Thursday, February 26, 2009
Performing Arts / Onstage When Bob Falls calls
Posted by Tony Adler on Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Goodman Theatre artistic director Robert Falls has clearly got a big emotional stake in his production of Desire Under the Elms, which closes this weekend and then heads to Broadway. So big that he's done the unheard of and gotten involved in the critical discussions of it. Back in January, when O'Neill expert Harley Hammerman wrote a negative evaluation of the show, I posted Hammerman's remarks here and drew a rebuttal from Falls. Now Kelly Kleiman, one half of WBEZ's Dueling Critics team, reports in a blog post that Falls called her at home to complain about her pan of it--and if her account is to be believed, he didn't pull his punches. Kleiman says Falls told her that she's “'not a theater critic at all, but just a radio personality,'” portrayed her Dueling Critics persona as "'the ignoramus, Joanne Theatergoer, I-don’t-know-anything-about-theater-but-I-know-what-I-like,'” and called her comments on Desire stupid.
My first impulse was to label this a bad move on Falls's part, but when I thought about it I realized I didn't know why. He had something to say and he said it. Vividly. Kleiman, though, would have been better off keeping the exchange to herself, since it only invites a reader to ask whether Falls might be right.
Perhaps sensing that she's opened herself to a new level of scrutiny, Kleiman spends the last three paragraphs of her post defending her approach to reviewing. "I bring a lot of emotional energy to criticism," she says, "if I love a show, I LOVE it and I’m dying to tell you why. And if a show disappoints, I’m not just indifferent: I’m furious." In other words, Falls had her pegged: she just knows what she likes.
Kleiman concludes with the usual critic's defense, generally delivered with a quivery lower lip, about how she works for Joe Littleguy (a pal of Joanne Theatergoer), helping him get his "money's worth." I've been reviewing theater for, oh, such a long time, but I've never been able to devise a decent money's-worth measure. I don't think anybody can. So I've decided to skip it. Instead, I try to figure out what happened at a show I saw--both onstage and to me--and tell readers what that was as clearly and entertainingly as I can. It doesn't involve loving anything (though that happens) or being furious about something (though I suppose that can happen, too), it involves taking things in and trying to understand them.
Comments (50)
Showing 1-50 of 50
As a performance reviewer for the Reader since 1987, I've had a handful of artists call me at home over the years, attempting to unleash the sort of tirade Kelly describes. My strategy has always been to cut them off and say, 'I encourage you to write a letter to the editor so that your views can be as widely read as my original review.' Oddly, none ever took the suggestion.
like
dislike
Okay, I told Tony I wasn't gonna touch this one, but I'll repeat what I just said in an email to him: if Bob Falls is okay with getting calls on his personal landline from disgruntled subscribers who want to give him an earful about a show (or a season) that wasn't to their liking, then maybe -- MAYBE -- it's okay for him to make calls at home to critics. I suspect, however, that he would not be amenable to that kind of "dialogue."
I disagree with Tony Adler that Kleiman (a former Reader critic, by the way) should have kept the exchange with Falls to herself. Why? If she's being honest about her communications with the artists she reviews (solicited and unsolicited alike), that's a good thing.
For what its worth I got a call from Bob Falls a couple years ago after I panned a show he directed by Rebecca Gilman. To be honest I have forgotten which show it was, although I suspect it was her (and Falls') updating a Doll's House. I remember being quite shocked when I answered the phone and heard him say, "Hello, Jack, this is Bob Falls." I also remember he spoke in a serious boss voice, like he was going to fire me or, at the very least, give me a low rating on my yearly review. The gist of his message was that I had been unfair to Gilman, that she was a better playwright than I had said in my review, and that I should give her another chance because she was a very talented playwright. At no time in the conversation, though, did he call me names or at any time undercut my street cred as a critic. He also did call me a horse cock or any other part of an animal's body, unlike a certain Pulitzer Prize winner I could mention but won't because that was a long time ago and we have all put it behind us.
Jack, whatever you do, never put a horse's cock or any other animal part behind you. Given his shocking penchant for acting as if theater criticism were a two-way street, I suggest we form a Bob Falls Watch and report his communications with critics as they occur. For that matter, if you critics out there have any good stories about post-review brushes with The Criticized, post them here.
