's just a lot going on.
Hope to see you on Sunday, if not before!
Hope to see you on Sunday, if not before!
Monday, October 10, 2011
Richmond Magazine
I know I don’t usually promote Style’s “competition” but there are so many reasons to pick up this month’s Richmond magazine that I can’t be quiet about it (also, as a glossy monthly, I don’t actually think of RichMag as the competition but anyway…)
First off, right there on the cover is a picture of U of R basketball coach Chris Mooney (and some other coach you’ve probably heard of too…) Coach Mooney will be presenting an award at the RTCC awards with co-presenter Susan Greenbaum. So if you check out the magazine you’ll have a preview of who this guy is and will be able to spot him sidling up to the bar on Sunday.
Also, you’ll see that this month’s issue announces the winners of the Theresa Pollak awards (and there’s an awards ceremony tomorrow –Tuesday – night if you’re interested. I don’t have the details, but maybe someone out there does???). Among the honorees is the inimitable Scott Wichmann who just celebrated the premier of the movie “Lake Effects” where he costars with Ben Savage and Casper Van Diem, among others. He also is continuing to celebrate, I’m sure, the ongoing success of his latest directorial effort, “Lend Me a Tenor.” Scotty is of course in contention for an RTCC award for Best Actor in a Musical so be sure to come on Sunday to see if this week will include a hat trick of big wins for Mr. Wichmann.
Finally, there is a sister publication called Dine included with this month’s RichMag that has a great article called “Dinner and a Show.” In this piece, several local theater folks give their recommendations of where to go to eat before seeing a show. It’s a great piece and one that I’ll be keeping around for reference.
And if I haven’t mentioned it enough already, go ahead and get your tickets for the RTCC awards already! If you are nominee and want to be there to collect your award (potentially), you need to get a ticket! If you are a performer, you still need to get a ticket! If you are a critic, you still need to get a ticket! Thanks to our grant this year, everything you spend associated with the event should go directly to the Theatre Artists Fund so get those tickets and come out and celebrate with us!
First off, right there on the cover is a picture of U of R basketball coach Chris Mooney (and some other coach you’ve probably heard of too…) Coach Mooney will be presenting an award at the RTCC awards with co-presenter Susan Greenbaum. So if you check out the magazine you’ll have a preview of who this guy is and will be able to spot him sidling up to the bar on Sunday.
Also, you’ll see that this month’s issue announces the winners of the Theresa Pollak awards (and there’s an awards ceremony tomorrow –Tuesday – night if you’re interested. I don’t have the details, but maybe someone out there does???). Among the honorees is the inimitable Scott Wichmann who just celebrated the premier of the movie “Lake Effects” where he costars with Ben Savage and Casper Van Diem, among others. He also is continuing to celebrate, I’m sure, the ongoing success of his latest directorial effort, “Lend Me a Tenor.” Scotty is of course in contention for an RTCC award for Best Actor in a Musical so be sure to come on Sunday to see if this week will include a hat trick of big wins for Mr. Wichmann.
Finally, there is a sister publication called Dine included with this month’s RichMag that has a great article called “Dinner and a Show.” In this piece, several local theater folks give their recommendations of where to go to eat before seeing a show. It’s a great piece and one that I’ll be keeping around for reference.
And if I haven’t mentioned it enough already, go ahead and get your tickets for the RTCC awards already! If you are nominee and want to be there to collect your award (potentially), you need to get a ticket! If you are a performer, you still need to get a ticket! If you are a critic, you still need to get a ticket! Thanks to our grant this year, everything you spend associated with the event should go directly to the Theatre Artists Fund so get those tickets and come out and celebrate with us!
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Additions, Corrections
Can you tell I'm distracted these days? Mr. Griset's review in this week's Style is for "Suddenly Last Summer," not "Becky's New Car." I did get the subject of my review right, it's for "Merchant of Venice."
Also, yesterday I mentioned the video piece I did this summer but forgot the link to it.
Finally, I went to see "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" over the weekend but haven't had a chance to write out my thoughts. It's a very good production, though, and my quickest capsule review would be: if you thought Alan Sader and Adrian Rieder were incredible in "King Lear" this past summer (which they were IMHO), they're even better in "Cat."
Also, yesterday I mentioned the video piece I did this summer but forgot the link to it.
Finally, I went to see "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" over the weekend but haven't had a chance to write out my thoughts. It's a very good production, though, and my quickest capsule review would be: if you thought Alan Sader and Adrian Rieder were incredible in "King Lear" this past summer (which they were IMHO), they're even better in "Cat."
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Suddenly
Luckily, others are keeping track of this stuff more closely than I am. Reviews of "Suddenly Last Summer" are currently available at the T-D website and on GayRVA.
ArtStars, Amazing and other things that start with A
I went through the summer thinking about how crazy-busy it was, what with more shows opening in the traditional “down” time than I can remember. But now that we’re really getting into the heart of the fall, I’m realizing I had forgotten how truly crazy-busy things are once the summer’s over. Among the things to talk about:
The Dominion ArtStars awards are being handed out today, perhaps even as I write this. Arts organizations from all over the state were given recognition and cash awards as either “Shining Stars” or “Rising Stars.” Several theater companies were among the winners, including central VA’s Sycamore Rouge (congrats, kb!), Signature in NOVA, and Staunton’s American Shakespeare Center. It’s a great program that Dominion’s kicked off and I hope they keep it up.
The Amazing Raise starts tomorrow. The folks at Henley Street have been getting the word out about this. It’s an online event where leading non-profits can be awarded $10K based on donations of others. If you want to help groups like Henley Street, Gallery 5, Theatre IV, SPARC, the Cultural Arts Center at Glen Allen and others get a shot at that payoff, check out the Amazing Raise website.
My review of “Merchant of Venice” should be out today as well as Mr. Griset’s take on “Becky’s New Car.” I’m still waiting for the first words on “Suddenly Last Summer.”
Among the Broadway news is that Billy Elliot will be ending its run on the Great White Way in January.
As if there weren’t enough shows out there right now, the “Wicked” tour lands here again, opening tomorrow night. In the past two days, I’ve heard two people who I would never imagine in my life going to a musical say “I’m taking my wife to ‘Wicked.’” It reminds me of this little video piece I did out in California asking people going to “Les Mis” if they were aware of local theater. Some things never change.
I enjoyed my little online chat with James Ricks about artistic issues related to “Merchant.” It has often occurred to me that Shakespeare might lend itself better to talk-backs BEFORE the show, to allow people to get some education on the play’s background. I think it would enhance their enjoyment of a show where they are more than likely going to have trouble parsing the language, let alone separate out the social, political and metaphysical issues.
And of course finally, we have the Artsies. Please get your tickets and please come. I think it’s going to be a good time. All the pieces are in motion, the question will be whether they all fit together before next Sunday. Come and find out! Oh, and tell your friends to come too!
