Critique of the Week – Runner Up
Colin Mitchell | Feb 01, 2009 | Comments 13 |
Macbeth
by Don Shirley
Los Angeles Theatre Ensemble, recently on a roll with new plays, bombs with an old one. Jonathan Redding’s version of Shakespeare’s shortest tragedy lasts three hours. Macduff’s tank top, in his face-off with period-dressed Macbeth (Alexander Pawlowski), looks especially ridiculous.
Filed Under: Ponderings
About the Author: COLIN MITCHELL: Actor/Writer/Director/Producer/Father, award-winning playwright and screenwriter, Broadway veteran, Marvel comics scribe, Van Morrison disciple, Zen-Catholic, a proud U.S. Army Brat conceived in Scotland and born in Frankfurt, Germany, currently living in Los Angeles and doing his best to piss off as many people as possible.
Mr. Shirley, my name is Alexander Pawlowski, and I play Macbeth in that bomb you recently reviewed. I’m sorry you felt the show was too long, and maybe the pace could have been tightened. I think the show takes its time, allows for the process of thoughts and the movement of the action in a deliberate fashion. But I can see how that might frustrate some theater-goers.
However, to focus on a costuming choice as your biggest gripe seems kind of short-sighted.
First of all, no one in the show is “period-dressed”. I may have a tunic that I wear throughout the show, but I am also wearing a simple henley thermal, thrift-store dress slacks and Stanley workboots. And personally, I think it’s thematically strong for Macduff to fight Macbeth in nothing but a tanktop. Here is a man that has been stripped of EVERYTHING, facing the man who took what was most precious to him. Macbeth in his theoretical armor, with shield and bludgeon; Macduff just a man with a sword and a heart full of righteous vengeance.
But if it looks ridiculous to you, that is your opinion and you, sir, are absolutely entitled to it.
A word to the wise, though. This is a group of young theatre artists, not a one of whom is getting paid a dime, who put together this production for love of the art form itself. The performances that have been painstakingly constructed over hours of rehearsal time, I think, deserve some mention in your little destructive, dismissive blurb.
And yes, I realize this is leaving me wide open for some scathing criticism, but I would rather be ripped to shreds as an actor, to have every choice of objective and nuance of line reading called into question than to have audiences driven away by a critic who found the play too long or who experienced a moment of derisive laughter from single costume piece.
Thanks for your time.
And thank you to Bitter Lemons for this forum in which to (hopefully) engage in some real dialogue about the theater.
-Alexander Pawlowski
You’re welcome, Alex.
Over to you, Don.
Don?
Sorry, but I don’t have the time to offer longer, more detailed reviews here on Bitter Lemons. Mr. Pawlowski, if you missed my last posting here, a comment in response to “Capsule Reviews” on Jan. 29, please read it. It explains why I sometimes write such short blurbs.
Here’s an additional point — the more shows I see in any given week, the shorter the print blurbs, because I’m stuffing them into the same space regardless of how many shows I see. This past week, I saw eight shows from Wednesday through Sunday. And for the first time, I relegated two of the new reviews to online-only status, because there was no room for them in the newspaper. I picked two shows that are already so well-known (Phantom of the Opera, The Producers) or so geographically far from most of the readers (The Producers) that I felt that it was less important to alert L.A. readers to them. Maybe I’ll do more of that in the future.
Re the final Macduff costume — it’s interesting to hear the production’s rationale for that choice. But none of that was apparent in the theater, within the context of a costume design that had been fairly conventional until that moment. The tank top struck me as a glaring distraction from the play’s climactic scene.
Still, the excessive running time was, by far, my “biggest gripe,” which is why I mentioned it first.
No one’s asking you to offer a review here at Bitter Lemons, Don. I simply gather what’s already been presented to the public. So not sure what you mean by that comment? You did write that three line review for Macbeth, right?
I’m simply challenging the idea that these capsule reviews are productive or helpful. It’s great that you’re seeing so much theatre, but how does that help the LA Theatre community at large when you offer such short shrift for certain productions?
As I said, you write excellent reviews when you actually WRITE them and I always appreciate your commentary in the Beat, but I just don’t see the benefit for these capsule reviews.
And as for the play in question, I will defer to Mr. Pawlowski and let him respond.
