The Mirror up to Nature

Samuel Johnson is right as always!

2017-01-03T22:46:00.003-05:00

A Little House Cleaning Is Eye-opening

2015-04-06T17:20:00.000-04:00

For some reason, I decided to just start going through my links over the right side of the page there. These are the links to sites that cover theater in the Boston area and beyond, including a long blogroll of people who primarily write about theater.

As I went through, testing the links one at a time, I learned that many are changed, and some are gone.

I had to remove a lot from the list of sites covering the Boston area.

Many places like the Boston Phoenix and the Providence Phoenix simply don't exist. Timeout Boston doesn't really cover theater anymore, and neither does the Boston Herald or the Boston Metro. Some independent sites that kept up with coverage for quite a while have fallen away, too.

It wasn't really that surprising as arts coverage has been declining for a long time. In fact, it is kind of an evergreen subject in the realm of writing about the arts. Just this week, Howlround had a piece by Jonathan Mandell entitled: "Are Theatre Critics Critical?"

The Los Angeles based theater site Bitter Lemons reported recently on an LA theater writer who has begun to post quick, two-minute "Exit Reviews" on YouTube. The purpose is to give her initial reaction to the show just after she leaves the theater.

While Bitter Lemons is not a fan, they are sympathetic to critic's desire to catch up with the digital revolution.

There is a sadness I feel with all of this.

As coverage has fallen to probably an all-time low, the theater scene in Boston has exploded with talent, new companies and even some new spaces.

Theater of Justice

2014-11-26T23:18:00.000-05:00

Ferguson Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch

Everything is theater, right?

In his book The Necessity of Theater; The Art of Watching and Being Watched, philosopher Paul Woodruff attempts a definition of theater. He arrives at the following:

“Theatre is the art by which human beings make human action worth watching, in a measured time and space.”

Woodruff tests his definition over the course of his volume and he examines this art from the perspective of practitioners and audience.

A lot of words have been written about the evening of November 24th and the press conference held by Ferguson prosecutor Robert McCulloch. While the decision of the grand jury regarding the possible indictment of Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson in the matter of the shooting of Michael Brown was known to prosecutors earlier in the day, the announcement was scheduled for 8:00PM Central Time.

Apparently, not a lot of notice was given to community members about the release of the information.

Even as it was happening, most of America must have had an uneasy feeling while watching the split screen of McCulloch and the large gathering protesters who were listening as he spent over ten minutes prefacing the decision of the grand jury not to indict Officer Wilson.

Watching it unfold, it would be hard to imagine a soul who was not thinking: “Maybe this was a bad idea to announce this at night?” This particular sentiment was summed up succinctly in this tweet:

Police in August: Please don’t protest at night. Police in November: Let’s announce the decision at 8pm.
— Madeline Marshall (@Maddie_Marshall) November 24, 2014

The official word on the decision from the prosecutor’s office was given as follows:

“We coordinated with law enforcement, gave schools time to get all children home and in a safe location, gave businesses time to make a decision regarding their employees' safety, prepared our statement and then made the announcement. We also had to give media time to set up.”

Of course, that last sentence would have been good satire years ago, but today we don’t bat an eye.

The content of the announcement itself has been the subject of speculation by legal analysts, many of whom suggest that McCulloch’s lengthy preamble to the actual release of the grand jury decision was an effort to distance himself from the grand jury process.

In effect, McColluch was casting himself as the simple messenger, sent from the mountain with the envelope containing the answers - loyal to this sacred system, yet, not any more involved in it than anybody else watching CNN.

Indeed, the press conference merely underlined the approach the prosecutor took towards the entire Grand Jury investigation: A posture of neutrality and then a presentation of all the evidence they had mined. As as an offering to the people, all the evidence would be laid at the feet of any who wished to see it. You see, we are no different than he is.

Some legal reporters, such as Jeffrey Toobin, suggest this approach in itself was a case of a prosecutor putting his thumb on the scale:

“McCulloch gave Wilson’s case special treatment. He turned it over to the grand jury, a rarity itself, and then used the investigation as a document dump, an approach that is virtually without precedent in the law of Missouri or anywhere else. Buried underneath every scrap of evidence McCulloch could find, the grand jury threw up its hands and said that a crime could not be proved. This is the opposite of the customary ham-sandwich approach, in which the jurors are explicitly steered to the prosecutor’s preferred conclusion.”

McCulloch's goal, according to Toobin and some other analysts, was to create the illusion that a trial had been held.

McCulloch’s opening statements at the conference also contain some subplots or “B-stories”. The media bristled for days at McCulloch’s complaint that, “the most significant challenge encountered in this investigation has been the 24-hour news cycle and its insatiable appetite for something, for anything to talk about, following closely behind with the nonstop rumors on social media.”

It was easy to see the setup. The news crews were already positioned all around Ferguson, solemnly, but anxiously, awaiting the “verdict,” along with the fairly predictable fallout. As the cameras in courthouse rolled on the lone figure of McCulloch at the podium, the cameras on the street sent us live video of the impending heartache or jubilation of the crowd.