The Dominion ArtStars awards are being handed out today, perhaps even as I write this. Arts organizations from all over the state were given recognition and cash awards as either “Shining Stars” or “Rising Stars.” Several theater companies were among the winners, including central VA’s Sycamore Rouge (congrats, kb!), Signature in NOVA, and Staunton’s American Shakespeare Center. It’s a great program that Dominion’s kicked off and I hope they keep it up.
The Amazing Raise starts tomorrow. The folks at Henley Street have been getting the word out about this. It’s an online event where leading non-profits can be awarded $10K based on donations of others. If you want to help groups like Henley Street, Gallery 5, Theatre IV, SPARC, the Cultural Arts Center at Glen Allen and others get a shot at that payoff, check out the Amazing Raise website.
My review of “Merchant of Venice” should be out today as well as Mr. Griset’s take on “Becky’s New Car.” I’m still waiting for the first words on “Suddenly Last Summer.”
Among the Broadway news is that Billy Elliot will be ending its run on the Great White Way in January.
As if there weren’t enough shows out there right now, the “Wicked” tour lands here again, opening tomorrow night. In the past two days, I’ve heard two people who I would never imagine in my life going to a musical say “I’m taking my wife to ‘Wicked.’” It reminds me of this little video piece I did out in California asking people going to “Les Mis” if they were aware of local theater. Some things never change.
I enjoyed my little online chat with James Ricks about artistic issues related to “Merchant.” It has often occurred to me that Shakespeare might lend itself better to talk-backs BEFORE the show, to allow people to get some education on the play’s background. I think it would enhance their enjoyment of a show where they are more than likely going to have trouble parsing the language, let alone separate out the social, political and metaphysical issues.
And of course finally, we have the Artsies. Please get your tickets and please come. I think it’s going to be a good time. All the pieces are in motion, the question will be whether they all fit together before next Sunday. Come and find out! Oh, and tell your friends to come too!
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Rosh Hashanah
Mr. Griset has added to the chorus praising “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” with his review this week. Sycamore Rouge kicked off its season last weekend with the Langston Hughes-oriented joint, “Simply Heavenly,” that received a less than stellar assessment from Ms. Haubenstock.
The folks at Henley Street are initiating what sounds like an intriguing series of talk-backs this weekend and their “Merchant of Venice” is a great show to kick it off with. This is a show that almost demands conversation and processing. I really admire James Ricks and his company for choosing this show to produce and then really committing to a serious re-imagining of the work by placing it in a modern context.
My review in Style is going to be fairly short – once upon a time I would have had 500 to 600 words for a review. This one had to be trimmed to 350. It’s the sad reality of print journalism these days and particularly brutal when you are trying to cover any Shakespeare, let alone this Shakespeare. So I may talk about “Merchant” a couple of times in this space to flesh out some of my thoughts.
First off, it’s kind of astounding that the show will be running through the Jewish high holy days (Happy Rosh Hashanah, y’all!) The anti-Semitism in the play is bracing, there’s no getting around it. Mr. Ricks has said he has put the most clear anti-Semitic sentiments in the mouths of the lowest class characters, making the issue a bit more about class rather than overall cultural prejudice. I don’t know that this choice comes across so clearly, particularly in the modern context where, even though there are clearly class lines, we are told and taught that they don’t exist.
I also found the secondary characters laughing during Shylock’s “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” speech disconcerting. Beyond this being one of the more famous monologues in the canon, this speech is also a universal plea for understanding (and a little vengeance) on behalf of all victims of persecution. This seemed like part of the lower class idea, given that the snickerers were patrons at a bar, and as such was consistent in theory. But in practice, I simply didn’t like it.
However, on the flip side, there were many ways I thought the anti-Semitism issue was handled masterfully. Jeff Clevenger’s performance is exceptional. I saw his actions not at all as a rabid anti-Christian but as a battered individual, pushed by the last straw of his daughter’s elopement to try to exact brutal retribution against a world that had stolen his wife, employee, dignity, and finally, his daughter. Clevenger never lets you forget Shylock’s basic humanity.
Also, the infamous court scene had a significant change from the original text (unless I missed it somehow) in that Shylock was not forced to convert to Christianity, among all of the other indignities he is forced to submit to. Finally, there is the issue of Jessica. Her deportment at the play’s end is distinctly different from Jessicas I’ve seen in other productions. I won’t spoil this for you in case you haven’t seen it but it isn’t expected given her economic situation at the play’s end.
And, in the end, this is a play largely about economics, or the “commidification of relationships” as Mr. Ricks says in his director’s notes. As such, I think making Antonio into a female character is also a masterful change and one I may talk about further in another post.
But before I sign off and since I have “merchants” on my mind, I really am overdue in giving a shout out to the sponsors of the RTCC awards this year. We’ve really had a great stepping up of people in commercial ventures who are supporting the event. Among those who are helping us this year are Style Weekly magazine, which is giving us a bunch of advertising both online and in print as well as hosting the pre-event reception; 103.7 The River, a radio station guided by the fabulous Melissa Chase who has promised to put the word out about us this year; Gay RVA.com, which is also providing us with scads of online advertising; Popkin Tavern, which is hosting the pre-event reception this year; Carreras Jewelers, which of course donated the great raffle prize of a gorgeous diamond necklace; and the extremely talented Jay Paul who is once again donating his photographic services to help memorialize the event.
Given how many “merchants” we have on board this year (not to mention the non-profits also supporting us, which I will at some other point), I’m a little surprised at the somewhat anemic ticket sales so far. Are people holding out until the last couple of weeks? Or have the awards kind of run their course and the excitement has passed? I’m really curious.
Regardless, I’m still excited about the big night and, while I’ll be disappointed if fewer people come than last year, I’ll also have a better chance at going home with that little Carreras bauble…
The folks at Henley Street are initiating what sounds like an intriguing series of talk-backs this weekend and their “Merchant of Venice” is a great show to kick it off with. This is a show that almost demands conversation and processing. I really admire James Ricks and his company for choosing this show to produce and then really committing to a serious re-imagining of the work by placing it in a modern context.
My review in Style is going to be fairly short – once upon a time I would have had 500 to 600 words for a review. This one had to be trimmed to 350. It’s the sad reality of print journalism these days and particularly brutal when you are trying to cover any Shakespeare, let alone this Shakespeare. So I may talk about “Merchant” a couple of times in this space to flesh out some of my thoughts.
First off, it’s kind of astounding that the show will be running through the Jewish high holy days (Happy Rosh Hashanah, y’all!) The anti-Semitism in the play is bracing, there’s no getting around it. Mr. Ricks has said he has put the most clear anti-Semitic sentiments in the mouths of the lowest class characters, making the issue a bit more about class rather than overall cultural prejudice. I don’t know that this choice comes across so clearly, particularly in the modern context where, even though there are clearly class lines, we are told and taught that they don’t exist.
