Dear Name Withheld By Request:
Just a quick observation. As the artistic director of a "tiny theatre" I must admit to having occasionally "gotten away with murder" with the critics because we were "a little theatre that could." I find Martha’s statement neither arrogant or dismissive—merely accurate. In fact, as our production values have increased and our profile grown at Writers’ Theatre, critical expectations have also grown (and so they should). There is no evident overt or underlying attack on small theatre in her comment. There is simply a statement that on occasion smaller companies are not held up to the same standards an institution might be. Surely you can see that by having Ethan Hawke in a show, or the capability for rain to fall, one becomes a rather large and stationary target for potential critical backlash.
By suggesting that Martha is initiating some sort of global attack on small organizations you are projecting a rather obvious personal insecurity onto her comment. In fact she attends a heroic amount of small theatre and diligently and respectfully awaits the emergence of the cast in order to introduce herself and leave them with a supportive comment. She is also accessible and responsive to the needs and queries of the less experienced (or at least less visible) artistic directors.
Finally, your indignation cannot be too deeply felt, as your withholding of your name suggests that you harbor a desire to work at the Steppenwolf and would gladly take their money if given the chance,
Yours truly,
Michael Halberstam
Artistic Director, Writers’ Theatre
Dear PerformInk:
I read with bittersweet amusement your September 28th installment of "Critical Condition." No master of irony could have invented Martha Lavey’s quote: "There are a lot of theatres that by virtue of their relatively small size and the handmade aesthetic can get away with murder. We’ve all read reviews where one of the critics goes mad for some production in a tiny little place, and we go, 'Whaaaa…?" Assuming that this quote is accurate, it doesn’t take deep psychological insight to realize that this says much more about her than the quirks or peccadilloes of any particular critic. The arrogant dismissal of even the possibility that a small theatre is capable of producing work that might genuinely excite a critic reveals the sad view held by many of the large theatres and their leadership.
Is there a lot of crap out there? You bet. But…
What "murder" is being gotten away with? No rain on stage? No Ethan Hawke? No costume budget for a single show that would eclipse many–MANY–theatres’ annual production budget? Only one example, and there are myriad available, is Navy Pier, a show with four stools. Really, that was it. No set, contemporary street clothes, a modest lighting and sound design, and it was one the most powerful productions this theatre artist has ever seen. (And yes, I deliberately chose an example with which neither I nor anyone I know had anything to do.) Additionally, there have been subsequent, very small productions of shows that Steppenwolf premiered that have been hailed by Chicago’s top critics as better than the original. Is a direct comparison so easily dismissed as "…a function of the critic’s vanity"?
Now in all fairness it is possible that Ms. Lavey did not mean precisely what she said, and if that is the case I invite her to clarify. But with as high a profile as she and her institution hold, when she (or Gennaro or Schulfer or Falls or Gaines or Henderson) speaks, others in the industry pay attention. My fear is that instead of a verbal misstep, her comments reveal a condescending, albeit generally subconscious, attitude that does a great disservice to an enormous percentage of our community.
Name withheld by request
Dear PerformInk:
I want to commend you on your excellent series of articles on theatre criticism. Especially laudable is the article on the distinction between a reviewer and a critic. Let’s hope that most of us who create theatre have at least a bit of a critic within, even if we never take up the pen. Criticism is a challenging and extremely important profession. The reviewer, clearly, is more dispensable. Those who take criticism seriously, however, are admirable; theirs are essential hours spent toiling to illuminate the content and context of the product in question with regard to history and/or the community at large. The ongoing dialogue between the artistic community and the critics should exist (although at times this dialogue should include a dismissal of one another), and they should push each other to contribute their best to the world of theatre.
Thanks again, and I can’t wait to read the rest of your series.
Lauren Carter
Dear PerformInk:
Many newly-appointed theatre critics approach their job with two assumptions: 1) they will now be able to say lots of nasty things about BAD plays, and 2) they will never see any but GOOD plays.
These contradictory expectations can be attributed to immaturity, of course. But sometimes actors and directors savvy enough to know better appear to adopt a similar policy. To hear them tell it, EVERY play they ever did was flawless and NO critic ever GOT it and liked it.
Looking forward to the remaining installments of PerformInk’s "Critical Condition" series.
Cordially,
Mary Shen Barnidge
11-23-01
Getting Away With Murder
10-26-01
Martha Lavey's Quote