Why on earth shouldn't a theatre director or artistic director of a theatre call one of us and give us an earful? We berate and mock and demean -- I mean we review and criticize the work of these folks all the time. Big deal. Bob Falls and I have had a see-saw of exchanges for 25 years that at its peak/nadir in 1993 or so had us each calling for the other's dismissal from his post. So what? I've always invited people upset with my criticism of their work to enter into a real exchange rather than just a litany of complaints or a shouting match -- sometimes it's been by mail, sometimes by 'phone, sometimes in person, often on the radio. Shows I have done that grew out of such disagreements have been some of the ones I've been most proud of -- Austin Pendleton on "Uncle Bob" in 1995 (WBEZ; Larry Bommer joined us in the discussion as well), with Bill Mason of Lyric Opera of Chicago in 2007, and . . . with Bob Falls, last year. (Both on WFMT.) As critics, we dish it out, so we get to take it as well. And a thoughtful, non-shouting conversation with someone from the other side of the real or imagined footlights can be a very good thing from time to time and can give both artist and critic -- if each is comfortable in his own skin -- a chance to make clear what he sees as his calling and obligations. And even to learn something from the other. As to whom we represent when we are attending the theatre? Um, ourselves? Art? Quality? "Consumer" reviews can certainly be handled now by "consumer" websites. Or not at all.
This brouhaha harks back to the perennial complaint that, far more often than not, we only hear from artistic directors when they know we're doing a lousy job, not a worthy one--which of course is human nature for bad or worse. (Maybe it's a compliment that they assume we're right until we're no longer their best friends forever.) The classiest reaction I ever got was an African violet sent to me by a theater company I had recently reviewed. But they never left their name. Whether it was a case of "paying it forward" or elegant anonymity, this "kindness of strangers," as Blanche DuBois would say, made a very pleasant point and could hardly count as a retroactive bribe. It works both ways: A bouquet of black roses from Bob Falls would have been much more eloquent.
First, I think it's perfectly appropriate for Falls to call critics and bitch about the reviews. Hell, I've done it a few times (I recall an email exchange between Nick Green and I that lasted for weeks over a shitty review he wrote about one of my productions and there have been a few times in my twenty years in Chicago theater when I've called critics at home to tell them how full of shit I thought they were) and I think if any of it really matters, it's worth some one-on-one time. I likewise think it's more than appropriate for Kleiman to call him out. In fact, given the fact that Bob makes a six-figure salary in an industry known for theaters going broke right and left, no one deserves to be handed a box of shit more than Falls. Second, this is what makes non-theater goers sit up and take interest. Theater is a stagnant pond of underdeveloped anachronism and if we in the know want it to become more vibrant and interesting to those more interested in their Twitters and Hulu, we gotta get out there and defend our work (and our criticism of said work) passionately. Anything less smacks of polite deadness and a sort of civilized apathy. I propose that WBEZ get Bob Falls on the air to debate Kleiman - man, that'd be cause to turn the radio dial to 91.5 and get into it.
Kleiman's got the venue. She can invite him on 848. What do you say, Kelly? Let's you and him fight. Verbally.
Mr. Adler, I think you're misrepresenting what Kelly Kleiman wrote. She doesn't seem angry that Robert Falls had the nerve to object to a negative review; it's the threatening, ad hominem manner in which he did so. Calling her at home was a creepy violation of boundaries intended, as she suggests, to intimidate her. She's not saying that, as a critic, she "just knows what she likes," she says her job is to explain *why* she likes or dislikes a show, which seems reasonable to me. As for the "money's worth" measure: I've never heard the Dueling Critics belabor this; their concerns don't seem much different to me than those of the theater critics I read in Time Out Chicago or the Reader. But $45 is a lot of money, and I do read reviews in part to determine where I should spend my limited resources. If that Joanne Theatergoer attitude makes me unwelcome at the Goodman, then I won't sully the building with my patronage.
Still curious about how many layers of protection are in place at the Goodman to keep Bob Falls from having to hear from disgruntled subscribers and audience members. If dialogue is so healthy, he should be more than willing to take those calls rather than keep them sequestered in the audience services department, yes? Or is this another one of those debates where theater is deemed to be something that can only be discussed between critics and artists? Audience -- what's that? Anyone who calls me at home to bitch about a review, especially one who uses the kind of condescending insulting language Falls used with Kleiman (and he's not offered a rebuttal to that) gets a dial tone in the ear. My home, my phone, my rules. Deal with it.