I’m not sure what you mean by “help the L.A. theater community at large.” I’m writing for a general-interest weekly, whose readers include people who aren’t part of that “community” but who might be interested in going to the theater.
If I were in their shoes, I would appreciate one web page (Currently Playing at lacitybeat.com, for example) where I could find many short reviews of current productions from a wide spectrum of genres, in a variety of different neighborhoods. I would not be nearly as interested in a page with fewer reviews at longer length, which go into details about every component of a production that I haven’t even seen yet. How would fewer reviews help this proverbial general-interest reader — or even the theater community “at large”?
I can certainly understand why theater practitioners might prefer longer reviews, especially of their own shows or those of their friends. I would refer them to BackStage, among others. In my short CityBeat reviews, I am not trying to be a dramaturge, nor a director who gives “notes” after the run-through. I’m simply trying to convey the highlights and lowlights of my own reactions to what I see. And the number of shows that I see gives more credibility to my standards.
The best way I can help the L.A. theater community, beyond whatever I have to say in my longer commentaries, is that I might induce some of these general-interest readers to go to a theatrical event that sounds interesting to them — and yes, I might sometimes induce them to avoid certain shows that could actually sour them on the theatergoing experience.
An enthusiastic blurb that’s very, very short (my tiny review of “The Dining Room” this week, for example) might accomplish the task of inducing someone to see it more effectively than a review that takes longer to read. Certainly theater marketers and publicists, who run even shorter blurbs than mine in their ads, understand this. Bitter Lemons, which boils reviews down to “bitter” or “sweet,” even when they might more accurately be called “mixed,” apparently also understands the role that short blurbs can play.
First of all, Don, you are confusing this Bitter Lemons site with an actual theatre review site. Granted on occasion I will write a review, but that is not the main purpose of this site. I am gathering ALL of the reviews for particular shows in one place, offering my best judgment and creating an aggregate overall percentage of how well the show was reviewed.
The blurbs are simply there to give an example of the review and if you’ll notice I offer the opportunity to click over and read the entire review. However, with your reviews that’s rarely the case as they are so short I can just offer them in their entirety.
So I think it’s important that you understand that we are not doing the same thing. You are a critic. That’s your profession. It’s not mine. You have a certain responsibility, at least in my opinion, to afford the shows you see a certain respect which involves giving your reviews more thought. I’m not asking for a theatrical treatise on each review, but you can do better.
And finally, I’m sorry, Don, but this comment, “And the number of shows that I see gives more credibility to my standards” is just a ridiculous statement. If I didn’t know anything about baseball and went and saw 162 games last year that doesn’t raise my standards as a baseball critic. It might raise my standards as a baseball fan and certainly I’d gain some knowledge about the game just through saturation – but what raises your standards is the quality of your reviews, not the quantity.
I’m sorry you fail to see this. But as always, I appreciate you continuing the dialogue and I wish others would get involved and we could both see how that pesky “LA theatre community at large” really feels about it.
What jumped out at me about this conversation is Don Shirley’s statement, “I’m not sure what you mean by ‘help the L.A. theater community at large.’” Isn’t this part of the problem and why this site was started in the first place, the idea that the critic thinks that they are not a part of the theatre community and do not see a part of their role as helping to improve that community? To say that you are merely writing for a general interest paper and that your responsibility is more focused on the non-theatre going public is a tragic oversight. This is what has lead so many critics in Los Angeles to insulate themselves from the theatre community and write from some disconnected place that in the end serves no one.
I also would like to challenge the notion that seeing more plays during the week somehow improves ANYTHING as a critic. How does it improve the writing to have less time to write when you are going to more productions, straining the limited energy and resources you already have? Perhaps you could cut out attending one heavily-funded rental show at the Pantages or a heavily-advertised Geffen production that is already pretty safe in the consciousness of theatre goers and non-theatre goers alike.
I don’t place the blame on your shoulders Mr. Shirley because many are of the opinion that any publicity is good publicity and would kill to have ANYONE take the time to write even a negative “capsule”. It is obvious you love theatre and that this is not a full-time gig and I assume you are paid peanuts and breadsticks. But YOU ARE an important part of the theatre community, often the one lone voice of validity that a production even existed. Unless a production is mean-spirited, racist, homophobic, mysoginistic, or a true pile of crap, three sentences of comment should be tempered with balance, perhaps one good thing about the production, one thing that did not fulfill its objective (and you should know what this objective is ahead of time), and what would improve the overall production.
