Ruminations from the Old School

Posted by Bruce Miller
To one and all-- I'm sorry I ever wrote my spoof of Susie's review of Lend Me a Tenor. Over on Dave's Theatre Blog, which I enjoy, it seems to have created a mini-firestorm, which was not my intention.

Here's what people seem to think. I read Susie's mixed but mostly favorable review of Tenor, didn't think it was favorable enough, wrote a scathing attack on her and Richmond critics in general, posted it on the Barksdale blog, at which point someone calmer and wiser "dropped the hammer" on me, and commanded me in fear and trembling to take the post down.

Here's what I think happened. I read Susie's mixed to mostly favorable review and thought it was pretty much on the mark. I also thought it was a crystal clear example of subjective, rather than objective criticism. Since it was a mixed but mostly favorable review, and pretty much on the mark, and since Susie is my professional friend, I thought it was safe for me to spoof the review, with everyone knowing that my spoof was written in good clean fun.

Call me crazy.

I think it's a very good thing that all of us, theatre artists and critics, are passionate about what we do. I also think it's very easy for blog posts, and particularly anonymous comments, to come off as nastier than they're intended to be. That's a lesson I should have learned long, long ago.

For the record, I never thought that Susie wrote a negative review of Tenor. I read her review just like you did. I'm not stupid. I know it was mixed but mostly positive. If I had written a review of Tenor, which I think is a real crowd-pleaser and lots of fun, my review would have been mixed but mostly positive. I don't think everything we produce is perfect. Quite the opposite. I think all of us at Barksdale are our own toughest critics. I'm glad about that. I think that's what has encouraged and allowed our artistic quality to improve over the years.

My point in writing the spoof was to shine a light on what I guess is an "old school" / "new school" debate in journalistic circles. Dave reports that during the recent criticism seminars he attended in California, a prominent film critic and speaker stressed the importance of avoiding the "dreaded O," or something like that, with "O" standing for objectivism.

When I took criticism in college a very long time ago, around 1972, we were taught the exact opposite. "When you write subjectively, " our professor would say, "you make the critique about you. Your readers are not picking up the paper to know more about you. They want to know about the play you are critiquing."

If you write subjectively, we were taught, your criticism risks being influenced by what you had for dinner, whether or not you have a head cold, whether or not your bills are paid, whether or not you just had a fight with your significant other, whether or not you could find a date for the performance. None of this is relevant to the quality or success of the performance you are reviewing. None of it should be included in your review, consciously or sub-consciously. All that personal stuff is relevant only to you.

If we ever wrote "I believe" or "I feel" or "it seems to me" or anything like that, it was crossed out with a big red pen and our grade was lowered for each offense. "It's not about you," was the mantra. It's about the play.

What I was taught, and what I believe, is that artists are entitled to informed, objective criticism, not a personal reaction based even in part on previously established bias or state of mind. I think Mark Persinger's comments on Dave's blog are on the mark, sorry, in this regard.

Dave seems to think, and I can somewhat understand, that objective criticism is impossible, because all journalists write subjectively, like it or not.

Those are our opinions. So be it. "New school" is no more right or wrong than "old school," and vice versa. But, perhaps, it's worth consideration.

In all my journalism classes, we were taught to write in "inverted pyramid" style, even in reviews. My journalism mentor, legendary U or R professor Joe Nettles, long revered as the "dean of Richmond journalism," stressed that the "inverted pyramid" style (I encourage you to Google it and find more info than you need) not only led to good, effective writing, it also allowed readers to opt out of any given article after a paragraph or two having learned the most important information the writer needed to convey.

Readers of my age (61) or older have been trained, subconsciously, to expect the most important information to be in the first few paragraphs. Most of Richmond's ticket buyers (not all, thank God) are my age or older. If they skimmed the first five paragraphs of Susie's review of Lend Me a Tenor, and read no further, they would have closed the paper believing that the most important information was that the T-D theatre critic hates farce and invites others to join her. They would have read nothing in the first five paragraphs about Susie's opinion of this production of Lend Me a Tenor.

