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...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Although the title remains on your links on the right, the post is already gone... The title alone -- "If you love 'It's about me' criticism, you may not love this post" -- prompts overwhelming curiosity!!
I read it this morning before it disappeared and ... well, I am not surprised Bruce ultimately pulled it. While I understood the source of his frustration, it was one of those pieces best written and never sent. I am sending Bruce a big hug!
I was having a toddler moment. Balled it up. Threw it away.
How many times has Miller done this? Write a post, and then take it down. Doesn't Barksdale have a PR or Marketing person? Someone who should have a gander at Miller’s posts BEFORE he makes them public? There are many times when Barksdale & Theatre IV and/or Bruce get a bad rap for no valid reason. But then Bruce will turn around and freely offer up fresh ammo to his naysayers with some blog post or public comment. I think most people who read your blog and the Barksdale Buzz would agree that Bruce Miller is an accomplished writer. And if you’ve ever heard him speak (besides the usual curtain speech) you’d have to agree he is an expert orator. But as a leading Theatre administrator in town, he really, really, just needs to shut the hell up sometimes. Not because he is necessarily wrong, but because most often they just exasperate the issue he is trying to address. This was not a bad review, but after reading his post I thought it was.
I read his post this morning before someone at Barksdale must have dropped the hammer on him. He was simply trying to address what he feels like were inappropriate comments by the reviewer of Lend Me A Tenor at the top of her article about not liking the genre of Farce as a whole. But I read the review and thought it was POSSITIVE and GOOD. STYLE just referred to Barksdale in the Theatre Preview edition as “The Biggest Game in Town” and if you ask anyone in town they say Barksdale and Theatre IV repeatedly put up good work, although obviously not every show is golden, there are those that are just ok. Fact is, very few if any are downright BAD. And despite this vibrate and eclectic Theatre Community (and critics that are MORE than fair), Richmond still has its fair share of flat out BAD Theatre.
But I digress. Bruce Miller has a tendency of writing some kind of response to every single review Barksdale and Theatre IV gets. Either “Oh my God, it’s a hit!!” or, heaven forbid, it’s negative, he has to point out how wrong, unfair, or uneducated the critic is. Of course he does this while the whole time saying how much he respects Richmond critics and how tough their job must be. But then we get a post like todays which is the worst…..today was one of those that felt like he is saying “The review is good, but not good ENOUGH!” And those are the ones that make him look bad, and make the Theatre look bad. You can take it down after the fact all you want Mr. Miller, but you still come off as “The biggest game in town” that can be rattled to its core by one positive, but not positive enough, critic. I remember a similar post complaining about a critic that just gave a synopsis but he couldn’t tell if the reviewer liked it or not. Again, if I remember correctly there wasn’t a negative thing said about the production, but the critic didn’t gush all over it enough for his taste. If it’s not mean & negative, just be thankful and move on! Keep your mouth shut and write eloquently about other Theatre matters, or spend your time promoting your productions, which you do sincerely and well. Stop shooting yourself in the foot!!
There was one comment Mr. Miller made in the blog, something to the effect of: "It's the job of (or it is necessary) the company to earn great, positive reviews." Now, because I cannot go back and quote it exactly, I am pulling from my somewhat feeble memory.
This being said, the job of any theater company should be to produce excellent, enjoyable theater. Reviews are one person's opinion. If you are that concerned about the reviews of your show, then you're not placing the correct focus and emphasis on what is truly important. Who cares if a review is negative? Move on. The audiences are not going to stop coming. Despite the talent and gung-ho that Richmond has, it's still small town politics and small town mentality. I think there's an delusion of grandeur that people would like to think Richmond has. Let's not fool ourselves, folks.
Ms. Haubenstock thinks what she thinks, and says what she says. Her editor obviously had no problem with it, or didn't look over it. Most (not all, but most) of the reviewers in Richmond do not know how to write a proper theater review, nor are they allowed enough room to write one, even if they had the ability to write a thorough evaluation. Just produce the theater, do good work on stage, market the shows well, sell those tickets, and be glad it wasn't a pan. With the talent on that stage, the great director at the helm, and the intelligent writing of the script, it would be very difficult to screw up "Lend Me A Tenor." Thankfully, Barksdale has not screwed up anything.
Oh dear lord, here I go! :)
Well, I think we need to cut Bruce a break because the fact of the matter is that he was just voicing his opinion and then quickly realized the backlash: if you don't play the Richmond game of kissing butt and being a good Richmond cordial gentleman, you get burned. In NYC this would not have really raised any alarm.