A further thought: One of the things I admire about Martha Lavey at Steppenwolf is that, through the theater's blog, she has responded to audience members who register their dissatisfaction with a show. I thought she handled the complaints about Austin Pendleton's apparent problems with lines in "The Crucible" (I didn't see him in that show, so can't say firsthand) in fall of 2007 quite well, as just one example. As more theaters open up the process to the public with blogs, it will be interesting to see how many of them actually respond to the nastier audience comments.
I agree with Justin Hayford. The proper place to respond to a publicly stated opinion of your work is in public--a letter to WBEZ, say, or a posting on the Goodman's Web site, or, in the last resort, a shouting match in a crowded restaurant. I don't see what a private harangue accomplishes, but maybe that's because Beau O'Reilly left a mean message on my answering machine one time and it hurt my feelings.
I'm surprised that a professional of Robert Falls's stature, whom I respect enormously, would get so worked up about what Kleiman or any critic wrote--especially a critic he doesn't (or claims he doesn't) know. A good rule of thumb for all theater folks: if you have a complaint about a particular critic, LEAVE THE MATTER TO YOUR PUBLICITY PERSON. That's his/her job! Tell him/her to schedule an interview on WBEZ or whatever. Or tell him/her to inform the critic that he/she is being removed from the invitation list. Let the pros do their job. The director should direct, the press agent should deal with the press, and the critic should critique. And as Zac Thompson says, the proper place for airing such complaints is IN PUBLIC, whether on a blog or by scheduling a radio interview or whatever. By the way, Zac, as for Beau O'Reilly leaving a private harangue on your voicemail (and you're not the only one he's done that to): that's why God invented the delete button.
Perhaps we could expand the Bob Falls Watch to be a more inclusive Artistic Director in General Watch? My contribution: A few months ago, an artistic director "banned" me from their (way off Loop) theater after I panned a production there. (He's still sending me press releases though, which I must say I find a tad inconsistent. Or perhaps passive aggressive. Who can tell?) Anyway,the ban (which came through my personal email and was amusingly rich in personal invective) was in my capacity as a critic for a specific publication. And wouldn't you know - I've JUST been assigned by a different publication to review their next show. Oh, the dramz. And not that anybody asked me, but Kelly was absolutely within her rights to open up about this. ALso, I did not detect any lip-quivering in her post over at BEZ. Which didn't surprise me. She's not only a lucid, intelligent and fair-minded critic, she's also a tough cookie.
I'll second Catey on Kelly's tough-cookiedom. In a previous life she was the assistant director (to Ron Falzone) in the 1977 University of Chicago student production of "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" in which, at 17 going on 18, I made my musical theatre début and adieu (as Hero). She made things happen! ;-)
The point that Mr. Adler seems to be missing here is that Falls did not call Kleiman at the office, or e-mail her at the office, or call in to the WBEZ comment line, or write a letter to her or to the Editor of the Reader or of the Daily Fishwrapper, or use any other means appropriate for professional communication, but rather chose to call her at her home. This I think is inappropriate, regardless of the content of the communication. It is considered polite to refrain from transmitting professional communications by personal media. I for example am using this godawful comment processor, instead of calling Tony Adler on his personal telephone, because that is how civilized adults behave. To the original point, therefore, I find Bob Falls' choice of communications unfortunate, to say the least, and in fact very rude indeed, if not bullying. His comments were pitiable; unpleasant but also groundless and therefore sad. It did not serve Mr. Falls well to allow his emotions to carry him away. I understand that Bob Falls was upset; I would be too. That does not, however, mean that it is appropriate to get rude and personal. I am surprised that anyone over the age of twelve needs to be told that. Further, ad hominem (personal) verbal attacks are sure-fire indications that the sender does not have any rational or obective grounds for complaining. If you have a solid argument, you use it. I note further that Bob Falls did not call Jonathan Abarbanel and yell at him. Odd. Bob Falls should grow up, and Tony Adler needs to cool out - his acerbic and unfounded comments on Ms. Kleiman seem to betray some unresolved anger that has been seeking a nesting place. Michael B. Kaye
Thanks for your insight into the psychological underpinnings of my post, Michael--but I thought you were arguing *against* ad hominem attacks.
