Would you go see this show?

Redlass · #1 08-25-2005, 03:14 PM

We've had an amusing bit of controversy in our local theater committee (though controversy seems to strong of a word).

I'm curious what your reaction would be if you read this in your hometown newspaper:

http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/0508...ries/titus.asp

Would you go see the show?

If you knew that the newspaper typically only ran one review per show, what would you think of this?

I'll share the backstory in a bit.

**taurusmoon** · #2 08-25-2005, 03:30 PM

Whoa.

When I read the first review (not grasping the point that a second was to follow) I was absolutely convinced that, were I the intended audience, I wouldn't dare step foot in the theater.

Reading the second one in sequence made me go

. I would be compelled to go see the show if for no other reason than to have the opportunity to draw my own conclusions.

murasaki · #3 08-25-2005, 04:09 PM

I'm glad I read the second review, though I was a little skeptical of the first--how can one review a play if one walks out at intermission? I didn't find that reviewer reliable so, even without the second review, I still might have entertained the idea of going to the play. One of the great things about Shakespeare is that we can adapt it, we can go over the top with it--some of it's pretty over the top to begin with.

**amykhar** · #4 08-25-2005, 04:23 PM

Just think if it had been on Epinions. The first would have been rated as NH because the reviewer didn't watch the whole play. Then, the readers would only have the second review

*emeleel* · #5 08-25-2005, 04:28 PM

I'd probably be more likely to see it after reading two such opposed reviews than I would be after reading either one of them by itself. Reading the two makes me wonder how two people could see the same thing so differently, and which one is "right".

**drmomentum**[$] · #6 08-25-2005, 04:35 PM

How can someone write a review if they haven't stayed for the whole production?

Would I go see it? Well, I'm not a big fan of Titus Andronicus in the first place, but this sounds like an improvement. Still, probably not.

-JP

Redlass · #7 08-25-2005, 04:37 PM

*shiver*

Actually, Eps folks would have NH'd the second review if they knew the backstory.

So, spoiler alert--read the reviews first before you read this post.

My personal disclaimer/bias acknowledgement: These appear in the alternative weekly newspaper in town. I write theater reviews for the daily in town--somewhat of this newspaper's competition.

There has been a lot of self-generated controversy with this show. Or, rather, director generated controversy. He decided halfway into the rehearsal process that he needed to do an "encore" performance and called up the Lansing City parks for permission to do it there. The official he talked to said he was concerned about the amounts of violence and spurting blood, saying he didn't think families should be able to stumble across this performance in a public park.

The director began screaming censorship and got the ACLU involved. Never mind that the official told him he could do it in an indoor location or that if he wanted to do it outdoors he would have to apply for permit and pay a fee. The director was convinced that Sunsets with Shakespeare shouldn't be subject to the same rules as everyone else.

He was helped out in this by the newspaper in which the reviews appear. Oh, did I mention that the director is also one of that newspaper's staff writers? Well, they never bothered to mention it either.

So the first reviewer went to this show and found it so terribly bad that he left at intermission (as he disclosed in his review). The director had a fit, went into the publisher and demanded that he be given another review.

The second review was written. That's bad enough. Now, shall I tell you a bit of the relationship between the director and the second reviewer? At one point during the rehearsal process, there was a concern that the actor playing Titus would not be able to perform (for me to share that reason without further proof might open me up for a slander/libel suit, so shall we just leave it at that?). So the person who wrote the second review was called in to rehearse that role with the understanding that he might have to do it.

In other words, the second reviewer was part of the creation process of the show. Typically, a reviewer ought to excuse himself from reviewing a show that he/she participated in. To further create the conflict of interest, this director will be producing and directing a show later this season that the reviewer wrote.

So, in my opinion, the second review is nothing but a piece of public relations.

I, by the way, turned down my editor's request to review this show. I felt that the strong feelings I had about the production before it began disqualified me from being able to ethically review the performance.

**pippadaisy**[$] · #8 08-25-2005, 08:36 PM

I was getting the drift that the second reviewer was somehow in bed with the production before I read your second post, Bridgette. I would have walked out of the performance after the first act, too, and it sounds like trash.

There are directors who can do a wonderful job with taking Shakespeare in a new direction. From the sounds of the first review, this was not a wonderful job, but designed to be "artsy" which I hate. I'm going with the first reviewer. And I've VH'd people who've walked out of things.

eris esoteric · #9 08-25-2005, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Redlass said

He was helped out in this by the newspaper in which the reviews appear. Oh, did I mention that the director is also one of that newspaper's staff writers? Well, they never bothered to mention it either.

So the first reviewer went to this show and found it so terribly bad that he left at intermission (as he disclosed in his review). The director had a fit, went into the publisher and demanded that he be given another review.

The second review was written.

The goob's comment at this point was, "That tells me everything I need to know about the director."

Quote:

That's bad enough. Now, shall I tell you a bit of the relationship between the director and the second reviewer? At one point during the rehearsal process, there was a concern that the actor playing Titus would not be able to perform (for me to share that reason without further proof might open me up for a slander/libel suit, so shall we just leave it at that?). So the person who wrote the second review was called in to rehearse that role with the understanding that he might have to do it.

The goob's comment at this point was, "That tells me everything I need to know about The Pulse."

Quote:

I, by the way, turned down my editor's request to review this show. I felt that the strong feelings I had about the production before it began disqualified me from being able to ethically review the performance.

