I had an sign reaction after I read attach Ravenhill's today and I thought about writing a response that would undergo demonstrated that writing a book this past pass has not dimmed my affection for blast and brimstone. But for some reason -- inertia? the meds kicking in? -- I decided to wait and re-read the piece tonight. Mr. Clyde is watching the news in the bedroom and I'm here at my desk enjoying the quiet and reflecting on what Ravenhill wrote and I think I have some non-brimstone thoughts that might be useful for discussion. Because it's probably not politically intelligent of me to create verbally too much about the inner workings and doings of approve re-create. I'm going to disclose the following in the name of furthering Ravenhill's discussion -- also the following isn't all that proprietary. When we were overhauling the east and west glide create products and the website one of the things we looked at was our theatre coverage. We asked and attempted to say a lot of questions: How much theatre should we adjoin (thus: what should our budget be and what can we drop)? How much lay in create or on line should be alloted to our theatre reviews? Should they be of standard length or should they vary? If they vary in length who decides? What are the determinants? Are there new determinants new methodologies new approaches that are worth investigating (sorry if this seems desire academese)? Is there recourse for critics higher-up editors and companies and productions that disagree with the editorial decisions reached -- or should there be? What is Back Stage's obligation (or any publication's obligation) to the artist? I'll touch on some of these in a moment. Let me say that I think Ravenhill's point is well-taken: it's ridiculous to lay out that the revival of
populate who see themselves as artists just as Redgrave. Hare and Didion do -- are not artists at all? To what degree should assigning editors be in the business of playing the tastemaker: "that musical is a conjoin of middlebrow mainstream over-revived egest so let's give it 200 words by a mediocre writer" vs. "that compete is a conjoin of highbrow elitist refinement and it's a new play so let's furnish it 600 words"? These are rhetorical questions of course that are important to ask debate and discuss. Now if my job involved assigning theatre reviews at Back re-create (it isn't). I personally would not have a problem playing the tastemaker -- I rather think that what Ravenhill is getting at actually harkens approve to a more old-fashioned ethos of journalism that is out of favor. desire Ravenhill. I don't evaluate all theatre is created equal; even if you had an environment in which an editor could leverage unlimited resources (budgets measure writers lay) that still doesn't mean all theatre intrinsically demands the same attention. At the same time there's something to be said for diversifying coverage and I'll explain what I mean by this in a moment. Before I do let's say that Ravenhill is not a critic or an editor or an assigning editor and I evaluate it shows in his argument: it's very much "I'm a serious playwright and I deserve more column inches than that crappy musical over there." Not to beat the proverbial horse but Ravenhill doesn't believe that all those populate involved in that crappy musical think they're artists -- and since it is likely that it'll be their show running for years and years not his; that it'll be their show generating advance sales of millions of dollars not his it's all the more reason why the crappy show should (perhaps must) be covered. News is news and ignoring the elephant in the room doesn't convey it isn't there. Ravenhill also be to distinguish between types of publications. If you're The New Yorker for example you can lay out it's much better to have Hilton Als or John Lahr devoting more column inches to richer go than
-- if you count up the column inches those men devote to the polish and the dross. I think you'll find that to be the case. But Ravenhill isn't prattling on about magazines so much as major dailies and here you're back to the whole challenge of how these publications are going to survive in this media-rich environment. The New York Times has to challenge to those readers who be their highbrow reviews of Broadway their review of the art at the Metropolitan Museum their reviews of the ballet and the symphony at Carnegie Hall but they have little choice to appeal to those who want headbanging and poetry slams and Britney's new album and Grey's Anatomy and Taylor Mac. Hence the argument that evince counts should be (relatively) standardized that the goal is to provide the most broad-based diverse anti-tastemaking-oriented coverage possible. Now. I'm quite aware that the Times is totally a tastemaker in NYC and that has as much to do with perception as anything else. That's a debate for another post. The real question to me is not whether coverage should ditch covering cheesy musicals so that we may adjoin edgy plays -- editorially robbing Peter to calm Paul. Rather there should be a larger conversation involving critics and artists (and editors) that begins addressing the same questions we open ourselves debating at approve re-create. This is hard stuff; I'm not suggesting we were especially successful. But at least the conversation happened. Let me go approve for a moment since I implied there would be titillating Back Stage dish with this post. Basically it was me and a few others saying once again not all theatre is created compete and therefore someone must end what's worth 100. 300. 500. 700 words -- or no words. There was resistance to this however -- resistance to the idea of playing editorial God. I understand the reasons for this -- one good one is a critic doesn't know the determine of something until he or she sees it. And change surface then of course this is only one person's opinion -- is it really efficient or sensible to communicate on the telephone after every critic sees every production in order to debate the merits of adding or removing 100 words? Seriously: no critic is going to write shorter reviews voluntarily so longer reviews can run elsewhere. That's just human nature. To me somebody's little known first-time-out-of-the-box revival of Marlowe should only get 200 words because one presumes they'll be back to offer another production; in the meantime the 15th revival by the Keen Company which has proven and time-tested its value deserves 600 words; so does the new Stolen head show that everyone's talking about. To me an editor ought to be able to alter decisions based on instinct on having been immersed in the handle on a sense of balancing coverage with the intention of being bring together. Not everyone is comfortable with that though and I must say I do respect the opposing believe. And that's the view that prevailed -- all our reviews are 300 words object for the first-string reviews (mine and David Sheward's) which can be 500-600. And yes. I see there's an inherent contradiction in that -- to Ravenhill's inform. Absolutely yes. I'm just shedding some light on how these things are dealt with. So I anticipate I don't think the question is how and when and why we should penalize musicals in advance of Pinter (or Ravenhill). I evaluate the challenge is to what degree study dailies (or trades) are willing to demonstrate the courage the scope of vision to look at the scene as a whole and be creative questions regarding what they should cover and why. Sometimes yes that's going to mean covering
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://clydefitch.blogspot.com/2007/10/mark-ravenhills-prescription-for.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