I'm afraid I don't see why a call to a home phone is so over the line, particularly if your number is listed. I've had people call me at home to *thank* me for saying nice things about them, and I can't remember ever being tempted to say "This is completely inappropriate, regardless of the content of the communication." And, speaking of inappropriate, I once complimented an actress for a good performance in a sleazy TV show, and she sent me a very lovely nude photo inscribed "Thanks for the review." Am I totally over the line myself for wishing this would become a trend?
As I've said repeatedly, when artists, particularly ones of Bob Falls' stature, are okay with getting calls at home from audience members berating them, then I might be inclined to look more favorably on being subjected to such calls myself. (And it's disingenuous to claim that there is no distinction between "hey, thanks for that write-up" and "You're an idiot who knows nothing about theater.") Above all, I wish we could stop pretending that Falls' call had anything to do with extending "dialogue" with critics around the show in particular or the art form in general. He used his position to blow up privately (well, at least it was private initially) at someone who fulfilled the obligations of her job by offering a critique of his work. If he thinks so little of the opinions of Kleiman in particular or critics in general, he certainly can make it known that she/they are not welcome to review the shows he helms at the Goodman. However, if one wishes to earn public praise for doing provocative work, it certainly comes with the territory that one will also occasionally encounter public disapprobation -- being "provoked" cuts a number of different ways, after all. Is that not a sign for ambitious artists that they've achieved their aim?
Sorry, Kerry. I don't see how any of us can comment on the *content and tone* of a 'phone conversation that none of us were parties to. And if one party has written up the conversation the silence of the other party should not be read as an endorsement of that write-up.
My own feeling is simple: if I take a shot at somebody in a review, then surely that person is entitled to take a shot back. I don't see what difference it makes if they do it in print or over the phone. It's not as though Falls made any *threats*. He just hated the review, and he said so. I've written reviews that did say, in effect, "You're an idiot who knows nothing about music" -- I mean, I've usually tried to put it in a classier way, but that really was the drift of what I was saying -- so if a performer or composer wants to say the same thing back at me, what exactly is so wrong with that? For the record, nobody ever has called me at home to complain about a review. But I have now and then at receptions and other public events been subjected to laser-like hate-stares from somebody that I reviewed unfavorably. Not a lot of fun, but surely it comes with the territory.
Andrew, are you suggesting Kelly is a liar? What she reported about the content of the conversation (i.e., Falls calling her an "ignoramus") seems pretty clear in terms of "tone" and "content." Or perhaps you know of some context in which "ignoramus" isn't a condescending insult. I'm sure that if the conversation didn't happen as reported, the ever-so-shy Mr. Falls would be all over it to correct the public record. He can still do so. Lee, see comment to Andrew above -- Falls didn't just call to say he hated the review. He made personal insults about Kelly (and I find it interesting that, per Jack's report above, he didn't use the same "tone" or "content" when he called to complain to a male reviewer.) What's wrong with calling me at home is that anything I write about an artist is presented in public -- and if I want to arrange an interview, a review, or anything else pertaining to a show, particularly at the Goodman, I have to go through a press office and explain why I want to talk to somebody there and what I want to talk to them about. I can't call Bob Falls up at the Goodman to chew him out about my personal dislike of a show, let alone at home, and I certainly wouldn't dream of doing so. I know that Kelly called Bob back and perhaps if I had been in her situation, I might have gone through the press office to find out what he wanted to discuss. But that doesn't excuse him from violating boundaries. Just because some critics *don't* mind getting abusive phone calls at home, that doesn't mean that it's standard or acceptable practice. I'm pretty sure at this point that no one will ever call me again. Even my family. ;)
Kelly, when you say you wouldn't dream of calling Falls up at home to complain about a show -- well, maybe you just haven't reviewed for long enough, because if you see enough bad shows you often find yourself dreaming of doing exactly that. I once found myself sitting right next to a Big Name composer during a performance of a really bad opera he'd written, and I spent the whole evening fighting the urge to start hitting him over the head with my opera program. In the end I just wrote a hostile review -- but that was nowhere near as satisfying. But OK, yes, Falls was being a thin-skinned jerk and he probably shouldn't have made that call. But I think it's kind of murky where the boundaries really are -- it's not *obvious*, for instance, why it's OK to insult somebody in print, where lots of people can read it, but it's not OK to do it in private, in a phone call. This is my point: when you write reviews, you have to be prepared that your subjects are going to get really, really upset with you. People in the arts are notoriously thin-skinned -- you can write a rave review and your subject will bitterly complain that it's not the right kind of rave (this did happen to me). And when you give somebody a bad review, you can talk all you want to about how reasonable and professional you're being, but that doesn't mean it's going to be taken that way. When the opera singer Jerry Hadley committed suicide a couple of years ago, the obituaries all talked about how devastated he was by getting bad reviews. I don't know what other critics thought, but I instantly remembered a bad review I'd given him and wondered if he'd seen it. When I look at that review now, I don't think it was wrong or unfair, but it did give me, let's say, mixed feelings about the whole business of reviewing. Wilfred Sheed once wrote that getting a bad review is like a total stranger spitting on you on the street -- but when you're a reviewer you have to convince yourself that it's just a job, spitting on people, like any other job. You just shouldn't be surprised when your subjects aren't as rational about it as you are.