I also found the secondary characters laughing during Shylock’s “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” speech disconcerting. Beyond this being one of the more famous monologues in the canon, this speech is also a universal plea for understanding (and a little vengeance) on behalf of all victims of persecution. This seemed like part of the lower class idea, given that the snickerers were patrons at a bar, and as such was consistent in theory. But in practice, I simply didn’t like it.
However, on the flip side, there were many ways I thought the anti-Semitism issue was handled masterfully. Jeff Clevenger’s performance is exceptional. I saw his actions not at all as a rabid anti-Christian but as a battered individual, pushed by the last straw of his daughter’s elopement to try to exact brutal retribution against a world that had stolen his wife, employee, dignity, and finally, his daughter. Clevenger never lets you forget Shylock’s basic humanity.
Also, the infamous court scene had a significant change from the original text (unless I missed it somehow) in that Shylock was not forced to convert to Christianity, among all of the other indignities he is forced to submit to. Finally, there is the issue of Jessica. Her deportment at the play’s end is distinctly different from Jessicas I’ve seen in other productions. I won’t spoil this for you in case you haven’t seen it but it isn’t expected given her economic situation at the play’s end.
And, in the end, this is a play largely about economics, or the “commidification of relationships” as Mr. Ricks says in his director’s notes. As such, I think making Antonio into a female character is also a masterful change and one I may talk about further in another post.
But before I sign off and since I have “merchants” on my mind, I really am overdue in giving a shout out to the sponsors of the RTCC awards this year. We’ve really had a great stepping up of people in commercial ventures who are supporting the event. Among those who are helping us this year are Style Weekly magazine, which is giving us a bunch of advertising both online and in print as well as hosting the pre-event reception; 103.7 The River, a radio station guided by the fabulous Melissa Chase who has promised to put the word out about us this year; Gay RVA.com, which is also providing us with scads of online advertising; Popkin Tavern, which is hosting the pre-event reception this year; Carreras Jewelers, which of course donated the great raffle prize of a gorgeous diamond necklace; and the extremely talented Jay Paul who is once again donating his photographic services to help memorialize the event.
Given how many “merchants” we have on board this year (not to mention the non-profits also supporting us, which I will at some other point), I’m a little surprised at the somewhat anemic ticket sales so far. Are people holding out until the last couple of weeks? Or have the awards kind of run their course and the excitement has passed? I’m really curious.
Regardless, I’m still excited about the big night and, while I’ll be disappointed if fewer people come than last year, I’ll also have a better chance at going home with that little Carreras bauble…
Monday, September 26, 2011
Institutional
All three of the Times-Dispatch freelancers who cover theater were busy this past weekend. Ms. Haubenstock reviewed Henley Street’s “Merchant of Venice,” Ms. Lewis took a ride in “Becky’s New Car” out at Hanover Tavern and Ms. Wren gave some context to the Mill’s “Keep on the Sunny Side.” That’s a pretty impressive flurry of theater coverage.
I’ll be offering some thoughts on “Merchant” as early as tomorrow, perhaps, but I also want to put out a quick endorsement of the local university shows. Both VCU and U of R are kicking off their seasons with extremely interesting productions, “Shakespeare’s R&J” at the former, and “Trojan Women” at the latter. The U of R show, with a cast that includes the enthralling Alex Wiles from last year’s “Arcadia” at Richmond Shakespeare, runs for a tragically short one-weekend run. If you want to get some sense of what you’ll see if you go, see this interview with the insightful and interesting Dorothy Holland.
I know it’s a crazy busy season but these are a couple of productions worth checking out. Pass on the “X Factor” (you’ve see it all before anyway) and go see one of these shows instead!
I’ll be offering some thoughts on “Merchant” as early as tomorrow, perhaps, but I also want to put out a quick endorsement of the local university shows. Both VCU and U of R are kicking off their seasons with extremely interesting productions, “Shakespeare’s R&J” at the former, and “Trojan Women” at the latter. The U of R show, with a cast that includes the enthralling Alex Wiles from last year’s “Arcadia” at Richmond Shakespeare, runs for a tragically short one-weekend run. If you want to get some sense of what you’ll see if you go, see this interview with the insightful and interesting Dorothy Holland.
I know it’s a crazy busy season but these are a couple of productions worth checking out. Pass on the “X Factor” (you’ve see it all before anyway) and go see one of these shows instead!
Friday, September 23, 2011
Sunny Side
You have to forgive me not writing (ok, you don’t have to, but I ask you to), but I’ve had so much reading to do. A review of “Keep on the Sunny Side” came out in the T-D yesterday and also in the Progress-Index (signaling the premiere I believe of actress-icon Una Harrison as a critic).
Reviews of “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” showed up at GayRVA and on WCVE (or John Porter’s blog). JP’s rave about “Lend Me a Tenor” – complete with a general endorsement of farce -- aired last night while my “Tenor” review was oh-so-eloquently dismissed as a “book report.” Those anonymous commenters – they’re so insightful!
Also out there to read up on has been the previews of “Merchant of Venice,” which I’m looking forward to this weekend. This promises to be a production unlike any other “Merchant” you might have seen before and it’s in a new space for Henley Street, two significant endorsements for sure.
I promised to talk about “Sunny Side” but I won’t go on too much because Ms. Haubenstock expressed most of my thoughts for me. The heart of her review includes the phrases “historically interesting,” “musically delightful,” and “limp drama.” I think that encapsulates the show for me. The voices musical director Drew Perkins leads through the Carter Family canon are all excellent – I think I would have loved this show if it had been just a tribute concert. But I don’t think it works great as theater. There are a few too many “…and then this happened…” kind of transitions and not enough meaty interpersonal business to work through. This weakness was not helped on the night I saw the show (the last preview on Friday) when there were numerous lines of dialogue either dropped or repeated.
But there were unmistakably magic moments, too, most of them when stage novice Jackie Frost was given room for her voice to reach its full-throated glory. I was introduced reluctantly to old time music decades ago by my lovely wife and have since come to appreciate the simple beauty of Carter Family standards like “Bury Me Under the Weeping Willow” and “Worried Man Blues.” Most of the songs are delivered with energy and clarity by gifted musicians like Emily Cole, David Janeski and Lucas Hall. Multi-instrumentalist Ms. Cole should think about a putting a concert together; I know I’d go.
Each of the cast members has his or her strength. Mr. Hall has a great scene to really chew some scenery as Dr. Brinkley and he makes the most of it. As I’ve expressed here before, I adore Ali Thibodeau’s voice and she kicks off the show with a great take on “Will You Miss Me?” But since she’s playing one of the next generation Carters (Janette), she doesn’t get as much front-and-center performing time, which is too bad. Mr. Perkins does a fine job as the somewhat drifty patriarch A. P. Carter, though I think it’s a curious challenge to give a focused performance of a distinctly unfocused character. Still, at the show’s end, his transition into the elderly A.P. is subtle but distinct.