It's not the end of the world, my friends. I'm not steaming with anger. I just thought it was a perfect time to discuss "subjective" vs "objective" journalism.

I wrote the spoof because I thought it would be funny, in a Jon Stewart kind of way. I copied the first several paragraphs of Susie's review almost word for word. I simply exchanged the words "subjective criticism" for "farce."

It came off nasty. I'd forgotten that that's what emails and blog posts do sometimes. You can't type in tone of voice, raised eyebrow, glint in eye, or twisted smile.

That's when I take blog posts down--when I become aware that they're being interpreted in a way not intended. When my trusted colleagues, Chase Kniffen and Billy Christopher Maupin, told me that the social media world was abuzz regarding my "attack" on Richmond's critics, I followed their suggestion and removed it from public view. I apologized publicly, on the blog, and privately to Susie. She was great about it all, as I suspected she would be. My apology was and is sincere. Not cause I'm kissing up to her or any critic. I just think everyone who means no harm is due respect. I never intended otherwise.

Susie is a valued professional friend, as is Dave. As a side note to one of Dave's commenters, it's a small community, and a lot of us are going to be friends. I think that's just the way we're wired, not any attempt on anyone's part to win influence with anyone else. The good news is, none of the current critics hang out in the lobby after a show and play kissy face / drinking buddy with the artists they are about to review. Only one critic in my memory did that, which I too found unprofessional. That critic is no longer here.

As for the objective/subjective issue, debated at length on Dave's blog, well, I think Dave and I will just have to disagree. Nothing wrong with that. I find some validity to his point of view. I expect he finds some in mine. I know we both respect each other.

Perhaps what is most interesting is that when Susie began her review by proposing a test, suggesting that all readers who enjoyed farce stand over there, and inviting all readers who hated farce to stand over here, with her, critics seemingly could not understand how that could be offensive to theatre artists. When I spoofed the review, and suggested that all readers who enjoyed "subjective" criticism stand over there, and invited all readers who hated "subjective" criticism to stand over here, with me, the general reaction was that I was issuing a "pointed" attack.

Bottom line: I have affection and respect for the critics and the artists. I mean no ill will toward anyone. I prefer my drama to be on the stage. I do think it's interesting to consider and discuss these things, however, even while remaining truly sorry that my initial spoof caused the reaction it did.

--Bruce Miller

How Does Barksdale Approach Casting

Posted by Bruce Miller
It's been fun and interesting to read the recent casting discussions on Dave's blog. Thanks, Brother Timberline. In hopes that people will understand the institutional objectives that I have established at Barksdale Theatre, in close association with our Board, staff and leading independent artists, I'd like to comment here on a few points raised about Barksdale's casting decisions.

I've done some rough, quick figuring from home. Please forgive me if I'm off by one or two. During the season that is about to conclude, Barksdale employed 80 actors in its nine mainstage productions. Eleven of the 80 actors live out-of-town. Sixty-nine of the 80 call Greater Richmond their home. I believe this is an appropriate ratio. Our commitment always has been, and will be for the remainder of my tenure, to Central Virginia's professional acting community.

Of the 11 who came from out-of-town, three used to be locals. Michelle Lookadoo (White Christmas) began her career at Barksdale. Kathy Halenda (White Christmas) and Ben Houghton (White Christmas) grew up here. We love bringing outstanding working professionals back to town.

Another two of the 11 (Patricia Duran and Ricardo Melendez - both in Legacy of Light - pictured to the left) were cast because of their talent, to be sure, but also because we have a commitment through our Hispanic Theatre Project to cast Latino actors in at least one production per year. We believe that if Richmond theatre in general is to increase attendance from Central Virginia's Latino community (the fastest growing segment of our population), theatres must begin allowing Latino audiences to "see themselves on stage." I mean in no way to marginalize the amazing talents of Tricia and Ricardo, both of whom I greatly admire. Nonetheless, I'm proud of our commitment to Latino audiences.

