REDESIGNED WEB SITE
Welcome to my redesigned web site.
Whether you're a returning visitor or this is your first time, I'd like to highlight new features as well as tell you my plans for the future.
First --- my web site is designed to address the business and legal issues that concern the performing arts community.
I define "performing arts" very broadly ---stage plays, performance art, dance, standup/sketch comedy, opera, cabarets, concert halls, etc. It includes Broadway, as well as regional, stock, university, and amateur and school theaters.
I define "community" very broadly also. While the material is directed toward producers and other arts administrators, I hope to address concerns that affect everyone --- actors, writers, directors, choreographers, designers, dancers, etc.
I invite all to visit the site, contribute to and (I hope) benefit from it.
Now to the Features:
FORUM: An interactive site, where you can share your problems, concerns, and other topics of general interest.
To kick things off, I've posted a few topics to stimulate discussion.
Feel free to suggest new ones by sending me an email at the QuickLinks address to the right or to
readermail@charlesgrippo.org.
LINKS
I'd like to make this a useful resource by adding as many links as I can.
If you'd like me to add your URL, see the procedures and rules on the LINKS page.
NEWSLETTER
Subscribe ----FREE OF CHARGE --- to my Newsletter, in which I will discuss news, reviews, events, and other items of mutual interest.
FEEDBACK
Your comments, thoughts, and suggestions will help me make my site more useful. In particular, I'd like suggestions for topics you'd like to see discussed. Again, dash me off an email to the QuickLinks or readermail@charlesgrippo.org.
Come back often!
IRRESPONSIBLE CRITIC?
By now many of you may have heard of the brouhaha between the Dramatists Guild and Hedy Weiss, theater critic for the Chicago Sun Times over Weiss's recent review of "Stages 2006," a festival of new musicals. As I write this, it is building into a national controversy.
I'd like to put my two cents into the mix because (a) I attended the Festival; (b) I am a member of the Dramatists Guild; and (c) I have had past dealings as a producer with Weiss.
Briefly, over two days each August, the Theater Building Chicago presents concert and staged readings of eight new musicals, selected by their staff. Both newcomers and veterans from all over the country are invited to submit works. In the past, such names as Melissa Manchester and Arthur Kopit have had musicals in the festival. This year Broadway giant Charles Strouse ("Annie" "Bye Bye Birdie" ) entered a show. The public is invited. Admission is a modest $15.00 per show or $85.00 for an eight show pass.
Keep in mind that these are works in progress, not polished, finished productions. The authors have almost no say in the casting. Direction is minimal, while choreography is non-existent. Accompaniment, in most cases, is a single piano. The actors are seated behind music stands. The purpose is to let the authors hear their works performed by professional actors and to gauge the response of the public to the material. Producers from around the country also scout out the material.
Weiss attended the festival as a reviewer, not (as one person put it) as a civilian. After the festival ended, she panned all of the shows in print.
Aside: Weiss used as a point of comparison an almost full production of GYPSY, starring Patti Lu Pone, backed by an Equity cast and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, which was performing that same week-end at Ravinia, a local music festival. This is like comparing the penthouse suite at the Ritz Carlton Paris to the Super 8 single room still under construction. (See my review of GYPSY in my September, 2006 newsletter.)
(Full Disclosure: Weiss attended both GYPSY and STAGES 2006. So did I - so I am in the unique position of sharing her experience.)
The Dramatists Guild fired off an angry letter to Weiss and her editors, complaining that, because these were works in progress, she acted "irresponsibly" in reviewing them. Even worse, the Guild alleged that Weiss did not even see "one" of the shows in its entirety. In some cases, she only sat through one act, while in at least one case, she only saw 10 minutes. In her review, Weiss admitted she only sat through the first act, moving on, if nothing grabbed her. (Unlike Weiss, I sat all the way through all of the shows.)
Joan Mazzonelli, Executive Director Theatre Building Chicago, responded in a letter to the editor by carefully distancing herself from the Guild's letter. (We wouldn't want to offend an important critic, would we?) She claimed that while they encourage the press to publicize the event, they did not expressly ask the press not to review it, though they did so in the festival's early years. Mazzonelli admitted these are "works in progress" rather than "finished products."
"That is the history of the festival, the context of our medial material and our understanding with the press and public," she wrote in a letter to the Sun Times editors.
Mazzonelli states Weiss "is free to write about the work she sees, just as others are free to comment about her work."
Weiss responded (in print)by complaining that the Guild acted on a "total lack of honest information." She states that she was not at any time expressly told "not" to review the festival. The presenters provided her with tickets, press materials, etc. She claimed that reviewing the festival has been standard practice for a number of years as proven by the archives. (I could not find any reviews of past festivals in a search of the archives of the competing Chicago Tribune.) She claimed that the show was not a closed "by invitation only" reading. It was open to the public, with tickets sold. (True.) She said she would never write about works she was asked not to review and that the producers knew she intended to review the shows. (Were the writers also told in advance and given the choice to have their works reviewed?)
Weiss's editors responded in an editorial, essentially telling the Guild to "shove it." (Remember the Fourth Estate is always right, even when it's wrong.)