One of the things I will remember most about this production is the gorgeous set. Director Tom Width has outdone himself with this set design, with a big assist from Adam Dorland and his vibrant scenic backdrop, not to mention the typically lush lighting by Joe Doran. The rendering of a log cabin’s front porch looks so cozy it’s hard not to want to join the cast on stage and spend some time working the rocking chair.
Susie also mentioned “historically interesting,” and I have to admit that one of the first things I did when I got home was Google the Carter Family. It was also great to see the neat YouTube clip that Emily Cole found of the real Sara and Maybelle Carter introduced by Johnny Cash. So, while it may not have invigorated me with dramatic intensity, “Sunny Side” certainly provided some diverting songs and a sparked interest in a slice of music history.
If your bent is historic, you have two shows opening this weekend that should appeal, the previously mentioned “Merchant,” plus “Simply Heavenly” at Sycamore Rouge, which is grounded in the historically significant stories of Langston Hughes. If you just want comic drama, “Becky’s New Car” out at the Tavern may be a better choice. Regardless, there is kind of an embarrassment of riches on local stage right now. What better way to spend a rainy weekend then at a show or two, no?
Reviews of “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” showed up at GayRVA and on WCVE (or John Porter’s blog). JP’s rave about “Lend Me a Tenor” – complete with a general endorsement of farce -- aired last night while my “Tenor” review was oh-so-eloquently dismissed as a “book report.” Those anonymous commenters – they’re so insightful!
Also out there to read up on has been the previews of “Merchant of Venice,” which I’m looking forward to this weekend. This promises to be a production unlike any other “Merchant” you might have seen before and it’s in a new space for Henley Street, two significant endorsements for sure.
I promised to talk about “Sunny Side” but I won’t go on too much because Ms. Haubenstock expressed most of my thoughts for me. The heart of her review includes the phrases “historically interesting,” “musically delightful,” and “limp drama.” I think that encapsulates the show for me. The voices musical director Drew Perkins leads through the Carter Family canon are all excellent – I think I would have loved this show if it had been just a tribute concert. But I don’t think it works great as theater. There are a few too many “…and then this happened…” kind of transitions and not enough meaty interpersonal business to work through. This weakness was not helped on the night I saw the show (the last preview on Friday) when there were numerous lines of dialogue either dropped or repeated.
But there were unmistakably magic moments, too, most of them when stage novice Jackie Frost was given room for her voice to reach its full-throated glory. I was introduced reluctantly to old time music decades ago by my lovely wife and have since come to appreciate the simple beauty of Carter Family standards like “Bury Me Under the Weeping Willow” and “Worried Man Blues.” Most of the songs are delivered with energy and clarity by gifted musicians like Emily Cole, David Janeski and Lucas Hall. Multi-instrumentalist Ms. Cole should think about a putting a concert together; I know I’d go.
Each of the cast members has his or her strength. Mr. Hall has a great scene to really chew some scenery as Dr. Brinkley and he makes the most of it. As I’ve expressed here before, I adore Ali Thibodeau’s voice and she kicks off the show with a great take on “Will You Miss Me?” But since she’s playing one of the next generation Carters (Janette), she doesn’t get as much front-and-center performing time, which is too bad. Mr. Perkins does a fine job as the somewhat drifty patriarch A. P. Carter, though I think it’s a curious challenge to give a focused performance of a distinctly unfocused character. Still, at the show’s end, his transition into the elderly A.P. is subtle but distinct.
One of the things I will remember most about this production is the gorgeous set. Director Tom Width has outdone himself with this set design, with a big assist from Adam Dorland and his vibrant scenic backdrop, not to mention the typically lush lighting by Joe Doran. The rendering of a log cabin’s front porch looks so cozy it’s hard not to want to join the cast on stage and spend some time working the rocking chair.
Susie also mentioned “historically interesting,” and I have to admit that one of the first things I did when I got home was Google the Carter Family. It was also great to see the neat YouTube clip that Emily Cole found of the real Sara and Maybelle Carter introduced by Johnny Cash. So, while it may not have invigorated me with dramatic intensity, “Sunny Side” certainly provided some diverting songs and a sparked interest in a slice of music history.
If your bent is historic, you have two shows opening this weekend that should appeal, the previously mentioned “Merchant,” plus “Simply Heavenly” at Sycamore Rouge, which is grounded in the historically significant stories of Langston Hughes. If you just want comic drama, “Becky’s New Car” out at the Tavern may be a better choice. Regardless, there is kind of an embarrassment of riches on local stage right now. What better way to spend a rainy weekend then at a show or two, no?
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
In the Interim
Here's a link to my review of Barksdale's "Lend Me a Tenor." Still nothing from the T-D on "Keep on the Sunny Side." However, at the T-D site you can find a link to this news story on a new musical in development based on the film "Diner," significant among other things for the foray of Sheryl Crow into the stage world.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
What a difference a valet makes
The season of Tennessee Williams is now in full force. Both Style and the Times-Dispatch have done stories on the Williams festival in the past week and “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” has opened to at least one largely positive review. How can you not love it? Big characters and intense stories and all sorts of interpersonal craziness. A fall full of Williams will make us all grateful to be able to go home to a relatively quiet and normal life after the curtain falls.
I’ve yet to see a review of “Keep on the Sunny Side,” the cheery and tuneful musical that opened at the Mill this past weekend. I caught the last preview on Friday and will talk more about the production on Thursday. My review of “Lend Me a Tenor” should show up in this week’s Style (crossing fingers, still haven’t had it confirmed by my editor…) Ms. Tupponce chimed in on “Tenor,” adding to the chorus of those who have enjoyed the rollicking farce. The mini-blogosphere-firestorm that erupted after the first “Tenor” review seems to have died down, though I’m still fielding any comments on the objectivity-subjectivity discussion. If you want to just bash people, I’d prefer you’d go elsewhere but I’ll field those comments as well.
Some additional news on the RTCC front: we have secured a donor to subsidize valet parking for the awards event. So if you don’t want to wander up and down Broad Street looking for a space on that Sunday night, you can just pull up to the under-construction Empire Marquee and stroll right in, leaving the search-n-park job to someone else.
It may seem like a small thing but valet parking is one of those little amenities that make an event seem more special, a little more luxurious, and a lot more convenient. It also means that that extra 10-15 minutes that you usually budget to find a parking spot and walk to the theater can be spent IN the theater, voting for the People’s Choice award, catching up with friends and colleagues, or enjoying a refreshing beverage. Won’t that be nice?
Check back here on Thursday for more on “Sunny Side” and, in honor of the positive attitude title song, a few local media-related appreciations.