It's important to point out something very VERY important here. The so-called self-proclaimed Richmond "Critics"
should really be considered "Reviewers" at most. Sorry, Dave. Most, if not all reviews in town pretty much sound like a high school book report. I sometimes ponder what significant professional theatre background any of the book reporters in town have? Seriously! Most (and the keyword is most) reviewers in town will say they like this or didn't like that but generally have no idea why, and it's very obvious. I was surprised to see Susan mention one negative thing as she usually likes anything and everything, or at least is always very gentle. And why do we have so many reviewers in town? It's really silly.
This is a town with a "that'll do" attitude...where 40yo's play 20, a certain Barksdale director usually just hires High School buddies and the shows' blocking looks a lot like YouTube clips from the Bway productions, TOS gets nominated for best musical (HUH?) maybe because the reviewers felt in on the jokes, and Waiting for Godot and Devil Boys didn't get squat (both better than most shows of the season but prob flew right over the heads of most reviewers) ... also, if you don't understand the show, as some reviewers confessed, DON'T REVIEW IT. It is unethical.
We should be wise to not take any of this little town silliness seriously. If you want to see real regional theatre done well, take a 2 hour drive up to Arlington and DC!
I was right along with you Sondheim until Godot and Devil Boys. Really? If you seriously think those were the best shows of the season you have no business criticizing anything.
Anonymous: just one old gals opinion here but if you don't understand something, don't review it!
If a critic doesn't understand it, would an audience member understand it any more? Isn't that a productions task? And why shouldn't they express whatever their experience was? Isn't that why we turn to them?
Here's a thought: Mr. Miller represents both Theatre IV and Barksdale Theatre. As long as he is employed as the Artistic Director of those theatres, he does not have his own opinions. Everything he says or does reflects upon Barksdale and Theatre IV, however bad or good.
Posting his opinion to the company's blog, especially "a toddler moment," is simply unprofessional and showing bad management skills.
And yet, sadly, we'll be having this same discussion about the same topic in six months. Some people never learn.
How do you know in advance that you won't understand it so you can ask to have someone else review it? What if you don't realize till you've seen it that you don't understand it? You can't just call the editor and say, "Hey, I won't be filing a review tonight because I didn't understand the show." Newspapers/magazines/radio stations/websites don't work that way.
Last Anonymous: Yes an audience member who understands basic existentialistic concepts could very well know more than most of the "critics" who attempted a review of Godot. I think the "production task" stood on its own, unless you want to doubt the ability of the fantastic well trained and experienced director and cast or Beckett? And no, I don't know many people who turn to critics to hear that they did not understand what they saw.
It's instructive to read that I "write some kind of response to every review Theatre IV and Barksdale get." Perception can frustrate. In reality, I've written two and only two blog posts that were critical of critics. They both seemed like good and helpful ideas at the time. Intentionally, neither was written in response to a negative review. The first post responded to Julinda's mixed to nice review of "Souvenir," and asked critics to consider writing reviews that consisted of more than just a plot summary. The second post responded to Susie's mixed to nice review of "Lend Me a Tenor," and asked critics to consider writing reviews that were objective rather than subjective. I have never written, nor have I ever felt, that any critic was "wrong, unfair, or uneducated." I have never written anything that objected to or criticized a negative review. I know this is one of those times that I should "shut the hell up." But my kids read this stuff, and it will be here forever.
That was a damn awful showing of Godot. Put all the credentials you want in a bio but if the show is not good it is not good. And that brings us back to Do. No, that brings us back to subjective. There it is.
Well done with your subsequent post, Dave. Good points.
I'm commenting here because I really do think that most Richmond Theatre critics are hampered by space considerations by their respective publications.
Mr. Porter, on WCVE, has the most space, and his reviews, as a result, seem generally most fleshed out to me.
I also think that as a theatre going member of the public, I have seen enough shows and read enough reviews to educate myself over time - heck - years - how did that happen - as to which critics' opinions I tend to agree with and those I don't, or just dismiss.
See, that's on me, not the critic, who offers up their own educated opinion. I don't question any critic's credentials, I just judge for myself how I line up with them or not and how much a review might or might not influence my decision to see a show.
Ultimately, critics provide publicity, and bad publicity is better than no publicity, so embrace them, dear theatre community members. Also, take responsibility and provide your own marketing campaigns through social media or what have you - some local companies are better at this than others.
Post a Comment