|
November 14, 2007
Letters from Laramie
Response to dissenting views
Jon Taylor l managing editor
In last week's issue of the Echo, I wrote a review of St. Michael's drama department's production of The Laramie Project. Put simply, my review of the show was not favorable and it would have been naïve to expect only positive responses.
Over the weekend, I was inundated with several lengthy e-mails that primarily disagreed with my critique. Because of the interest in my review, I have decided to compile all of the responses – positive, negative, and otherwise – on this page.
Several readers questioned my theater experience – I acted in many local and regional productions for about nine years before I came to St. Michael’s in 2004. I took part in the college’s 24-Hour Play Festival my freshman year and have taken several theater courses throughout my academic career, as I am a theater minor. I am currently an editorial intern at Seven Days in Burlington and write both music and film reviews for the publication.
Outside of any factual errors or misrepresentations, I will let these letters speak for themselves, exactly as they were sent to this publication.
· · ·
Dear Mr. Taylor and Mr. Veiga:
After reading the script for The Laramie Project and attending the final dress rehearsal, I was thoroughly convinced that the reception of this production would be a favorable one. I was not surprised to see how many students and townspeople attended the show, especially following Judy Shepard’s talk the week before to an overflow audience. Neither was I surprised that the performance I attended on Thursday night received a standing ovation. I had little suspicion that the applause was merely a courteous expression of approval for the play’s “magnitude.” Discussions of the play and the performance with my First Year Seminar classes, further assured me that this production had contributed a great deal to the culture of the campus. I have every reason to believe that most who attended a performance and all who contributed to its success will not soon forget it. Needless to say, I was disappointed and dismayed by the review that appeared last week in The Echo. Although I might be tempted to describe this reviewer as mean spirited, I prefer to think that he is simply wrong-headed. Reviewers may not always find productions to their liking, and readers sometimes enjoy reviews that are intelligently or cleverly critical. Prospective audiences and actors may even learn things from gifted reviewers who write unfavorable reviews. In this case, however, the community learned little from last week’s review. The reviewer’s casual use of the term “epic” belies his limited understanding of Brecht’s epic theatrical style, to which Kaufman explicitly alludes in his introduction to the published script. In addition, his characterization of Kaufman’s dialogue as “incredibly verbose” and his complaint that the playwright’s company members spent “inordinate amounts of time documenting interviews,” suggest that his impatience with the production’s length might be a limited attention span. Why else would he so cavalierly recommend the unspecified omission of “pointless second-act vignettes” or glibly maintain that each of the acts “could be easily chopped in half”? These matters aside, I guess I am most unhappy that the students who put so much time and energy into a project in which they had come to believe so deeply should receive so little acknowledgement for their accomplishment, which was considerable. When we with the director, his designer, and several of the actors, my FYS students and I learned first-hand how much commitment each of them had made to the success of this production. The sixteen actors, each playing several characters (some of whom were clearly on different sides of the controversy), found it demanding to get through each reading, each rehearsal, and each performance of the play. There were few nights when they were not exhausted by these demands. We were touched because they were so profoundly touched. When I read the review I felt sad for the cast members who looked forward to reading it. I want them to know in this week’s issue that their efforts over the past several weeks were not in vain. Peter Harrigan and John Devlin clearly deserve a sincere apology for the ill-conceived criticism that the production received, as do the student actors and their backstage colleagues who thought that what they had done last week would leave far different impressions on the audiences for whom they performed.
Nick Clary
Professor
Dept. of English
· · ·
Hi Jon,
The opinions in your review are supported by specific examples, and even though I don't agree with everything that you say, you certainly have a right to express what you think.
Cathy [Hurst – associate professor of theater]
· · ·
Mr. Taylor:
I have to assume that you were writing your opinion in The Echo about the recent production of The Laramie Project in large part to be provocative. I assure you that you succeeded in this. I am sorry to see such actively hurtful and personally belittling writing appearing under the SMC banner; I find it inconsistent with the fundamental values of the institution and completely at odds with the mission statement of The Echo—not because you have expressed opinions different from my own, but because you do so in such a superficial, cavalier and reckless manner. I remind you that the policy of your publication is such that “Echo staff members and contributing writers are expressly prohibited from making defamatory statements.” I feel that you have certainly flirted with this line if not in fact crossed it in your article.
I would be happy to entertain a discussion of the play with you, and share with you my own opinions about the legality and ethics of “cutting” scripts among the other issues you’ve raised.
Respectfully yours,
John Paul Devlin
Resident Designer and Technical Director
Saint Michael's College Department of Fine Arts
The Naked Opinion is just that, an opinion. Just as you have the right to expound upon your opinion in this now-published e-mail, I have the right to publish mine, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. From The Naked Opinion mission (which is different from the Echo’s): “Our intent is to provide a place for opinions, reviews, and art and photography over the Internet for viewing by the college community and the Global Village. We welcome submissions of all material, but we retain the right to refuse publication to any false, salacious, or otherwise inappropriate pieces that may detract from the quality of the publication.”
· · ·
Hey Jon~
After reading your article in the Echo I was really annoyed at first. Since I was one of the actors in the show and really involved from the start it was painful to read some of the harsh criticism. But then I reconsidered it and no, I don't agree with all your points (for example, in terms of the female cast I think Kate Clark was wonderful in her emotional portrayal of the grandmother; as for cutting the show, taking out 1/2 hr - 40min out of a script is an awful lot -> how do you decide which stories are the most important when they are all in the script for a reason; in terms of abstract movement, directing a show of this nature is incredibly difficult when the whole show is compromised of just monologues - you can't really have honest/realistic movement because you don't have more than a handful of realistic scenes) but that's a couple examples and just opinion, of course.
However, I can understand where a lot of your points come from and I definitely think some are right on the mark (and not just the fact that yes, Melissa Briner was dead on in her performance but some of the critical ones too - no, the multi media wasn't quite right, yes, there was some over emotional parts (esp. if you came Fri night where there were some deeper issues happening other than what was in the play), and yes, some of the direction needed more work, etc).
It's hard to read a bad review but I think it's even harder to write one -especially in this situation. While I don't agree with you on many points I do think its really good that you wrote about this - the show's gotten so much positive press because the content is so important and no one has really looked at the play as..well... a play. So thanks for seeing past the story and looking at the presentation of the play itself - I know a lot of people didn't want to criticize the play because of the content and I think its good somebody did.
Anyway- I just wanted to share my opinion.
Thanks,
~Tina Shantz
· · ·
I’m not sure which version of Peter Harrigan and the SMC Drama Department’s Laramie Project Jon Taylor saw, because the review he gave in last week’s Echo is wildly off-mark.
Taylor confuses me by using overtly critical language and then failing to explain himself. He calls Harrigan’s interpretation “bland,” but frankly, I can’t figure out why. Harrigan’s cast engaged in simple—yet beautiful—choreography, which added visual interest to the monologues. Personally, I didn’t find their movements distracting at all, nor do I think the movement impeded the play.
Also, Harrigan had his cast hum “Amazing Grace” at intervals throughout the play, memorably while portraying Romaine Patterson’s angels. Watching a string of my classmates hum the hymn while circling the stage in elaborate angel costumes was breath-taking, in my opinion. I think that “bland” is probably the last possible word I would have chosen.
Taylor broadly criticizes the entire cast of the play in a contradictory way: he describes only the “few successes” he saw. I appreciate the positive approach he took in that sense, but because of it, I fail to understand his criticisms.
He says the cast was weak except for notable performers. Taylor says that most actors “became emotional when it wasn't called for by his/her role.” Jon Taylor, have you ever acted in The Laramie Project? I haven’t either, so I can’t say for sure, but it is my understanding that this is a very emotional piece of theatre. I don’t think the actors could help feeling certain emotions during the performances. Nor do I think that their emotions were distracting, inappropriate, or in any other way detrimental to the work. I think it made the show real and effectual.
After awkwardly skirting around criticizing the actors, Taylor gets to the root of his issues with the show by disparaging Harrigan’s direction. Now, without getting too argumentative, I think Jon Taylor is positively, 100% wrong. The Laramie Project is absolutely Peter Harrigan’s element. The cast and crew of the show made Laramie so pertinent on our campus because of Harrigan. His evident passion for the work made the Saint Michael’s community passionate about it.
Admittedly, technology is unpredictable; I know in Thursday night’s production of the show specifically, there was technical difficulty regarding the slideshow that so distracted Taylor. But I commend Harrigan’s attempt at trying to bring the audience into Laramie, Wyo. It was a creative endeavor and seeing some pictures of the things Kaufman had his characters reference in the play helped me, at least, get more involved in the story.