You are not just a bystander Mr. Shirley. You are a necessary and relevent part of the equation. And it isn’t your job to steer people away from a potential “lousy” theatre-going experience. Your job is to give them enough balanced information to let them decide for themselves. You are not a trafiic cop. You are the map!
Josh Galitsky
www.sacredactor.com
Thank you, Josh. I couldn’t agree more. And for some reason your comment initially went to spam. I saved it, Thank God, but check and see if you’re registered on the site so we don’t lose your excellent input.
This back-and-forth is kinda entertaining, but I imagine that by this late point in the string, most readers will have dropped out — just as they might when confronted with a long theater review as opposed to a short one. (Also, by the way, this string doesn’t pop up when I look at the February archives — I had to do a search to find it).
So I’ll try to keep this short — you know me. You guys seem to believe that a critic should write ONLY for the theater community. If the editors of most general-interest publications ever suspected that their critics had adopted this policy, the number of theater critic positions would be diminishing faster than it is. Editors have the pesky idea that we also ought to write for the much larger audience of people who aren’t in the community but who might be inclined to attend that community’s productions from time to time.
Also, would I find a baseball columnist more credible if he or she had attended 162 games, while another had attended only 80 or 40 or 12 in the same time period.? Duh…yes. Especially if the 162 games involved many different teams. That wouldn’t necessarily make the 162-gamer a great columnist; other skills also come into play. But I certainly think that such a person would have a much more informed idea on the idea on the difference between a great (“sweet”) game and a lousy (“bitter”) game, as well as all the gradations in between those two poles (???).
Yes, I’m well aware that Bitter Lemons is not (primarily) a theater review site. I was simply pointing out that you, too, employ the principle of condensing opinions into something a little easier to read.
Actually, Don, this post is the most actively viewed one on the site. So…lead on, MacDuff!
Your point is well taken about your obligations to your publication. They want people to read their magazine so they can show advertisers they are worth the money for advertising. Hence, anything the editors due, including theatre editor/critic, should be focused on that shared goal. So what you say makes sense. And you certainly make the effort when you can to speak to the larger community, I especially like your review of Stormy Weather – you should check back here on Sunday for my little weekly special (hint, hint) – but I still think it’s important that a critic see themselves as entering into a conversation with the community – this case the LA Theatre community – most reviews are so puerile or pedantic or just plain self-involved, it seems the like the writer has no idea who they are talking to!
I don’t believe this is your case. But I do believe the capsule reviews, for the most part, are not part of the conversation. It’s like saying “It is what it is” in the middle of a debate – as soon as that phrase is uttered – the conversation is over. It’s lazy and it usually comes when the other person has nothing left to say, or is afraid of saying what they REALLY want to say.
As a writer I fear no bad review, as long as the critic has understood what I’ve tried to achieve and has something intelligent to back up their opinion. As a matter of a fact, I long for that!
And as far as the baseball analogy is concerned, it’s not a great one, but you didn’t read exactly what I said: I said someone who has no knowledge of baseball going to 162 games is not automatically going to make him a high standard critic of baseball. Someone who already has knowledge of the game who sees those 162 games, certainly has a leg up on the guy who sees only 30.
And that’s where you come in. You have the knowledge. And the experience. And the talent. So why so dismissive to the theatre community? And I’m not referring to “negative” reviews as being dismissive, I’m referring to three lines blurbs tossed off the cuff as being dismissive.
People rely on you. Why not freelance some of those reviews to young critics, pay them crap, but at least give them the opportunity to afford the show the respect it deserves. It won’t be a Don Shirley review, but it will a review with some weight nonetheless.
And finally, I agree with you, some reviews are just plain “bittersweet” and I’m trying to figure a way to incorporate that into the Lemon Meter system. I was thinking of having them just be cancelled out in the total aggregate and yet keep them on the gathering with the listing “Bittersweet”.
Any thoughts?
Wow.
I had no idea my comment would touch off such a debate.
It’s a beautiful thing, Alex. It’s why I continuously encourage people to comment here and get the dialogue going. I’m always ready for a debate and as I’ve said before I appreciate Don engaging as well. Most of the critics in this town just can’t be bothered having a conversation – they’re too busy “reviewing”.
Pingback: Bitter Lemons » Feet to the Fire