I’ve yet to see a review of “Keep on the Sunny Side,” the cheery and tuneful musical that opened at the Mill this past weekend. I caught the last preview on Friday and will talk more about the production on Thursday. My review of “Lend Me a Tenor” should show up in this week’s Style (crossing fingers, still haven’t had it confirmed by my editor…) Ms. Tupponce chimed in on “Tenor,” adding to the chorus of those who have enjoyed the rollicking farce. The mini-blogosphere-firestorm that erupted after the first “Tenor” review seems to have died down, though I’m still fielding any comments on the objectivity-subjectivity discussion. If you want to just bash people, I’d prefer you’d go elsewhere but I’ll field those comments as well.
Some additional news on the RTCC front: we have secured a donor to subsidize valet parking for the awards event. So if you don’t want to wander up and down Broad Street looking for a space on that Sunday night, you can just pull up to the under-construction Empire Marquee and stroll right in, leaving the search-n-park job to someone else.
It may seem like a small thing but valet parking is one of those little amenities that make an event seem more special, a little more luxurious, and a lot more convenient. It also means that that extra 10-15 minutes that you usually budget to find a parking spot and walk to the theater can be spent IN the theater, voting for the People’s Choice award, catching up with friends and colleagues, or enjoying a refreshing beverage. Won’t that be nice?
Check back here on Thursday for more on “Sunny Side” and, in honor of the positive attitude title song, a few local media-related appreciations.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Responses
Mark,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond with your clearly stated and rational comments (as opposed to “Humble Opinionator’s” self-important and ridiculous ramblings…but I’ll get to that in a second…) I don’t agree with the bulk of your perspective, however, and I think you hold theater critics to an impractical standard. I remember when reality TV first became a big thing, I read plenty of stories by plenty of TV reviewers whose message was (either explicit or implicit): “god, I can’t wait for this reality TV fad to pass.” Then at some point they all seemed to heave a collective sigh and realize that it wasn’t going to pass and so now they grit their teeth and do their best. You can still read the same kind of bias in reviews of “torture porn” movies like the “Saw” franchise, a reviewer saying, “this stuff is generally crap but this is how this crap rates against all of the other crap.” For a more immediate and local example, Daniel Neman used to call out almost every movie that had some “daddy issue” at it’s foundation. He had obviously tired of those kinds of movies, but he went on reviewing them.
Should editors hire a specific reality TV critic to just cover that beat because every other critic hates the genre? A specific “torture porn” critic to cover those movies? A specific stage farce critic to cover “Lend Me a Tenor?” That would be impractical and that’s why no one does it.
There are three points I think are worth making: first, a theater critic has a job to do. At your job are you often given the liberty to “pass on assignments” that don’t endanger you or aren’t morally reprehensible but are simply not your favorite thing? If you do, I want your job.
Second, yes, I absolutely agree that if a critic has a passionate distaste for a specific genre, they should not review shows in that genre. But if their distaste is so passionate that it impairs their ability to deliver a coherent review, he or she shouldn’t really be a critic at all. Say what you will about Susie’s review, but it is well written and coherent, reflecting careful consideration of technical elements, direction and performance. You may not like the way she did her job but you can’t argue that she didn’t do it. I, like Susie, rank farce near or at the bottom of the genres of theater that I enjoy. That doesn’t mean I (and I expect Susie) prefer being poked in the eye to seeing a farce. I don’t want to be taken off the “farce beat” because farces aren’t my favorite. Why? Because I love theater in general and so an evening spent at even a mediocre “Lend Me a Tenor” (which Barksdale’s production isn’t) would be more enjoyable for me than a night watching, for instance, the best “torture porn” movie in existence.
Third, part of the artistic experience involves surprise. How many men are dragged to a romantic comedy with their wives or girlfriends and actually end up, against every expectation, enjoying the experience? If you asked such a guy afterwards, his summary might be “You know, I don’t generally like these kinds of movies, but this one was pretty good.” I know as a critic I go into a farce bracing myself for the worst. And whether I state it explicitly or not, my review will reflect an underlying attitude of “you know, I wasn’t expecting to love this but I did.” On the converse side of things, I love “Godspell” and “Les Mis” and plenty of other shows and there are times I’ve come out of certain productions feeling “you know, I generally love ‘Les Mis,’ but this production just didn’t measure up to my expectations.” These kinds of reactions are an inescapable aspect of the subjective artistic experience and they can’t be extricated from it, no matter who the audience member is, critic or non-critic.
As far as “Humble’s” extended tirade goes, there are so many ways I could respond that I’m a little at a loss at where to start. Perhaps with: as good a writer as you may be, HO, you’re an awful reader. You title your rant, “An Answer to Some of Dave’s Questions About Subjectivity and the Function of Critics.” I wrote exactly one sentence in my post that could be construed as a question, which was “how exactly [is] a critic…supposed to review a play “for what it is,” in other words, in some completely objective manner.” In all your extended spewing, you didn’t come close to answering that question.
What you essentially did was take the opportunity to randomly and anonymously bash all of Richmond’s critics while taking broad swipes at the local artistic community as well. Bravo! Quite a feat, that!
I would give some credence to some of your comments if they didn’t start from a foundation that undermines everything that follows. You say, “I have seen exactly zero truly critical reviews written with the aesthetic and mastery that is the standard for critique. Very loosely defined, a critic is someone who writes for a publication or blog about what they see.”
By applying some ridiculous standard that nullifies everything I’ve ever written, you have lost my interest in anything you have to say. If I am not a critic by your standards, why should any supposed insight you have about critics apply to me? And furthermore, by misunderstanding the basic idea of a “strictly-defined” critic – that is, someone who is a paid journalist doing a job for their employer, who strictly-speaking only has to answer to that employer and not every idiot with grandiose ideas – your succeeding assertions are essentially worthless. Thanks for playing, though, and as strong as your opinions are, I hope you take a step out from behind your cowardly anonymity and try being a critic yourself some day. I’m sure my fellows in the RTCC could gain a lot of backbone under your guidance.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond with your clearly stated and rational comments (as opposed to “Humble Opinionator’s” self-important and ridiculous ramblings…but I’ll get to that in a second…) I don’t agree with the bulk of your perspective, however, and I think you hold theater critics to an impractical standard. I remember when reality TV first became a big thing, I read plenty of stories by plenty of TV reviewers whose message was (either explicit or implicit): “god, I can’t wait for this reality TV fad to pass.” Then at some point they all seemed to heave a collective sigh and realize that it wasn’t going to pass and so now they grit their teeth and do their best. You can still read the same kind of bias in reviews of “torture porn” movies like the “Saw” franchise, a reviewer saying, “this stuff is generally crap but this is how this crap rates against all of the other crap.” For a more immediate and local example, Daniel Neman used to call out almost every movie that had some “daddy issue” at it’s foundation. He had obviously tired of those kinds of movies, but he went on reviewing them.
Should editors hire a specific reality TV critic to just cover that beat because every other critic hates the genre? A specific “torture porn” critic to cover those movies? A specific stage farce critic to cover “Lend Me a Tenor?” That would be impractical and that’s why no one does it.