Lee, I've been reviewing professionally for sixteen years and have written features and reviews for about twenty different publications here and in the Bay Area (and I've also written about eight plays that have been produced in various venues in North America and Europe). Does that constitute a long enough career for you? Or would you like to continue to condescend to me? The point again is that there is not, despite your torturous protestations to the contrary, a level playing field in effect here between Bob Falls and the critics he decides to chew out privately on their home phones. I know bad reviews hurt (but thanks for that startling insight!) I've received a few myself, but somehow I managed, thin-skinned though I am, to not revert to a phoned-in tantrum to a critic at their home. I've never even bothered writing a public response, because I know that, while it might be cathartic, it won't change a critic's mind on my work and will tend to make the public think "Wow, what a thin-skinned weenie." (Obviously this doesn't apply to situations where critics commit factual errors in a review, which should be called out loudly and corrected promptly with abject humility.) But dealing with criticism is part and parcel of a professional career in the arts. Duh. Do you think that somehow artists are more sensitive than critics? That critics don't have bad days, periods of grief, difficulties with which they, like every other person on the planet, must come to terms with? Do you think picking up the phone and receiving an earful of vitriol is helpful during those times? Do artists get away with bad behavior by positing "We *feel.* You don't *feel.* Fuck you?" I think not. I don't think any critic is above receiving criticism in kind if an artist thinks that the work has been misrepresented. But I confine my criticism to the public sphere and do not have access (nor do I wish to have access) to Bob Falls' home number. I can't even call him at the Goodman without going through proper channels. So no, the boundaries aren't murky at all. It's ridiculous to posit that there is equality of opportunity for critics to respond PRIVATELY to Falls. When he's prepared to take private calls, he can make them. Easy-peasy.
Well, yes, "thin-skinned" *is* the term that comes to mind here. Maybe we should debate whether it would be "equality of opportunity" for you to have Falls's phone number, just so you could *not* call him and thus prove your moral superiority over him. But I suspect we're reaching the point of diminishing returns.
Or you could pan one of his shows, give him your home phone number, and then brag about how awesome it was that time he called you up and chewed you out because you got to prove your superior manliness and importance in the world of arts criticism. Whichever.
And I'm unclear on how bragging about wanting to physically attack an artist because you disliked what they did creatively doesn't prove that one is "thin skinned." "Quien es mas macho?"
Gee, everybody's talking about Bob Falls, and nobody's talking about the play. That seems to be the upshot of the Falls Call. That's not the kind of publicity I would expect a director to want, but then I don't run a major theatre, so what do I know? Thanks for the use of the soapbox! Disclaimer: the fact that I chose to be logged as "A Living Being With a Valid Comment" was my only option other than "spambot" and should not be construed as a contention of the validity or lack thereof of my comments, but only that I am a living being. Michael B. Kaye
Lee Sandlin made a very good point: IF a critic's home phone is listed, then what's to prevent someone--whether an aggrieved artist or an enraged reader--from calling? Which is why any critic who lists his/her home phone is just asking for trouble--or else is looking for a fight. But Lee, when you say "if you see enough bad shows you often find yourself dreaming" of invading artists' privacy, the point is YOU DON'T DO IT. And neither should they.
