Last night Jenn was on her way home from rehearsal. She was hungry so she got some Jewel sushi, well Californina rolls, because she can't eat real (uncooked) sushi for a while. She sat down on the bench waiting for the bus and ate her food. Up walks Kris Vire, coming from a show at Timeline (I think that's what Jenn told me.) So she tried to explain why she's sitting there at 9:30 at night sitting at a bus stop eating store-bought faux sushi. She's hungry all the time lately. Eating for two again. (Yeay)
(I'm a bit late getting to this, when times get busy blogging, out of necessity, goes off to the side)
For as big of a city as Chicago is, I haven't gone a day in as long as I can remember without running into someone I know. This is one of the reasons I find it silly to hate critics for the sake of being critics. Most of them are good people, (as with any group of people there will be the token ass) and you never know when you might run into someone you know. A critic, someone who's show you've just seen, someone who's about to open up something.
Rarely do we allow ourselves to be honest about what we see and what we read. I think theatre suffers for it. When a show is great most people have no problem shouting it from the rooftops as it were. We do a horrible job talking about others work if it is sub-par. Many do an even worse job receiving any negative reaction to our work. So some will never ever read reviews.
For the record, most critics I don't see as the other, but as a peer. Some will disagree and that is fine. I see it in a similar fashion as an actor and a lighting designer. They do different things, but have a similar goal. Artist or critic, some are talented some are hacks, individual abilities and tastes vary. But what happens when artist and critic are one?
A few weeks ago Don posted a review of The Skriker. The director lashed out in the comments. I haven't seen it yet so I can't comment on the show itself. The Brendan Fraiser bit was a tad offsides, but so was her response.
The fact is no matter how hard we try, sometimes things don't work out as well as we'd hope. Such is theatre, such is life. Failure is acceptable if we learn from it. Sometimes we learn the most by putting our heart and should into something that doesn't quite go as well as we'd have hoped.
But how does one improve as an artist if we're only accepting of the positive feedback. How do we as artists give feedback when a show isn't working without giving offense? How do we receive feedback without taking offense?
We always talk, and hear talk about furthering the art form, but if we can't be honest about our work alongside our peers (artist and critic) how is anything furthered? Without that, any "power wielded" by critics is really furthered just by our failure to honestly assess our work among our peers.
Update: Corrected the spelling of The Skriker, and few other typos.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I also choked on a piece of rice just as I was saying hello... how embarrassing!- The Wife
Until you've seen the show, Tony, you can't really make a judgment call. And, what makes Mr. Hall such an expert on acting techniques? How is he more of an authority on my actors and our acting process than myself or my assistant director? Seriously, I'd love to know? I didn't invite Don to the show for the fact that I was looking forward to him ripping on actors he doesn't know and could potentially audition someday.
Don was more than welcome to speak to me, his peer, about my directing, director to director but, I'm sorry ... he crossed over the line with criticizing my actors. He didn't do it well and he didn't do it in a way that they could learn from. What they have learned is that a person they don't know who is a director and an actor, decided to give them ridiculous, derogatory feedback that they can't do anything with. You can have opinions about me fighting back in defense for my team, but tell me one good, critical thing that I could actually go back to my actors with from what Don wrote and we'll have a different conversation. And you should see the show first before spouting opinion. If I had wanted "acting notes" on my actors, I would have invited Don into the rehearsal process. But, I was an actor first, have taught acting on the college level and have taught acting to school kids ... sorry, but I didn't find much in his "notes" that worked for me and our "process". And don't get me started on his "tablework" comment.
So, I choose not to take the notes because there wasn't any merit in them. We're equals. He's not my teacher. And, I don't see the other critical response echoing his opinions. Opinions are like assholes, you know. =)
You have a free ticket waiting for you and we have one final weekend (we close on Saturday). You're more than welcome to come and give me your honest feedback to both me and the actors ... face to face, please, if we're "peers".
Rebecca
(It's spelled "The Skriker".)
And the show's NOT a fucking failure! Don Hall isn't the end all be all of theatre critique! He's a Storefront Director like you and me! Our shows have been close to selling out multiple times and we're quite proud of the damn show! Simple as that!
Christ on a crutch.
Offsides, yes, but ... what's this blog about, man? You haven't even seen the damn show, but you're taking swipes in defense of Don?