There are three points I think are worth making: first, a theater critic has a job to do. At your job are you often given the liberty to “pass on assignments” that don’t endanger you or aren’t morally reprehensible but are simply not your favorite thing? If you do, I want your job.
Second, yes, I absolutely agree that if a critic has a passionate distaste for a specific genre, they should not review shows in that genre. But if their distaste is so passionate that it impairs their ability to deliver a coherent review, he or she shouldn’t really be a critic at all. Say what you will about Susie’s review, but it is well written and coherent, reflecting careful consideration of technical elements, direction and performance. You may not like the way she did her job but you can’t argue that she didn’t do it. I, like Susie, rank farce near or at the bottom of the genres of theater that I enjoy. That doesn’t mean I (and I expect Susie) prefer being poked in the eye to seeing a farce. I don’t want to be taken off the “farce beat” because farces aren’t my favorite. Why? Because I love theater in general and so an evening spent at even a mediocre “Lend Me a Tenor” (which Barksdale’s production isn’t) would be more enjoyable for me than a night watching, for instance, the best “torture porn” movie in existence.
Third, part of the artistic experience involves surprise. How many men are dragged to a romantic comedy with their wives or girlfriends and actually end up, against every expectation, enjoying the experience? If you asked such a guy afterwards, his summary might be “You know, I don’t generally like these kinds of movies, but this one was pretty good.” I know as a critic I go into a farce bracing myself for the worst. And whether I state it explicitly or not, my review will reflect an underlying attitude of “you know, I wasn’t expecting to love this but I did.” On the converse side of things, I love “Godspell” and “Les Mis” and plenty of other shows and there are times I’ve come out of certain productions feeling “you know, I generally love ‘Les Mis,’ but this production just didn’t measure up to my expectations.” These kinds of reactions are an inescapable aspect of the subjective artistic experience and they can’t be extricated from it, no matter who the audience member is, critic or non-critic.
As far as “Humble’s” extended tirade goes, there are so many ways I could respond that I’m a little at a loss at where to start. Perhaps with: as good a writer as you may be, HO, you’re an awful reader. You title your rant, “An Answer to Some of Dave’s Questions About Subjectivity and the Function of Critics.” I wrote exactly one sentence in my post that could be construed as a question, which was “how exactly [is] a critic…supposed to review a play “for what it is,” in other words, in some completely objective manner.” In all your extended spewing, you didn’t come close to answering that question.
What you essentially did was take the opportunity to randomly and anonymously bash all of Richmond’s critics while taking broad swipes at the local artistic community as well. Bravo! Quite a feat, that!
I would give some credence to some of your comments if they didn’t start from a foundation that undermines everything that follows. You say, “I have seen exactly zero truly critical reviews written with the aesthetic and mastery that is the standard for critique. Very loosely defined, a critic is someone who writes for a publication or blog about what they see.”
By applying some ridiculous standard that nullifies everything I’ve ever written, you have lost my interest in anything you have to say. If I am not a critic by your standards, why should any supposed insight you have about critics apply to me? And furthermore, by misunderstanding the basic idea of a “strictly-defined” critic – that is, someone who is a paid journalist doing a job for their employer, who strictly-speaking only has to answer to that employer and not every idiot with grandiose ideas – your succeeding assertions are essentially worthless. Thanks for playing, though, and as strong as your opinions are, I hope you take a step out from behind your cowardly anonymity and try being a critic yourself some day. I’m sure my fellows in the RTCC could gain a lot of backbone under your guidance.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Subjectivity
No matter how many raves critics write, they rarely make everyone happy. When they pan something people like, they get called nasty names. When they laud a show someone else doesn’t like, they get dismissed as toadies for the theater company. If they praise something but do it in a way that someone doesn’t like, they still get flack.
I’m not “boo hoo-ing” here: This is the nature of the game, it has been the nature of the game for centuries and anyone who has written anything evaluative or critical for mass consumption should not be surprised by it at all. In the space of just two responses to my post on Tuesday, critics in Richmond were categorized as “not knowing how to write a proper review,” were accused of not having any idea why they like a production, and were called “unethical.” After writing reviews for 13 years, none of this surprises me anymore. The artist / critic interaction is fraught with tension so emotions run high. That’s part of what makes it interesting.
With that perspective, Mr. Miller’s arguably ill-considered response to Ms. Haubenstock’s review of “Lend Me a Tenor” didn’t surprise me. I know theater artists often have a strong reaction to a review even if it is largely positive. The post he subsequently removed had some very interesting and certainly valid opinions.
However, there was one question in it that surprised me. “Why is it too much to suggest that critics should write informed, OBJECTIVE reviews that evaluate each play…for what it is, not for how it appeals to them personally?”
Let’s be clear: all reviews are subjective. To suggest some reviewers write subjective reviews and others write objective ones is simply not accurate. We are all of us shaped by our histories, our genetics, our gender, our race, our religious beliefs, and any number of other factors. Even when these factors are not obvious in something a critic writes, they are there.
Ms. Haubenstock wrote a review where she stated a bias upfront: she doesn’t generally like farces. She then went on to say how good “Lend Me a Tenor” was. As a critical construct, this kind of review is actually a way to amplify a complimentary review. One way of looking at it is to think “Even someone who doesn’t like farces liked this show; it must be really good.” Of course, that isn’t how everyone would choose to look at it.
But imagine if Ms. Haubenstock thought “Tenor” was wretched and wrote a review ridiculing the unbelievability of the plot, the broadness of the acting, and the infantilism of the jokes. Many people would immediately assume “well, she obviously just doesn’t like farces.” There is a Catch 22 here: State your bias and be lambasted for that. Don’t state your bias and have it assumed anyway.
I’m also curious about how exactly a critic is supposed to review a play “for what it is,” in other words, in some completely objective manner. It seems to me that restricting a review to just the aspects that one can be truly objective about – the plot, the technical elements, the reaction of the audience (perhaps), the ability of the actors to remember and recite their lines – leads to the type of “book report” reviews that also raise people’s ire. Another Catch 22: Write subjectively and get criticized for your opinion. Write “objectively” and get criticized for your lack of opinion.
These are just two of the many paradoxes critics get caught in. A comment below wondered how much “professional theater experience” critics in Richmond had. Well, first off, critics are journalists not theater professionals. But put that aside and you quickly get to another paradox: If a critic is too much a part of the theater world, he or she is clearly biased. If a critic isn’t at all a part of the theater world, then they are ignorant and have no business evaluating it.
I was very lucky this past June to take part in a program with 25 other arts journalists from around the country. As part of this program, one of the editors involved in the program, Michael Phillips, gave a talk about criticism and being a critic. Phillips writes about movies for the Chicago Tribune and had a brief stint on the TV show “At the Movies,” taking over for the ailing Roger Ebert. He started the talk with three main guiding principals for critics:
-- Be brave,
-- Be specific (without specifics, reviews are just assertions without backup), and
-- Screw the ‘o’ word (objectivity). Your goal should be informed subjectivity.