Probably a good call. Personally, all *I* needed to hear was "Sunsets with Shakespeare is doing Titus" to know that I wanted to stay away from any local public parks for the rest of the month.

phoenixx · #10 08-25-2005, 11:31 PM

Um, no - wouldn't go see the original Titus if paid to do so (NOT my favorite WS play), and certailny wouldn't go see a shoddy, can't give two shits version of it. If two reviewers sound this disinterested for whatever reason, I won't call them wrong.

Redlass · #11 08-26-2005, 12:46 AM

Oh, I don't know that I'd say either was "disinterested." They were both pretty passionate in their own way.

Eris, but you have the advantage of being local and knowing what this group puts out.

I spoke with the first reviewer. He pointed out that New York Times reviewers (who are often rightfully held up as standards) are also known to walk out on bad performances. Personally, I don't think I could. I'd feel guilty reviewing a show that I had left before it was over. There's always the possibility that it could get better.

I'd someday love to see Titus, but not a version that is so blatantly offensive (in addition to my taking exception to rape, mutilation, and maternal cannibalism as farce, I'm uncomfortable with the stereotyping of people who are low income or live in trailers.)

eris esoteric · #12 08-26-2005, 05:21 AM

I know you're more of a play person than a theater person, but if you haven't seen Titus, with Jessica Lange and Anthony Hopkins yet, I'd really recommend it. It's exceedingly strange, but Titus is exceedingly strange, so it somehow really, really works.

Redlass · #13 08-26-2005, 11:23 AM

Hey, I like theater well enough--especially if it is live... Oh, you mean the screen type theater. OK, I'll put that on the list. I probably would enjoy it.

By the way, I want to thank everyone for responding to this thread. Several of us local folks been having some interesting discussions on this topic and we were curious what people's reactions would be who didn't know the personalities involved--which would be the vast majority of the paper's readership.

To me, this is one of those cases of journalistic ethics. If the paper doesn't share its conflicts, then they are leading people into judgments that they might not make if they had all the facts. I realize I have a bias here--I freelance for the other newspaper--but I think there is a problem in reviewing something you are too close to.

**soxfan**[$] · #14 08-26-2005, 11:54 AM

I'm not a fan of bloodbaths, so I probably wouldn't have gone to see it anyway. I wouldn't have necessarily discounted the first reviewer's opinion. Sometimes the first part of a play or movie (or book) is so bad there's no way the rest of the play/movie/book can make up for it.

**taurusmoon** · #15 08-26-2005, 12:01 PM

It doesn't just happen with local rags and community notables. It happens on a much larger scale all the time.

Here's a recent example:

A Washington Post Review

The Back Story

If the Washington Post can do it, why can't everybody?

Redlass · #16 08-26-2005, 12:41 PM

That's a more interesting one. I think the problem there is one of disclosure. It doesn't sound like she'd had contact with Irving for five years--but given the virulence and length of her review, it does sound like it might have come out of personal vendetta.

That's another thing we've talked about locally. If we were to bar people from reviewing shows where they know someone or have contact with anyone in it, we'd be out of reviewers pretty quick. We are, after all, a small city. So there is a certain amount of incestuousness that is unavoidable.

I know I try to be careful about disclosing to my editor when and where I have conflicts. I'm sure that some of the conflicts we've decided are OK, wouldn't be in a larger city. It also makes me very cautious when I'm reviewing that I am fair. I don't go to a show if I'm not willing to either write good things or bad things about it. I also stay far, far away from anything that my husband is in because there I am totally incapable of being unbiased. (Er, I do go see them--often multiple times--but I don't review them and I don't participate in the judging of them).

I have, though, reviewed shows in which my friends were a part. It was done, though, with the understanding on everyone's part that if the show wasn't good, I would say that. I also stayed away from rehearsals and discussions of the show that would give me any greater intimacy of knowledge than another audience member would have.

Also, before I ever agreed to become a reviewer, I made the decision to give up participating in theater either on stage or backstage.

It's a good question, though: How much contact/knowledge is too much?

Redlass · #17 09-11-2005, 11:44 PM

The saga continues.

Does anyone notice anything about this article?

http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/0508...es/theater.asp

Thankfully, the publisher did:

http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/0509...es/apology.asp

Vilya · #18 09-20-2005, 04:22 AM

Hey, it's all performance art to me. Life, the universe and everything.

As for "Titus," put the blame where it belongs: Shakespeare. I figure he "needed the money."

I did enjoy Julie Taymor's film of "Titus." If "Silence of the Lambs" hadn't conviinced me that Anthony Hopkins would make a great "Sweeney Todd," "Titus" did. But then I think that's what Julie had in mind.

And long live Alan Cumming.

BB,

Annie

**MrsNormanMaine**[$] · #19 09-20-2005, 01:34 PM

The Birmingham papers rarely bother to review local theater so we haven't had much controversy like that here. A big problem though is that the theater community is very small and there aren't a lot of knowledgable folk who can write an unbiased review. I think most intelligent folk could read between the lines of both of these reviews. As for the actual production, couldn't be any worse than the 'Twelfth Night' I was just in that was full of Gilligan's Island references and beach party stuff.

MNM

Redlass · #20 09-20-2005, 01:50 PM

Oof. I'm beginning to think that Shakespeare is like white wine. When it's good, there's nothing like it. When it's bad, it leaves a wretched taste in ones mouth.

We're actually fairly fortunate here. Most shows are now getting three reviews--one from the daily, one from the weekly, and one from the student newspaper. This is a big improvement over five years ago when only about half the shows were getting any reviews at all.

Granted, our community is still small enough that we have plenty of conflicts--but ideally that's what the reviewer is supposed to be aware of and avoid where possible.