 |
| (www.theplayhousesa.org) |
Paige Blend as Miss Adelaide (photo: Siggi Ragnar)Putting aside the Runyonisms for the moment, there are two absolute standouts in this large cast, performers with total concentration and the gift of delivering their characters with special grace and style. 
Robert Nauman, Gerardo Vallejo, J.J. Gonzalez (photo: Siggi Ragnar)
Rommel Sulit, Indigo Rael (poster: streetcornerarts.org) |
 |
| by Michael Meigs, Nov 9 |
|
| by Dr. David Glen Robinson, Nov 19 |
 |
| Indigo Rael (poster: Capital T Theatre) |
 |
| Indigo Rael, J. Ben Wolfe (photo: Capital T. Theatre) |
 |
| Michael Meigs (Alison Yin Photography) |
A reflection and colloquium of practitioners on what constitutes a theatre review:
What's in a name? That which we call "review" by any other name would smell as ....
Well, let's not go there.
But let's do circle around the question of what makes a review a review, because it's been on my mind ever since the Chronicle ran a review for the play Men of Tortuga back in December. In it, writer Adam Roberts heaped accolades on Street Corner Arts, which staged the show, for the polished quality of what was its first production. Playwright, director, and actors were all name-checked and their respective skills praised – the program got a shout-out even – but no characters were mentioned, no plot was detailed, and no onstage action described.
Which prompted this remark in our online comments section: "And the play? These 494 words tell us almost nothing about Men of Tortuga other than the fact that Adam Roberts liked it." For commenter Michael Meigs, who runs the invaluable Austin Live Theatre website, the absence of any commentary on the production itself – the narrative, the characters, their portrayal by the actors, the flow of the action, or the drama, which is, after all, what people came to the theatre to see – made it less than satisfying as a review and perhaps less than useful, too. It clearly wasn't the review that Meigs wanted, but does that mean that it wasn't a review?
I'd argue that it was in that the writer offered a personal response to the show he'd seen. Re-viewing his experience (how easy it is to let slip that the act of looking back is the core of this process), what made the biggest impression on Adam was not really the story or how it was told but the way all the diverse elements of the show came together so beautifully for a first-time production. Given the number of new theatre companies that crop up locally every year (usually a dozen), most of them somewhat rough around the edges, a deft debut is newsworthy. So he wrote about that.
That sort of focus on the architecture of the production isn't what most of us are accustomed in a review. We've been weaned on consumer directives – Go!/Don't go! – and shorthand evaluations – thumbs up or down, letter grades, stars (I'm lookin' at you, Chronicle film reviews!) – with judgments rendered on a standard series of production components (script, direction, performances, design, et al.), so that's largely what we've come to expect from reviews. But such re-views provide only a limited view of the artwork that was seen. With, say, a play, they ignore the inspiration for the script, its intent, the reason it was chosen for production, the histories of the producing company and the artists involved, what they're trying to say with the play, and what meaning it may have for our community at this moment in time. All those aspects contribute to why a show is what it is and are worth talking about. Bringing any of them into a discussion of a production in a review expands the reader's sense of that artistic endeavor.
As Elizabeth Cobbe wrote when I invited Chronicle Arts writers to weigh in on the topic: "Certainly there is a consumer-reporting aspect to what we do, but at their best, reviews should themselves be enjoyable to read and worthwhile contributions to a publication. One could write a book report or assign a letter grade, but is that really participating in the larger conversation about arts in the community? What does it take to get a review to that level?"
Jonelle Seitz believes that it takes a lot of work: "A critic has to constantly make decisions about which of his or her experiences might have value to the reader – for example, by providing a context – that warrants taking space away from describing the work itself."
But describing the work isn't necessarily the most important function of the review, Arts Listings Editor Wayne Alan Brenner argues, because it isn't always what the reader wants: "Sometimes, y'know ... a reader – myself, frequently – prefers a general impression. Because he or she doesn't want to be told what the play is about, specifically, or what goes on in it, specifically; because spoilers aren't just spoilers of Weird Plot Twists like in Sixth Sense or The Crying Game; because spoilers are sometimes just having Too Much Goddamned Basic Information That One Would Rather Have Experienced Afresh For Oneself. Of course, if a reviewer is to avoid such a sort of spoiler, if a reviewer is going to give a worthwhile impression, that reviewer had better well do a decent and somehow informative job of it."