RZ
Rebecca, if opinions are like assholes, why the venom?
For the record I didn't call your show a failure. From what I can tell, nor die Don. I said some shows fail from time to time.
You're far from the only person to not take negative comments about your work well. You are the one of the most vocal when you disagree with someone's unfavorable view.
I'm hoping to see the show, but haven't been able to yet because of rehearsals and lack of a sitter.
"Don Hall isn't the end all be all of theatre critique! He's a Storefront Director like you and me!" I'd agree, but if that's the case, once again, why the venom?
Because I'm pregnant and have a tendency to jump to "Mama Bear" mode when my actors are taken to task unfairly?
It's all in the wording, really ... some people are good at giving criticisms that have worked for us and we've been able to incorporate into future shows ... some decide to push it into "snarky, personal" land and that what gets me going. Especially when I had or have respect for the person doing it and think that they would come into something fairly and not compare my lead actor to Brendan Frasier. Am I biased and quick to pick up verbal arms when it comes to my theatre company? Hells yes. I hope you are, too.
But ... in blogland ... everyone seems pretty ripe and quick to jump on everybody else if the door opens just write (see Theatre Ideas today, which I know you have). I'm quick to the venom on this stuff because I have a hard time seeing the motivations where it comes from ... again, tell me what Don said about the lead actors, that I could actually quote to those actors without appearing to be an asshole who doesn't know how to talk to an actor with respect? Imagine walking back into the dressing room before Henry IV and telling the actor playing Henry that his performance was "forgettable", not even as good as "Brendan Frasier" or he was looking like a "high school student trying to lie for the first time" and was totally "unconvincing." I don't think you would if you care about the morale and have any pride for your show.
When I'm bit and it stings a bit, I bite back.
"But, it stings because it must be true!" No, not necessarily. It stings because I think and assumed that the person doing it should have enough human decency and tact should know better, especially if he's looking to form a coalition of theatre activists.
Do unto others as you would have done to you. If you dish it snarkily and can't take the snark back, well ... I dunno what to tell ya.
RZ
Your "failure" statement was right after your mention of our show, so that's how it came across and I read it as you were making an example of our show, which, to all artists involved, we're having an amazing time doing. We won't be doing a show for a while after the baby is born and I've had an awesome experience, which I can't say about all the show's we've produced.
RZ
I'll play middle man. I have seen the show, Tony, and for the most part I agree with Don. I may agree that his tone isn't particularly helpful in this instance, but Don's tone is Don's tone -- that shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone on team Hall or team Zelda.
Going back and reading Don's review after seeing the show, I find his assessment of the acting more or less spot on, particularly in the case of Kelly Yanoco, who simply didn't cut it at all. Lisa Wilson was unable to bring the Skriker-speak to life, I would agree, but as far as the "bad farce" characterizations, I would lay that upon Rebecca. It didn't sit well with me, either, but it seemed to be a directorial choice, or at least a choice a director should/could have guided more effectively.
I also agree that the technical aspect of the show was fantastic. The sound design was stellar (aside from the Tori Amos post-show, which totally broke the mood) and the costume and mask work on the faeries as well as the spanish moss and trellis scenic minimalism set the scene instantly (moreso than a couple of the faeries).
The largest problem I had was with the pacing. The first five to ten seconds of the show proper were some of the most unsettling, frightening theatre I've seen (big props to lighting for that). After that, everything seemed to go on a third too long, until the final scene, which was dropped on us like a bag of bricks (for the record, I also loved the final scene). The big problem here wasn't primarily the length, but the lack of dynamics (partially due to performances) and a number of deadweight short interludes to cover for quickchanges.
To sum up: I may not lean towards the invective that Don does, but I wouldn't call his assessment off-base at all.
Rebecca:
The one part I will agree with you on is Don's tablework comment. Because if you have a show that you feel is succeeding what you were attempting, neither Don nor myself should cause you to want to or have wanted to change anything.
That said, what makes us an authority? We were in the audience. And I would assume that would be enough. If Don had raved about how good the performances were, would you have questioned his authority? We are forming an opinion of the show -- our own opinion -- and that is all you can truly ask of an audience: to decide for themselves.
My question is why you felt the need to derive something to tell your actors from what Don said. If you had in any way agreed with Don's assessment, it would have been an opportunity to turn a negative into some direction. But you didn't agree with Don's assessment. You feel your actors are doing a fine job. Fair enough. Why not just tell them that Don Hall is an Angry White Guy that, in this case, doesn't know what he's talking about?
You're right, Rebecca: we're all equals. But I think that works against your railing in this case. Don, as an equal, has expressed an opinion of your show. Treat him like an equal and allow him to have an opinion without expecting it to come with 'notes'. Treat him like an equal and ignore him, if that's what it means. Or a curt "Thanks for your input, Don, but I think you're out and out wrong this time." However, saying his opinion has no merit is not treating him like an equal.
If you didn't invite him to the show to form his own thoughts, why did you invite him?
Again, I'm not trying to tear you or your cast and crew down, Rebecca. I didn't particularly enjoy this production. So be it. I'm just one guy. If you feel what is on stage is what you wanted to see on stage, that's all that should matter to you, right?
Eh ... I've written a couple of things in response, but I'm just going to stop. Your feedback was constructive and coming from an objective place, P. Rekk, so whether you liked the show or not, that's fine. Your pacing comment is something that's useful and practical in walking away with.
I think this goes into something bigger that is reflected over on Scott's blog right now. How much poking and prodding of each other can we continue to do before people just stop wanting to play? Have we turned constructive or deconstructive? Is the Chicago crew filled with bullies who jump to verbal guns too quickly? I ask this of myself, too, because I get my heart pumping with adrenaline when I start getting into it on comments and blogs. Bob called himself an "addict" for returning to the fight .... the World Wide Web isn't bringing people together harmoniously ... it's like we're a bunch of aggressive chimpanzees in a cage. After a while, we'll start ripping each other to shreds. Why? Why are we all fighting about the same bone with that little bit of meat on it?
Anyway ... it's a different subject, yes, but I'm not really into defending the show against peeps anymore and shouldn't have written in today. Don and I continued our conversation privately and arrived at an understanding.
Because we're taking a bit of a break to ready ourselves for the baby, I might write a final blog excusing myself from the day-to-day frays and why. Do we do this because the day jobs are so dull and this gives us a spark? Should we involve ourselves with more activities provoking our brains externally than this constant online debating and masturbating?
I don't know the answer, but it seems like we've gone a danker route all around than I'm comfortable exploring on the creative level right now.
RZ
I think the absolute CRUX of the argument is not necessarily Don's opinion, or even the tone and wording he used.
We always talk about going to see a friends show, and perhaps we didn't care for it, but we love our friend and don't want to hurt them, especially on opening night. SO "What did you think?" is usually answered with a "Great job" or something equally as benign.
Rebecca says she asked Don how he felt in the lobby, and that she got some "good job"-esque responses, only to get the full monty on his blog the next day.
Don stood up for himself saying he mentioned the things he liked (to her face that night, as well as in the review), and he went outside for a smoke and ended up leaving shortly after that.
No matter who said what, these are 2 artistic souls who are going to feel passionate about their opinions no matter what.
I'm not looking to "pick a side" on this arghument by any means, since I've been on both sides. (Don simply skewered a show that I had produced the SHIT out of http://donhall.blogspot.com/2007/04/review-pasts-present.html) But I knew that utimately it was his opinion - much like the critics. I didn't agree with his opinion, but I knew it was his to have.
But - I'll admit, I had some crafty responses written out about 4 times, and ended up not commenting.
Rebecca, I am out of town this weekend, so will not be able to see "Skriker" - my apologies.
The mixture of things that have been said (both the good AND the bad have completely intrigued me.
Have a great closing!
And Tony - congrats to you and Jenn on "Mini-Adams #2". I wish the best for the both of you.