The remaining 6 of the 11 are Kevin Earley, Andrea Rivette, Freddie Kimmel, and Darrell Joe in White Christmas; Jeff McCarthy (pictured above and to the right with Harriet Harris and Stephen Sondheim in last season's Sweeney Todd at Barrington Stage Company) and Rachel Abrams in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

Honestly, we think of Rachel as a local, even though she's based in D. C. She has strong Richmond connections. She's starred with us in Into the Woods, Guys and Dolls and Annie.

Darrell Joe was recruited because we were seeking an African American male ensemble member with GREAT triple threat skills, and, based on who showed up at extensive Richmond auditions, we had to go out-of-town to find a dancer/singer at Darrell's level.

That leaves four actors out of 80--Kevin (pictured to the right starring on Broadway in Tale of Two Cities), Andrea, Freddie and Jeff--who we honestly can talk about when we discuss Barksdale's "bringing in actors with Broadway credits to help sell tickets." I'm paraphrasing from one of the points raised by a commenter to Dave's blog.

In each instance, these actors were cast because the powers-that-be (that includes the directors and me) thought they were the best artists for the roles. Also, as an institution, we have a commitment to bringing in Broadway actors, for four reasons, in this order of importance:

1 We believe their unique talents will enhance each show. Barksdale's mission statement states that we will create national caliber productions. We take this responsibility seriously. We are not exactly like every other theatre in town, each of which has its own mission. We believe our Broadway guest artists help us create national caliber work.

2 Despite what a couple folks say in comments on Dave's blog, Richmond audiences want to see Broadway performers in our shows, along with our best local artists. We've paid for lots of focus groups where we sat on one side of the mirror and Central Virginia's theatregoers sat on the other. Over and over again, we heard Jane and John Q Ticketbuyer talk about the allure of "Broadway" performers. In his comments on Dave's blog, Frank Creasy is absolutely right when he suggests that Barksdale's biggest competition is the Broadway series. We are proactively and strategically trying to address that competition by featuring wonderfully talented Broadway stars in our shows.

3 We believe a major regional theatre has a responsibility to provide its best local performers the opportunity to work side-by-side with major national talents. If you're a young professional theatre artist beginning your career in Richmond, having the opportunity to explore work in larger markets is a good thing, not a bad thing, even when it means moving on. And those opportunities are enhanced if you have resume credits in shows that featured nationally-known talents like Kevin, Andrea, Freddie, Jeff and Michelle (pictured to the left and above starring on Broadway in The Little Mermaid). And don't get me started on networking.

4 Barksdale is Central Virginia's resident professional theatre. Because of our strong audience and contributions bases, which have been developed through decades of hard work and strategic planning, we have the unique opportunity and responsibility to put Richmond theatre on the national map. I believe that it benefits every company in town if the national theatre community begins to recognize Richmond as a "theatre town." Due to the size of our metro area, this is not an easy task. We are working hard to gain the national attention that we believe Richmond deserves. Bringing in national stars is one part of our strategic efforts to gain national attention. One of Dave's anonymous commenters groused that Richmond audiences don't know who Jeff McCarthy is. I somewhat disagree, but I understand the point. Please let me add this, the national theatre community definitely knows who Jeff McCarthy is. They also know Kevin Earley, Andrea Rivette, Michelle Lookadoo and Freddie Kimmel. And they are impressed that Richmond theatre in general is beginning to attract performers of this caliber.

For each and every role that was filled by a national professional who was brought in from out of town, we had local auditions. GREAT people auditioned. In the opinions of the directors, choreographers and music directors in charge, the pros brought in from out of town were more suited to the roles than the local auditionees. Had these directors been blown away by the local auditionees, we would NOT have brought someone in from out-of-town.

Casting is a subjective process, and people will always have differences of opinions about casting decisions. My intention here is not to "defend" casting choices, but to make our institutional motivations clear. This is what you can expect from Barksdale theatre, God willing, for the next five years.

Having said that, let me add that nothing is ever carved in stone. All of us always welcome and listen to your input, be it supportive or constructively critical. Thanks.

In a future post, I'll discuss pre-casting vs open auditions.

--Bruce Miller