The thing is, there are probably as many different ideas of what readers want from reviews as there are readers. So why not make room for them all? The book report and the superlative-laden rave, the subtextual analysis and the historical/political perspective, and the review about the background of the production company. Let's have them all (well, except for the ones with spoilers) in order to place works of art in the largest context possible. That's when our re-views give us full views.
[ALT note: Comments that provided the quotes above appear on-line below Roberts' review as does a response from cast member Rommel Sulit:
I would just like to say, as a member of the cast and production team, that I speak for all of us in saying thank you to both Adam and Michael for taking time to come see the show (and you too, Robert), writing your respective reviews and supporting us. We all long for that moment when a jewel of a production comes one's way and all involved see its potential to be a great experience for everyone, on both sides of the stage. MoT has been such a show, and regardless of manner and form, the responses we've gotten from critics and audience-at-large have left us ecstatic, pushing us to raise the bar with each performance. Two more shows left at this writing, and we're grateful that the house continues to rock, in no small part to the kind words you've all bestowed on us. Such a joy when theatre happens this way, eh? ]
Click to view Robert Faires' article at www.austinchronicle.com . . . .
Edward P. Gallagher, president of the American Scandinavian Foundation, writes to advise that excerpts from the translation by Michael Meigs of Lars Gustafsson's novel The Dean, with action situated in Austin and the Big Bend region, have been selected as the winning entry in the Foundation's 32nd annual Translation Prize.
The judges praised the translation, commenting, "With great confidence and flair this elegant translation conveys the ironic tone of the narrator in Lars Gustafsson's The Dean, capturing perfectly the pretensions and insecurities of the main characters as well as the social context of contemporary academic life."
The Translation Prize includes a $2,000 award, a bronze medallion and the publication of an excerpt from the translation in an upcoming issue of the ASF's journal Scandinavian review.
AustinLiveTheatre.com is currently publishing excerpts from the novel, as authorized by Prof. Gustafsson and his literary agent. Already available: Chapter One and Chapter Two.
For any theatre group without the half-million dollar turnover and permanent staff required by the City to qualify for direct grants, the $120 membership fee to the Alliance for sponsored projects is a pretty good deal. You reach your break-even in this world of 8.25% sales tax by the time that you spend just over $1400 to purchase otherwise taxable materials for your project.
Your contract with the Alliance requires an annual report of your activities as a sponsored project. I've just submitted ALT's report, which you can read here at your leisure. Meanwhile, following good business practice, ALT presents this executive summary:
ALT provides to locally-produced narrative theatre events a number of free services:
Readership fluctuates from day to day and in the course of the week, with 250-400 hits daily at ALTcom and 150-200 at the blog. Monthly total hits are approximately 13,000.
Expenditures for 2010 were about $6225, including $990 in donations to nine non-profit theatre groups and to two schools. ALTcom had zero income in 2010 but received in-kind donations of 27 complimentary theatre tickets.
ALT published 870 articles in 2010.
These included 578 "upcoming" features in 2010 for the greater Austin area, announcing narrative theatre productions within a periphery established by the cities of Killeen, Salado, Georgetown, Smithville, San Marcos, New Braunfels, Wimberley, Lakeway, Cottonwood Shores near Marble Falls, and Leander. ALT provided "upcoming" features for five theatres of interest in San Antonio.
ALT wrote 115 reviews of theatre productions.
Other categories of articles: arts reporting, 87 (including 9 on the controversy concerning criteria for City of Austin grants funded by the hotel and occupancy tax); auditions and opportunities, 34; classes and education,. 22; opinion pieces from elsewhere, 17; reviews from elsewhere, 10; postings at www.playShakespeare.com, 8; books of interest to theatre artists and scholoars, 3; video features not in "upcoming" articles, 3; and the Guide to Austin Theatre (a work in progress).
Approaching its third anniversary of operation, ALT acknowledges that it has reached the performance limits of its structure as a non-commercial single-proprietor service to Austin arts. I am looking for ways to reduce workload or to find additional resources.
FROM THE AUDIENCE
comments prepared by Michael Meigs, AustinLiveTheatre.com
at World Theatre Day observance, March 27, 2010
organized by the Exchange Artists
at the Greater Austin Creative Alliance
Thanks to Susie Gidseg, and to Ken Webster and Robert Faires, who have just spoken.
For this program I represent the audience. My comments are a late addition to the program, which is just fine with me. I was surprised and gratified when the Creative Alliance offered me the chance to speak tonight. I couldn’t resist the opportunity.
The Audience. Normally mute and appreciative, happy to applaud. And now facing the old vaudeville dilemma –how can I follow acts like those?
Received directly:
