Bravo! Art is of the utmost importance. It is what makes the world go round. Art is from the he(art) and we forget that we are attempting to create art. It is what Chekov, Stanislavski, Strasberg, Adler, Meisner, Berghof and Hagen strove for. It is what leaves us wanting more, knowing there is something else, maybe not better, because I have lost site for the meaning of that but something else, something missing in our soles and souls.
Ramblings of a drucken artist, drinking from the fruit of the vine that is art, as to what it can be and is.
Phoning it in doesn't count and matter. Awards and standing ovations or the critic's review, don't. What matters is the heart and soul of a production and how and why. I strive and long for the artist to bare and bear his soul and show me who he or she is.
Again ramblings.
There was a movement in the 70's to establish non-sexist pronouns in public discourse. I worked for an alternative newspaper at that time where we adopted words I can no longer remember to mean "his/hers," "he/she," and "him/her." Obviously the movement died.
These days, working for a latter-day alternative newspaper, I sometimes submit articles using "s/he," and depending on the copy editor it gets printed. In my personal journals and letters I use "hier" for "his/her" and "heim" for "her/him," but I don't expect to see these move into standard use any time soon. However, I think there is a need.
Meanwhile, as a former small-theater producer, a neglected playwright, and, in these days of shrinking arts funding, an only-occasionally employed actor, I've found a paying gig writing reviews, among other things, for an arts and opinion weekly. My regular beat is the local LORT company here in Norfolk, VA, based on my experience--27 produced scripts and my Equity card. I have ambiguous feelings about this, having dissed the breed of reviewer/critic rather roundly in my past, so I guess it's karmic justice. In any case I can say how I go about my work.
First, after 20+ years in the profession, most of that pretty much full-time, I am qualified to write about theater from the point of view of the art of it--writing, acting, design, and how well they come together to serve the play and the audience. Many reviewers I've known are reporters who cover the police one night, see a play the next, go to city council and school board meetings after that, etc. If they ever become "critics," it's over time, when I've also seen some of them become pretty reliable touchstones of how a community in general is likely to receive a piece. I perceive that they are writing from the perspective of their newspaper's often unspoken understanding of contemporary community standards. That doesn't necessarily make them good judges of new or even contemporary work, however, and, additionally, often what they write depends on their mood on any given night, which can turn on whether their paper is paying them for the time they're in the theater. Many papers do not.
For my part, I imagine most of my readers to be theater people and my most involved readers to be those associated with the play being discussed. I know how it feels to get a bad review, so I try not to give one, or try to say something positive for every negative. That's not always possible, of course, because I need to be impartial and honest above all else and kiss no ass--an integrity issue. But the need to be kind is next, also an integrity issue. And I always assume I am an advocate for theater, especially good theater. Good theater involves an audience member in what's happening on stage. It stays with "heim" after the show is over and, if it's really good, for a long time after that. Artistry makes that happen more effectively, but, as has often been noted, an amateur production covered with warts but bursting with heart often tops a professional production coasting on flawless technique. I want to see theater with heart, which revives my passion for love and life and, ultimately, expands my world. I'd like every play I see to successfully accomplish those things so I can write all rave reviews. That doesn't happen, of course, and the less it happens for me with any given show the less positive review I'll (regretfully) write.
Those are my principal thoughts on current RAT subjects.
D.D. Delaney