So two older couples are out on the porch chatting, and Fred says to Tom, "The wife and I went to a great restaurant last night. You guys oughta try it." Tom asks "What's the name of the place?" Fred looks confused, and says "Gee, I can't remember ... it's a flower, mostly red but sometimes another color, and it's got stickers on the stem ..." Tom suggests, "A rose?" Fred snaps his fingers, says "That's it!", and then turning to his wife, he says "Hey Rose? What's the name of the restaurant we were in last night?"
Bill, I think suggesting that critics and artists exert self-control and not just unload whenever they feel like it just proves that you don't care about the art form. ;) As for being listed: Myhome address is probably in the public record too, but that shouldn't be construed as an open invitation to accost me on my doorstep if I've written something you dislike. I believe there's a word for that behavior.
Bill: to paraphrase myself a while back in this interminable thread, I did say that Falls was being a jerk and probably shouldn't have made that call. I'll even take back the "probably." I'm just not *surprised* that he did it. And I am still not persuaded that making a phone call to somebody to complain about a review really amounts to "invasion of privacy."
This all reminds me of a funny story. Once I was at a Bookslut reading at the Hopleaf to hear an author whom I'd just written up as a Critic's Choice. While there, and while talking with him, a publisher came up to us. I'd recently written a not-so-glowing review of a book he'd recently published. The first words out of my mouth to him (even before hello) were "Oh, by the way, sorry about that." But he was perfectly gracious, and we had a very nice, civil, respectful discussion about my review. After my chat with the publisher, I apologized to the writer I'd been talking with. He said (I'm paraphrasing his words): "No, that was fascinating. I'm just glad you liked MY book."
It seems to me that the core issue here is very simple: it's never appropriate, in any professional milieu, to call someone an ignoramus (and the like), whether on the phone, in person, in print, wherever. When artists contact critics privately they aren't crossing a line or invading the critic's privacy -- unless the content of the discussion is inappropriate. It's about basic civility in professional behavior. In what universe is it ever OK to call a colleague a moron? You can think your colleague is a moron all you want, but sober adults keep those opinions to themselves. I have no problem when theater artists contact me -- by phone, by email, in person -- to discuss their work, or to argue about a review I've written. I've gone out for coffee with a number of theater artists over the years for just such purposes. We can disagree fervently. Fine. If an artists tells me he wants to talk about my 'stupid review,' that's fine. Maybe my writing was stupid. The greatest geniuses in history have done stupid things. I've do stupid things just about every day. But if he calls ME stupid, I won't engage that person in further discussion, just as he shouldn't were I to call him the same.
I hope that it is clear that I am not "suggesting" and have not suggested that anyone "is a liar." I know Kelly and know Bob and I have nothing against either of them. I wasn't on the 'phone with them nor was anyone else here. I have no idea what either of them said nor how they said it. And, again, if someone is silent about an accusation that does not mean that he or she endorses or does not object to a statement, report, or characterization. We all know that two people can have entirely different views of the same conversation, exchange, or argument. It's not judging someone to want to separate documentable facts from claims and opinions. Some of us came up in the tradition of the old City News Bureau -- "If your Mother says she loves you, check it out." That's all.
Looking at the recent posts above by Lee Sandlin (3/4) and Justin Hayford (3/6), my response is: if a critic wants to take a personal, private call from someone s/he's reviewed, that's his/her business. And if she wants to tell the caller to fuck off and hang up on him/her, that's also his/her business. Freedom of speech does not mean others are required to listen. And if someone calls me at home, Lee, and I feel that it's an invasion of privacy, guess what: IT'S AN INVASION OF PRIVACY. And I would never do it to anyone else. But, reiterating points made above by Justin Hayford and Zac Thompson, I strongly feel that artist-to-critic communication is best conducted in the public eye. (Blogging, letters to the editor, rebuttal interviews on the radio, etc.)
Back when I was a poet, someone once sent me a dead mouse (care of the performance venue, not at my home). But does anyone remember Maximilian Robinson and his four-page handwritten rants to critics who didn't write the review he wanted?