The way I choose to interpret what Mr. Phillips said was: there's no way to remove subjectivity from the reviewing process. So the job of a critic is to temper that subjectivity with as much knowledge and clear critical thinking as possible.
I have my own opinions about the critics currently writing in Richmond and, for the most part, they are pretty high. That’s because I know something about most of them and I believe that they are pretty well informed, as well as generally fair in their evaluations, rigorous in their research, and clear in their writing. They take their job seriously and beyond their exorbitant pay (ha!), they do what they do because they enjoy writing and love theater. And just the number of productions they see every year informs them about the Richmond theater scene to a degree well beyond the average arts consumer.
That doesn’t mean I don’t have my problems with certain reviews that get published (those that lean toward “book reports” are far from my faves, for instance). But the one thing I know about every single review I’ve read here (or anywhere else, for that matter): it is the product of an individual’s subjective evaluation. Ms. Haubenstock put her subjectivity front and center in her “Tenor” review. But even when it isn’t stated so plainly, you can rest assured it is there.
On to less contentious matters: two big openings this weekend, “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” at the Firehouse and “Keep on the Sunny Side” at the Mill. Each is the story of a southern family, though I expect with entirely different issues as their central focus. I can imagine an interesting mash-up of the two: “Keep on the Sunny Side of a Hot Tin Roof?” I think Tennessee Williams set to music would be pretty entertaining.
I’m not “boo hoo-ing” here: This is the nature of the game, it has been the nature of the game for centuries and anyone who has written anything evaluative or critical for mass consumption should not be surprised by it at all. In the space of just two responses to my post on Tuesday, critics in Richmond were categorized as “not knowing how to write a proper review,” were accused of not having any idea why they like a production, and were called “unethical.” After writing reviews for 13 years, none of this surprises me anymore. The artist / critic interaction is fraught with tension so emotions run high. That’s part of what makes it interesting.
With that perspective, Mr. Miller’s arguably ill-considered response to Ms. Haubenstock’s review of “Lend Me a Tenor” didn’t surprise me. I know theater artists often have a strong reaction to a review even if it is largely positive. The post he subsequently removed had some very interesting and certainly valid opinions.
However, there was one question in it that surprised me. “Why is it too much to suggest that critics should write informed, OBJECTIVE reviews that evaluate each play…for what it is, not for how it appeals to them personally?”
Let’s be clear: all reviews are subjective. To suggest some reviewers write subjective reviews and others write objective ones is simply not accurate. We are all of us shaped by our histories, our genetics, our gender, our race, our religious beliefs, and any number of other factors. Even when these factors are not obvious in something a critic writes, they are there.
Ms. Haubenstock wrote a review where she stated a bias upfront: she doesn’t generally like farces. She then went on to say how good “Lend Me a Tenor” was. As a critical construct, this kind of review is actually a way to amplify a complimentary review. One way of looking at it is to think “Even someone who doesn’t like farces liked this show; it must be really good.” Of course, that isn’t how everyone would choose to look at it.
But imagine if Ms. Haubenstock thought “Tenor” was wretched and wrote a review ridiculing the unbelievability of the plot, the broadness of the acting, and the infantilism of the jokes. Many people would immediately assume “well, she obviously just doesn’t like farces.” There is a Catch 22 here: State your bias and be lambasted for that. Don’t state your bias and have it assumed anyway.
I’m also curious about how exactly a critic is supposed to review a play “for what it is,” in other words, in some completely objective manner. It seems to me that restricting a review to just the aspects that one can be truly objective about – the plot, the technical elements, the reaction of the audience (perhaps), the ability of the actors to remember and recite their lines – leads to the type of “book report” reviews that also raise people’s ire. Another Catch 22: Write subjectively and get criticized for your opinion. Write “objectively” and get criticized for your lack of opinion.
These are just two of the many paradoxes critics get caught in. A comment below wondered how much “professional theater experience” critics in Richmond had. Well, first off, critics are journalists not theater professionals. But put that aside and you quickly get to another paradox: If a critic is too much a part of the theater world, he or she is clearly biased. If a critic isn’t at all a part of the theater world, then they are ignorant and have no business evaluating it.
I was very lucky this past June to take part in a program with 25 other arts journalists from around the country. As part of this program, one of the editors involved in the program, Michael Phillips, gave a talk about criticism and being a critic. Phillips writes about movies for the Chicago Tribune and had a brief stint on the TV show “At the Movies,” taking over for the ailing Roger Ebert. He started the talk with three main guiding principals for critics:
-- Be brave,
-- Be specific (without specifics, reviews are just assertions without backup), and
-- Screw the ‘o’ word (objectivity). Your goal should be informed subjectivity.
The way I choose to interpret what Mr. Phillips said was: there's no way to remove subjectivity from the reviewing process. So the job of a critic is to temper that subjectivity with as much knowledge and clear critical thinking as possible.
I have my own opinions about the critics currently writing in Richmond and, for the most part, they are pretty high. That’s because I know something about most of them and I believe that they are pretty well informed, as well as generally fair in their evaluations, rigorous in their research, and clear in their writing. They take their job seriously and beyond their exorbitant pay (ha!), they do what they do because they enjoy writing and love theater. And just the number of productions they see every year informs them about the Richmond theater scene to a degree well beyond the average arts consumer.
That doesn’t mean I don’t have my problems with certain reviews that get published (those that lean toward “book reports” are far from my faves, for instance). But the one thing I know about every single review I’ve read here (or anywhere else, for that matter): it is the product of an individual’s subjective evaluation. Ms. Haubenstock put her subjectivity front and center in her “Tenor” review. But even when it isn’t stated so plainly, you can rest assured it is there.
On to less contentious matters: two big openings this weekend, “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” at the Firehouse and “Keep on the Sunny Side” at the Mill. Each is the story of a southern family, though I expect with entirely different issues as their central focus. I can imagine an interesting mash-up of the two: “Keep on the Sunny Side of a Hot Tin Roof?” I think Tennessee Williams set to music would be pretty entertaining.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Crossing in Cyberspace
At about the same time I was posting my entry below, Mr. Miller at Barksdale was posting a pointed response to Ms. Haubenstock's review. I'd check it out soon because it may end up being one of those posts that don't stay on the blog for long. I have some thoughts about Bruce's comments but it'll be a day or so before I have a chance to process them and they may prove ultimately irrelevant. The mulling over begins...
Lend Me a Corkscrew
While Hurricane Irene and the end of summer combined to knock me off my regular blog posting rhythm, the Barksdale Buzz has been picking up the slack with Mr. Miller posting a number of entries coinciding with the beginning of the new theater season. And then yesterday Barksdale guest blogger Annie Hulcher debuted to much appreciation and anticipation (at least by me). Ms. Hulcher is one member of a delightful coterie of teen theater stars in Richmond, many of who lit up the stage in SPARC’s “Ragtime” this past summer. Beyond her significant talents, she has always impressed me with her quick wit and obvious intelligence (you don’t get into Maggie Walker Governor’s School on good looks alone…) I’m very much looking forward to her fresh and insightful view of the goings-on over at Barksdale / Theatre IV.