Lastly, I was surprised to read that Taylor thought the play took too long. The play is long. But I’m sure Moises Kaufman wouldn’t have included every monologue if he didn’t intend for every monologue to be performed. Part of theatre is the experience. One goes to a theatre production for what it is: The Laramie Project is an emotional, two-hour and forty-minute visit to Laramie, Wyo. Peter Harrigan, who is a professional, knows that. To cut out monologues or scenes for the sake of impatient college critics would be to spoil the integrity of the piece.
I respect the democratic ideal of freedom of speech. Had Jon Taylor given Laramie a substantiated poor review, I would have read it, disagreed, and quietly accepted it. But not only did he leave me angry, he left me guessing.
Jacqueline Cain, 2010
Journalism and Music
I saw the Friday (11/2) night performance of the show. The overhead projector above the stage was not working on this night.
· · ·
dear mr. taylor,
I just read your opinion piece on the Laramie Project that was performed by SMC theater students this past weekend. i just want to voice some opinions that i have about what you said.
I know that your piece was purely your opion, but, one of the largest problems with your article, was that the facts were not accurate and your views on how theater should be run are non-substantiated.
Firstly, the cast was not "comprised of mostly first-years and sophomore students from the college’s drama department". There were only two freshman in the production, myself included. There were a few sophmores, but the rest of the cast was comprised of members of the junior AND senior class.
I thank you for your nice comments on my acting in particular, however, your views on the acting as a whole sound as though they come from a person who has actually seen very little theater. And so i question how well you know the theater in general. Have you acted before?
There are many members of our female cast who had outstanding moments within the show throughout. It is innapropriate to point out that you feel our women were not "memorable in any sense of the word - a lot of them stoically [representing] roles that should have been harnessed with serious depth and emotion". From this comment, it sounds like you know exactly how these characters SHOULD have been played. So i ask you now, would you be willing to show how these characters are to be played? And what gives you grounds to give that opinion? Do you know these charcters from real life?
The way that you talk about the production as a whole, in a way, completely belittles the show. Frankly, a topic of this magnitude can not be cut down. Any theater folllower will know that when it comes to intense subject matter such as this, you can not and should cut anything. If it is your personal opinion that the show was too long, that is something that can be worked on. Actors can pick up the pace of ashow in most cases. However, with a show of this nature, it is not appropriate to speed up the tempo greatly, for it will cause a lack of attention to the fact that the actual events of this tragedy lasted over a period of 2 years, where then Judy Shepard, Matthew's mother, began to tour the country spreading the word on hate speech in America.
You mentioned that certain characters were over-emotional at times when the characters should not have been. however, you give no actual examples from the performance that show your opinion here. therefor no one can agree or believe that statement.
throughout the entirety or your review, you make statements about the show, about the acting, and about the direction. However, you never give examples of what made you say those things, leaving your views non-substantiated in every way.
I could go on and on about what i think of your review, but I am not, i'm going to leave you with one last remark.
next time you write a review, maybe do a little more research on the background of things, know a little bit more about what you are actually commenting on, and most importantly> As the managing editor of The Echo, make sure that all paragraphs are comletely finished before you have them printed in an article. check the review again if you do not know what i mean.
your loving reader,
~nathaniel beliveau~
· · ·
Hi jon,
I just read your review of our show and I wanted to call a few things to your attention.
First of all, I wouldn't recommend the use of poor grammar, especially in your first paragraph. There is no need for redundancy, the "HIV virus" ? Human immunodeficiency virus sums it up; there is no need to throw in another virus. Also, the cast consisted of only two freshmen, eight sophomores, one junior, and five seniors. I feel that this is actually a pretty good distribution of age groups, considering that good directors cast according to acting ability and how suited the actor is for the provided roles, as opposed to casting according to age. Another thing you mentioned was the use of multimedia; the script calls for this element. The script also consists of the amount of dialogue that Kaufman obviously thought was necessary, so for Peter to have cut the script, some of the messages would have been lost. Messages apparently revealed only to audience members with a greater amount of depth.
Anyway, you appear to be very confident in your interpretation of theater. You should audition for a play sometime and show us what you've got.
I'm sure you will get a sympathy ovation just for your effort.
Sincerely,
Renee Baillargeon
I did not say that the cast was brought down by its youth. I merely stated that most of the actors were underclassmen (i.e. first-years and sophomores). As you say, there was a 10-6 ratio of underclassmen vs. upperclassmen.
|