"If an artist tells me he wants to talk about my 'stupid review,' that's fine. Maybe my writing was stupid. The greatest geniuses in history have done stupid things. I've do stupid things just about every day. But if he calls ME stupid, I won't engage that person in further discussion, just as he shouldn't were I to call him the same." I think the preceding gets to the heart of the matter. The fact that he called her at home is a red herring. My husband and I saw the play last week, and we thought the acting was quite good, but the set design choices were terrible. I daresay, if the production values were better, the director might feel less of a need to scold critics for disagreeing with his choices.
I take issue with the snide, smug tone Tony Adler takes in the post. He essentially calls Kleiman shallow and stupid and berates her for daring to write about an unsual occurance. Thing is, everyone here agrees calling a critic at home and making personal comments is unusual behavior - justified or not. And Kleiman was within her rights to discuss it. She may have made a mistake in address Falls comments as well as his actions, only because it gives Adler an excuse to act smug and insulting. Thing is, Tony, your post also wallows in self-regarding populism even as you denounce it, patting yourself on the back for "taking things in and trying to understand them" to "and tell readers what that was". So instead of assessing value for Joe Littleguy, you assesses truth. As if you don't declare whether you liked something or not in every review - and indeed every post. Your eagerness to rip into Kleiman and praise yourself undermines your point.
Hmmpf (if that indeed is your name), you make a couple of unjustified leaps here. First, I never said Kelly wasn't within her rights to remark publicly on Falls's call, just that it seemed to me to be a strategic mistake since it invited the question of whether what he reportedly said to her was accurate. She opened up a can of worms--and I, by the way, was within my rights to respond when she did. Second, there's a huge difference between telling my readers what happened to me at the theater and assessing "truth." I don't claim to be any righter than anybody else any more than I claim to speak for Joe Littleguy. I try to tell what I saw and felt given what I brought to the event. That usually involves some sort of qualitative comment.
Heron (March 9) criticizes the "set design choices" made by director Robert Falls for DESIRE UNDER THE ELMS, then turns around and suggests the "production values" needed to be "better." Quality of production values IS NOT THE SAME THING as interpretive choices. And while Mr. Falls may have inadvisedly overreacted to certain "critics for disagreeing with his choices," it's inevitable that any artist will be peeved that the critic didn't try to discuss what his choices were and why he made them, rather than merely venting how "furious" (Kelly Kleiman's word) she was. But being peeved doesn't give said artist the right to intrude on said critic's privacy.
If anyone is still listening I just want to add that, upon reading the latest updates from Mr. Sandlin et al I have concluded that Kerry Reid has more balls and overall testicular fortitude than most men I know.
Kerry and Catey both. And I know a LOTTA men with considerable testicular fortitude.
Albert Williams: Fair point. I don't know all of the theater critic jargon, because I am not one. I disagreed with the director's interpretive choices. Thank you for filling me in on the best term to use.
By the way, Kelly Kleiman will be leading a discussion April 16 at Columbia College with Kerry Reid, Martha Steketee and Alice Singleton about the challenges and opportunities they face. The event is sponsored by the Association for Women Journalists-Chicago in cooperation with the Goodman Theater. More at www.awj-chicago.org/events.
I think that there is a larger problem with critics being assigned to review shows about which they are not sufficiently informed to give a proper appraisal. I.e., a critic well versed in large,Broadway-style musicals may not be well equipped to review fringe, storefront theatre, and a reviewer with a love for American realism most certainly should not be sent to experimental opera. This is not just an issue for assigning editors, but also a matter of journalistic integrity for those reporters assigned to review said productions.
Latest in Bleader
-
I saw you respond to an I Saw You
Here's your chance to respond to an I Saw You. Go nuts.
- Feb 8, 2012
-
The Asparamancer
A British augur reads the future with asparagus stalks, possibly Chilean
- Feb 8, 2012
-
Memo to Mayor Rahm: You won!
Mayor Emanuel takes a page from the Right—pretending that everyone's against him
- Feb 8, 2012
- More »
Author Archives
-
The latest Reader performing arts reviews
A roundup of Reader performing arts reviews,
- Nov 18, 2011
-
Hershey Felder masters Leonard Bernstein in Maestro
One-man show at Royal George Theatre takes risks and succeeds on every level
- Nov 17, 2011
-
Prospero puts on a play
The Tempest becomes Beckettian meditation (with puppets) in The Feast
- Feb 2, 2012
- More »