Ms. Haubenstock’s review of “Lend Me a Tenor” came out today and she mentions an opening night prop malfunction involving a wine bottle. I make reference to the same incident in the review I filed this weekend that should hit newsstands next week. For those who weren’t there, we are referring to a scene involving opera star Tito Morelli (played by Joe Pabst) trying to open a bottle of wine with the help of Max (Nick Ciavarella). On opening night, Joe and Nick were having trouble getting the cork out of the bottle and, after some effort, ended up stripping it so the cork simply wouldn’t come out at all. At which point, a vaguely confused audience realized without a doubt that the mishap was not scripted.
This set off a mini-maelstrom of improvisation by Mssrs. Pabst and Ciavarella, trying in vain to work around the situation, Nick at one point rushing into the kitchen and offering coffee instead. The ultimate solution involved the actors using the corkscrew as a bludgeon, boring through the cork enough so a piddling stream of wine could finally be shaken out of the pesky bottle.
It was the kind of scene that proves the endless appeal of live theater where you truly don’t know what’s going to happen from one performance to the next. The audience ate it up, hooting and guffawing appreciatively at every effort the actors made to rectify their predicament. It was also one of the supreme tests for a professional actor and both Mr. Pabst and Mr. Ciavarella showed his meddle under pressure. While it was impossible not to concede in their reactions that this was not supposed to be happening, neither one dropped character and their actions were completely consistent with the trajectory of the story. Perhaps my favorite part was when the wine finally started to pour and Pabst said (and I’m paraphrasing as I was laughing too hard to catch it exactly), “That’s a some glass of wine!” which effectively brought the house down.
There are many reasons to recommend “Lend Me a Tenor” – it’s a rollicking farce with a winning cast expertly led through their paces by Scott Wichmann. But opening night provided an extra incentive to see it: in the midst of the madness, you never know what’s going to go awry, and you are certain to be delighted at how the talented professionals on stage will use such moments to generate even more laughs than were originally designed.
Ms. Haubenstock’s review of “Lend Me a Tenor” came out today and she mentions an opening night prop malfunction involving a wine bottle. I make reference to the same incident in the review I filed this weekend that should hit newsstands next week. For those who weren’t there, we are referring to a scene involving opera star Tito Morelli (played by Joe Pabst) trying to open a bottle of wine with the help of Max (Nick Ciavarella). On opening night, Joe and Nick were having trouble getting the cork out of the bottle and, after some effort, ended up stripping it so the cork simply wouldn’t come out at all. At which point, a vaguely confused audience realized without a doubt that the mishap was not scripted.
This set off a mini-maelstrom of improvisation by Mssrs. Pabst and Ciavarella, trying in vain to work around the situation, Nick at one point rushing into the kitchen and offering coffee instead. The ultimate solution involved the actors using the corkscrew as a bludgeon, boring through the cork enough so a piddling stream of wine could finally be shaken out of the pesky bottle.
It was the kind of scene that proves the endless appeal of live theater where you truly don’t know what’s going to happen from one performance to the next. The audience ate it up, hooting and guffawing appreciatively at every effort the actors made to rectify their predicament. It was also one of the supreme tests for a professional actor and both Mr. Pabst and Mr. Ciavarella showed his meddle under pressure. While it was impossible not to concede in their reactions that this was not supposed to be happening, neither one dropped character and their actions were completely consistent with the trajectory of the story. Perhaps my favorite part was when the wine finally started to pour and Pabst said (and I’m paraphrasing as I was laughing too hard to catch it exactly), “That’s a some glass of wine!” which effectively brought the house down.
There are many reasons to recommend “Lend Me a Tenor” – it’s a rollicking farce with a winning cast expertly led through their paces by Scott Wichmann. But opening night provided an extra incentive to see it: in the midst of the madness, you never know what’s going to go awry, and you are certain to be delighted at how the talented professionals on stage will use such moments to generate even more laughs than were originally designed.
Friday, September 09, 2011
And so it begins…
Tonight is opening night for “Lend Me A Tenor,” which is essentially the first show of the new theater season. For a theater critic, it feels like some mix of the first day of spring and the first day of school: All sorts of fresh material, a giddy excitement about new challenges, and a certain comfort about the constants that carry over from year to year. “Tenor” has a cast made up mostly of very familiar faces and it’s being directed by Scott Wichmann, who really arrived as a director (IMHO) with “Take Me Out” two seasons ago. I’m eagerly awaiting the latest product of his leadership and I’m taking some tough little critics as my companions to see if the appeal of the work is cross-generational. It should be fun.
If you want some background on the logistical reasons why “Lend Me A Tenor” is kicking off this season, I’d recommend reading Mr. Miller’s insider’s story posted on the Barksdale Buzz.
As Bruce mentions, also beginning this weekend is the Tennessee Williams festival, a collaborative effort between Firehouse and Triangle Players. As detailed on the great website they’ve constructed just for the event, “A Streetcar Named Desire” will be showing at the Byrd on Saturday. It’s classic Brando, classic Williams, just about as good as it all gets.
And while I hope you are as giddy as I am about the start of the new season, that’s no reason to forget celebrating the previous one. Tickets are moving for the RTCC awards. Information is now on the Barksdale website and advertising will start showing up next week. So get your tickets now before the best ones are taken!
Also, tune in next week for even MORE exciting details about the RTCC awards event... It just keeps getting better and better!
If you want some background on the logistical reasons why “Lend Me A Tenor” is kicking off this season, I’d recommend reading Mr. Miller’s insider’s story posted on the Barksdale Buzz.
As Bruce mentions, also beginning this weekend is the Tennessee Williams festival, a collaborative effort between Firehouse and Triangle Players. As detailed on the great website they’ve constructed just for the event, “A Streetcar Named Desire” will be showing at the Byrd on Saturday. It’s classic Brando, classic Williams, just about as good as it all gets.
And while I hope you are as giddy as I am about the start of the new season, that’s no reason to forget celebrating the previous one. Tickets are moving for the RTCC awards. Information is now on the Barksdale website and advertising will start showing up next week. So get your tickets now before the best ones are taken!
Also, tune in next week for even MORE exciting details about the RTCC awards event... It just keeps getting better and better!
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
On with the show
Style's fall arts issue has a big fat theater section in it, written by Rich Griset and I. The idea was to give as complete an overview of the scene and the companies in it, to re-introduce the live theater options to the Richmond arts-enjoying public at large. In other words, it was a project guaranteed to piss people off in the theater community for any number of reasons. Still, I'm glad we did it and I like the results. Check them out and let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)