I agree with the assessment of critic as peer rather than 'other.' Some critics used to be artists (or still *are* artists, just in a way that isn't too conflict-of-interest-laden). I think the best critics of a work are the ones that have at least a little experience artmaking themselves- for one thing, it makes them more sensitive to just how difficult it is to make art and just how much blood, sweat and/or other bodily fluids go into even a pretty mediocre product. I speak from experience- I'm an actor/director/writer/whatever in Chicago at present, but for a year or two I also did theatrical criticism. In the end I decided it wasn't for me, but I also feel like my insight into the creative process made me a better critic (though perhaps some who've read my reviews would disagree...) But one thing I always tried to do was be honest and fair- even when I had to pan something I tried to give fair credit to the things that worked, and offered contructive criticism where possible. The only times I ever found myself becoming openly contemptuous of a piece I'd seen (and this remains true as merely an audience member today) is when I feel like laziness and sloppiness are the sources of a show's mediocrity. I'd rather see something boldly attempted that fails extravagantly than something slipshod- the latter really turns me nasty. The former I can still enjoy. If I perceive what the goal was and I feel like you honestly were striving hard to get there, I can appreciate the piece on that level even if it winds up not really working- so I guess, yes, I do give A's or at least B-pluses for effort. I would be irked if anyone decided to hate my guts after I gave them a bad review but was very clear about why I didn't like it, how it could be improved in my opinion and what *did* work well. The couple of times when (from my point of view) laziness and sloppiness were causing the awfulness and I got a tad venomous and/or contemptuous- people on the receiving end of those reviews I think have a legitimate beef with me. It's just how I feel.
Speaking of being on the receiving end- like I said I act and direct now, so I've had the shoe on the other foot as well. I think the important thing in any criticism is first to consider the spirit in which it's given and the source. If I consider the person criticizing my piece to generally know what they're talking about and to mean well most of the time, I at least have to consider the possibility that they might be right about whatever they're finding fault with. That doesn't obligate me as an artist to change one single jot of my work, or to do anything different in the future- criticism is just one additional possible source for artistic growth, that like all avenues of opportunity work for some people and not for others.
RZ-
First, I am NOT trying to start a coalition of theater activists. In August, I'll be hosting a gathering of Off-Loop non-Equity theater people for the purpose of creating a document. That's it. If you don't want to come, fine.
Second, while my vitriolic tone sometimes undermines the constructive bits in my reviews, the constructive is in there.
"Wilson, who plays the most demanding role in the play, fails to competently communicate through the bizarre language games Churchill has provided her character and gives every word and phrase, regardless of it's import in the underlying meaning, the same weight until her wonderfully written monologues become incomprehensible noise"
Easily fixable if comprehension is what you're after. And I didn't care at all for the broad characterizations of her "other selves" and compared it to another bad acting moment in a mediocre film.
Third, the only thing that makes me an expert on my own experience with your show is that I paid $20.00 to see it. I saw a show last night that I was comped to and was in previews and I'm not going to write about it (I actually liked it very much) because I didn't pay to see it.
As I told you, you're a great visual director but I believe that you get so caught up in the social aspects of the theater "family" (probably not helped by the baby hormones right now) that you aren't a particularly good director of actors. Your husband, on the other hand, is an excellent textual technician. Do a show where he focuses on the actors' interpretation of the script and you direct the look of the show and it might very well be fantastic on all levels.
Now go bitch some more about "bullies" on the internet and how unfairly you were treated and ignore my opinion. It is, after all, just that.
"Third, the only thing that makes me an expert on my own experience with your show is that I paid $20.00 to see it. I saw a show last night that I was comped to and was in previews and I'm not going to write about it (I actually liked it very much) because I didn't pay to see it."
Right ... and I comped you like I comped all the bloggers on our blog, but you insisted on paying. What about that, friend-o?
RZ
Here's the deal.
The purpose of comping bloggers is to get something written up about the show. Otherwise just comp "friends" or something.
My personal policy (in most cases) is that if I'm comped, I haven't really earned the "right to write." So I paid based on the assumption that the invitation to bloggers was an interest in having me write something.
As I just emailed you - had you asked me to not write about it, I wouldn't have.
Well, just to set our record straight here after emailing Don about it ... that wasn't my purpose in inviting the bloggers listed on our blog. I have been excited about the idea of community that we've been building in the blogosphere and I wanted to meet people in person while inviting them to see our work. I absolutely wasn't looking for a write-up. I was being sociable as I've been accused of being by some. =) Again, Don, I've misread our blogging/theatre relationship and did consider you a friend. And, honestly, Don received triple comps because 1. He was on the Blog List. 2. He was in Bob's show and Bob comp'd out crew, so I wanted to return the favor. 3. I consider Don a friend of mine and the company.
RZ
RZ -
If I invite you over to my house and make you a meal and you think it's shit, does that mean you're no longer a friend?