Everybody, watchers and players, seemed to be involved in this. McCulloch got his moment in the prime time spotlight and the opportunity to craft a narrative, one in which he is cast as the dutiful public servant. This is, at the least, disingenuous. He is, after all, an elected official, who has run successful election campaigns again and again.

The players are one thing, but I think about the audience to which McCulloch had to imagine he was playing. He was thinking, probably, as most political-minded folks do, of the audience pact that theatergoers have with the performance: deeply engaged, but not actually participating; caring, but not getting too emotional; thinking, but not drifting away in your thoughts; identifying, but avoiding transference.

But this isn’t theater and it isn’t politics. This is justice.

The justice system is ceremonial in some respects and so it can easily be considered a theater of its own. However, the boundaries of performance won’t hold in the theater of justice without arms.

Things got dangerous, very fast. And reporters suddenly were looking a little worried here and there, and even gave away the facade - indicating that they had security details with them.

Even Judge Judy has a bailiff.

We always need poets.

2014-11-25T13:37:00.001-05:00

Drawing Room Comedy As Fabulous Invalid

2014-11-24T18:46:00.000-05:00

The cast of Peter Snoad's Identity Crisis.

At Hibernian Hall in Roxbury, a quiet riot is taking place. Peter Snoad’s play Identity Crisis, directed by Jackie Davis, has a diverse audience sending laughter up into the high ceiling of the Hall’s third floor playing space.

Hopefully the play won’t fly under the radar of the Boston theater scene, or the eyes and ears of those who write about it, but that is entirely possible. The playwright doesn’t come with a New York pedigree, the playing space isn’t in a trendy area, and the play itself is that kind of comedy that goes in and out of fashion with theater folk and critics alike.

Identity Crisis is a drawing room comedy or, more appropriately a living room comedy. Who really hangs out in drawing rooms these days? Like many classic comedies and farces it involves a marriage, social conventions, class, a little sex and, oh, Race. The premise is simple and seems like it escaped from the mind of the love child of Alan Ayckbourn and Lydia Diamond.

A layabout neo-hippie, pot grower named Alan is finally getting his act together. He is about to wed into a wealthy, conservative Jewish family. On the eve of the ceremony, the rest of the family takes off to the rehearsal dinner while Alan waits behind for his Best Man - an old college friend from his frat boy days whom he hasn’t seen in person for a little while. When the friend arrives, he is Black. Not in black makeup, he is… a Black man.

His friend explains that he has turned Black, and it is slowly happening to more people around the country, (”It’s accelerated since Obama was elected.”) He has reason to believe it is going to happen to Alan as well. The process can take months or it can happen in just a couple of hours. Alan could wake up Black on his wedding day. He might even start turning Black as he walks down the aisle in front of his conservative in-laws!

The machinations used by the characters to deal with this situation are the maneuvers we know from classic farce and, of course, sitcoms. But what makes watching these tropes and conventions so pleasant is that the characters and the premise allow the playwright to bounce around a multitude of ideas and themes about our “post racial society.” There are some wicked laughs and some groaners, but it is all played lightly, - it doesn’t have the underlying sadness that, say, Ayckbourn brings to his comedies. That isn’t a criticism, it’s more like a distinction.

My thought though, as I watched this living room play, is that this particular type of comedy is perennial because the content can change easily with the times, a fact often left out by critics who occasionally proclaim the form inert or dead.

But it is always alive, because we are part of it. Audiences have watched Earnest and Algernon finagle their way around social conventions in their drawing room, just as they watched Orgon's family try to take off his religious blinders, and watched Felix and Oscar struggle as newly single men in a divorced world.

I know, I know, it’s a little way down from Wilde to Simon, but I’m still always amazed at how potently the theater can animate our societal foibles with this genre. In many cases, these living room comedies do a far better job than more stylized and experimental efforts which are celebrated, sometimes deservedly, (sometimes not) for their ambition, regardless of the coherence or thoroughness of their ideas.

Currently on the boards in Boston, there’s another play about an identity crisis from the same genre. Bad Jews at Speakeasy Stage is getting critical praise and entertaining audiences.

So, the living room comedy is dead, long live the living room comedy!

Identity Crisis is at Hibernian Hall until December 7th
Bad Jews is at Speakeasy Stage until November 29th

The Evolution of the Scream in Film

2014-11-04T22:48:00.001-05:00

Your Unofficial Guide to Enjoying the Funny or Die Oddball Comedy Festival

2014-07-21T14:30:00.000-04:00

Funny or Die has announced and put tickets on sale for their second annual summer Oddball Comedy and Curiosity Festival!

You can visit the official Funny or Die website here.

My wife and I have attended the festival the last two years at the Xfinity Center in Mansfield, MA and we had a fantastic time. However, before we attended, I went on the Facebook page and the official site for a little information because there were some confusing aspects to the event. It was very hard trying to find the answers to these questions.

After the event, I was posting on social media about what a fantastic time we had, and I noticed that there were people posting negative things about the event. I can honestly say that a good portion of these negative posts were the result of people not understanding the event at all before they came.

So, I thought I would post this little guide in case people are curious about or confused about the Oddball Comedy and Curiosity Festival.