Personally I saw some wonderful work at the Festival. The Strouse musical--- STUDIO --- has a funny book and several excellent songs, including one that has the potential to be a hit of "Tomorrow" proportions. But it suffered from miscasting ---- the actors were talented but way too young for their roles. (Some were still in college.) The auditorium was incredibly hot, as the air conditioning had either been turned off or was just not working right. During the second act, the speakers emitted intermittent bursts of static, drowning out the actors and destroying the mood Strouse had worked so carefully to create. (The actors were not using mikes, so the speakers should not have been turned on in the first place.) Nonetheless, the material has terrific potential ---- BUT it was not ready for review. Weiss panned it. This is a shame, since I would hate to see her review blunt its future.
I don't know what communication did or did not exist between the Theatre Building and Weiss, but these were clearly workshops of works in progress. Weiss claims she was never "not" asked to review the festival --- so what? Was she affirmatively "asked" to review it? Providing press materials and tickets does not imply a request or a consent to review. It merely invites the press person to help publicize the event.
As I said, I believe one crucial question has gone unanswered: were the writers asked in advance if they wanted their material reviewed at that point in its development? Were they given the chance - in advance - to opt out of critical scrutiny if they so desired? Shouldn't they have the final say when they believe their work is ready for the critics? When a new script is presented by a regional or for Broadway, the author - and the producer - designate the press performances. (Weiss and Mazzonelli know this.) Weren't the writers in Stages 2006 entitled to make the same choices? Some may have welcomed a review, while others may not. However, Weiss reviewed all of the shows.
And it is not enough to say, well, the archives prove the festival gets reviewed every year. You know what? Not all the writers are from Chicago and familiar with the "archives." Most were from out of town. They would not - and should not - be expected to know an important critic is coming.
For its part, the Chicago Tribune did NOT review the festival. Its critic Chris Jones wrote an advance piece, promoting the fact it was happening and highlighting Strouse's participation. The Tribune recognized its duty to help the development of new works by withholding critical judgment until their creators are ready. In short, the Tribune behaved responsibly and ethically.
Across town, Chicago Dramatists Workshop presents weekly staged readings of new plays in progress. These are also open to the public. A minimal donation is requested. They are regularly listed in the theater directories. No one - including Weiss - ever reviews these. (Occasionally Chicago Dramatists presents full productions of works they --- and the authors - deem ready for public and critical scrutiny and these are routinely reviewed by the press.)
The most serious charge, in my mind, is that Weiss formed opinions of works she barely saw. No one, except a megalomaniac, can form an educated opinion of a show based on ten minutes or even a first act - especially of a work in progress.
Weiss also seems to justify her actions by stating that the "review appeared several days after the festival was over." Sorry to tell you, Hedy, but reviews by important critics, such as yourself, can follow a new work for quite a long time - either helping it achieve a future, or harming it irreparably. And what is the point of reviewing something after the fact? Even if your readers were interested, it was too late for them to attend.
BOYCOTT NEXT YEAR'S STAGES 2006
To my fellow playwrights, here's my proposal: Boycott next year's festival. That's right. Don't enter your works unless you believe they are ready - absolutely ready - for critical scrutiny. Weiss shows no signs of backing down. The Theatre Building Chicago seems more concerned about not offending her than protecting their writers. Remember: when the critics come, you face intense pressure to get it right, and, if your work is still in progress, a bad review will do more harm than good at this juncture. Think about it.
All of us involved in creating theater need to protect our right to develop our work, until we believe it is ready for critical scrutiny. (Would HAMLET exist today if the critics had reviewed Shakespeare's doodles? Or THE MARRIAGE OF FIGARO if the press of the day had passed judgment on Mozart's early sketches?) This applies to directors, choreographers, and actors as well. (Actors: would you want an important critic to review your early attempts to create your character? Or would you prefer the press judges you when you and your director decide you have a fully prepared performance?)
Workshops such as STAGES are important because they give us artists a chance to fail safely. They encourage us to take risks, experiment, and stretch ourselves and the form. Sometimes we will land on our feet, with works of triumph. Sometimes we will fall on our asses. But we will do either quietly.
And limited public (not critical)participation is essential. We need to see how our work plays before the public before it is judged in print. We need to rewrite, fine tune, or pop the champaign corks, as necessary. (That is why new shows preview often for many weeks before the final press performances. No one questions that.) For example, an author of comedy - such as myself - needs to see if his jokes are landing --- and to write new ones, if they are not. This can only occur before an audience - but not before a critic prepared to write about the show.
A boycott will send a message to Weiss -- and all the other critics out there - that reviewing works in progress is totally unacceptable and detrimental to the developmental process. It will also cause theaters sponsoring such workshops to make it clear to the press that they may not review these pieces until the creators decide they are ready.
Don't get me wrong. Workshops like STAGES need press attention. But there is press attention and then there is critical reviewing. Press attention means an advance story or two, which brings in the public whose input, as I indicated above, is so important to the process. Press attention also helps the sponsoring theater company to attract grants and other financial support. In other words, advance publicity is important. However, advance publicity is distinguishable - i.e. substantially different - from reviewing works-in-progres in print. The press needs to learn this, if it really wants to meet its obligation in the development of new works.
I'm going to practice what I preach. I was all set to submit my new musical for consideration next year. But after this --- not a chance.
Please post your comments in the Forum section.