I have had many a meal that wasn't to my satisfaction served up by friends, but it wasn't within me to tell them that I thought what they did was shit because, well, they're my friends and I was glad to be there enjoying their company and breaking bread with them - even if the bread wasn't my thing. I've been told my efforts, motivations and ideas are shit by many a person, including yourself via email, and I choose not to make others feel like that because it makes me feel ...are you ready for it? ... shitty. Make of that what you'd like. I am appreciative of their efforts and that they thought enough of my company to invite me to dinner in the first place. Choosing to criticize their efforts just seems, to me, unmannerly and ungracious and, friends come and go so quickly, I'd like to keep the relationship going in as much positivity as possible.
RZ
That's good to know, RZ -- honestly.
But personally, that's the exact reason I hate asking casual friends for feedback. When it comes to my art, the last thing I want is positivity for the sake of good manners. I can't stand it. I want to know if what I'm doing is any good or not, and more importantly, if it's working or not. I can't discern anything from niceties. And while I may not always be able to read what's beneath it, a nicety is as transparent as the day is long.
Well ... it might have to do with our process, too. GreyZelda's very collaborative and we work closely with our assistant directors, designers, actors, etc and, behind the closed doors of rehearsal do a lot of picking and tweaking and often invite close, former collaborators in to give us feedback, if we're looking for it.
When we're ready to put a show up, most of the time, it is what it is until next time, if there is a next time. When we're working on something more original, like an adaptation or an original work, we're all about feedback throughout. In the case of the Skriker, I directed it in 1998 and received the same sort of polarized opinions ... some loved it, some hated it and some people came to talk with me six months after the fact because the play wouldn't leave them for whatever reason. So, I decided that I should probably hang out with my own thoughts on the show for the next 10 years and see what I came up with. It was this.
And, I said that I didn't care about the feedback, negative or positive, on this one and I seem to have not listened to myself very well. Which is surely something for me to reflect on in our hiatus after the show closes.
RZ
Oh! and that's the thing ... I haven't asked anybody directly for feedback, including Don, for this show. People certainly feel compelled to give it, which is fine, but I'm not looking for it this time around.
And, yes ... I should have put a muzzle on myself and not responded to Don's blog because it opened up a can of worms that I wasn't interested in swimming around in, but ... here I am anyway. Mmmm. Worms.
RZ
The dinner metaphor doesn't relate to opening night unless I were opening a restaurant in my house.
I defend Don's right to say whatever he'll say, but I'll also say the reasons for Greyzelda inviting other bloggers to show as well as Don's rules for who gets reviewed werent as explicitly stated when we all sat down on opening night.
This does seriously complicate things when we talk about how and what we share with each other though. It is always better when expectations are clear. Hopefully both Don's "right to write" policy and RZ's blogger comp policy are now understood.
I will add that I do eventually want to receive an honest assessment from those close to me about my work. But, that doesn't mean I want to hear negative criticism on opening night.
This idea that RZ would have welcomed Don's response on opening night, when it seems there is barely enough room on this internets for the both of them, I think it is self deception.
This notion that it would be perfectly fine to tell me all the things I did wrong on opening night just doesnt wash with me.
Emotions run too high on that night.
RZ has called in references to Scott's recent posts as an example of how tough talk can be a bad thing...let me draw an analogy.
If I were invited to the celebratory party for Scott's tribal theater book when it happens, I would smile congratulate him tip back a drink and shut up and give him his moment regardless of what I thought of the content.
Another analogy might be that I might not like the way a soon to be groom treats my cousin...I might tell her, I dont like the way he talks to you. But, I sure as heck aint even clearing my throat when the preacher asks "if anyone has reason why these two should not wed speak now"...
So, I will say to my mind, opening night is most certainly not the time to say anything negative, let the folks have their moment. Later on, maybe...before the show opens...maybe...during the creative process maybe...
So, if we are going to discover a way to analyze each others work, I think that has to be part of the paradigm.
Additionally, all due respect to RZ I have issue with her drawing allusions to her dilemna with Don's review and the manner in which Don, Scott, and I chewed the scenery at theatreideas. Scott has made it very clear he wsnt bullied off or that his departure was a result of anything anyone said to him in a public forum. If people dont like the way Scott, Don, and I spoke to each other then I respectfully disagree. But, these suggestions that we are somehow determental to the blogospherical community or somehow harming others...
A...I disagree
and
B...it has nothing to do with Don's review of The Skriker
-dv
Post a Comment