A few things I need to make clear:

This article is based on my experience at the 2013 and 2014 Funny or Die Oddball Curiosity and Comedy Festival, which I attended at the Xfinity Center in Mansfield, MA. I am not related to, nor do I have any inside track on how the festival is coordinated. There have been changes from year to year and may be in the future.

I am writing about the Xfinity Center in Mansfield, MA, which is a large outdoor concert amphitheater venue. Every venue has its own characterstics, rules, layout and logistics. However, perusing the schedule I see that most of the venues on the tour are indeed, very similar outdoor amphitheater stages. They even look very similar when you pull up pictures of them on the web.

So, with those things in mind, here is an article to help you have a great time at the Funny or Die Oddball Festival!

1. Not All the Comedians Listed on the Main Website Are Performing At Every Show

Beside each venue listed on the main website, there is a little button that says "details." Click that button and it will give you the lineup for your city. Many, many people seem to purchase tickets thinking that they will see all of those comedians listed on that big slate.

Also, keep in mind that changes will happen during the tour. A comedian may have to bow out of your show, but another comedian will take their place. As you can see from the lineups, the Funny or Die folks are committed to bringing the best comics to the festival. If somebody has to drop out, they most likely will get a real solid replacement.

2. This Is A Festival Event, Not a Comedy Club Show or a Theatrical Show.

These are massive venues that usually host music festivals and large outdoor summer concerts. This is not a small, intimate evening of comedy, where waitstaff come to your tables and bring you drinks. When you want your beer or nachos, you are heading out to the concession stand just as if you were at a ballgame. And other people will be doing the same thing, so yes, people will be walking around, getting out of their seats and heading to the bathroom during a comic's set. Planes will sometimes fly over and you will hear fire trucks in the distance.

For some reason, this aspect seems to throw many, many people for a loop. Many comedy fans understandably are not used to seeing comics in this setting, but it really is a unique and wonderful way to see these great comics perform. There is nothing like communal laughter, and laughing heartily with thousands of people is an experience that is like none other!

3. Do Not Even Think About Using Your Phone or Camera During the Show

There will be warning signs placed all around the venue: At the entrance, on the doors to the bathroom stalls on the large screens inside the venue. Everywhere. These signs are really hard to miss. And if you have missed them, they announce it constantly between acts and before the show. These signs and audio announcements will tell you they have a zero tolerance policy for cell phone use and recording during the show.

Please take these warnings seriously. And I mean that. Do not even pull out your phone to check the time while a comedian is on stage. You will be ejected. They have staff constantly roaming the aisles and they will remove you immediately. I've seen this happen to people during the show. And guess what, nobody will feel sorry for you, because they have told you 500 times to not do it. In fact, the other audience members will be annoyed at you because you are now causing a disruption while you are removed.

This policy is good news though. You are enjoying the comedy without seeing thousands of glowing screens in front of you.

4. What Time Does It Start? My Tickets Say 5:00PM, But I See Other Places Indicate 7:00PM. Are There Two Shows? Do I need to buy a separate ticket to the see the 7PM show?

This aspect seems to cause the most confusion for people attending the festival, but it's really pretty simple.

As I said above, you have to look at this as a festival, not a movie or a theatrical performance.

Your one ticket gets you into everything: the oddities shows, the second stage show and the Mainstage show.

So, here is how you interpret the different times you are seeing.

First, you need to understand the layout and logistics of the festival and venues. I'll use the example of the Xfinity Center in Mansfield, MA.

There are Main Gates to the venue. This is where you will have your ticket scanned and you will be searched for anything you are not allowed to bring in to the venue.

Once you are inside of the Main Gates, think of the venue as being divided into two sections.

A. The Mainstage. This is the main theater area, an outdoor amphitheater where your ticketed seating and the stage is located.

B. The Concourse. Outside of Mainstage is a large outdoor area with concession and beer stands along with restrooms and souveiner shops. If you want to compare this to a traditional theater, think of this as the lobby, only much larger and outdoors.

5:00PM is the time the Main Gates to the venue will open.

Once you enter the main gates you will be in the Concourse area and there will lots of side show performers and oddities to see, along with different food carts and things. Think of this kind of like attending a fair or carnival, but without rides.

The Second Stage will also be located somewhere on the Concourse. A slate of local comedians will start performing on this stage at about 5:20PM, hosted by Brody Stevens the past two years. This stage is outdoors and there is no seating for this stage. This Second Stage show runs until almost 6:50PM.

Note: The Mainstage area, where your ticketed seat is, will usually not be open right at 5:00PM. The doors to the Mainstage area will open closer to 7PM (In our case around 6:30PM.)

7:00PM is the start of the Mainstage show. These are the big name comedians listed on the website.

In talking to patrons last year, all these details seemed to result in much confusion. I talked to people who arrived at 5PM and got pissed that they had to wait two hours in the Concourse area until 7PM until the Mainstage show started. And then I talked to just as many people who were pissed that they had come for a 7PM start and had completely missed the oddities and the Second Stage show.

5. Find the Second Stage!

To get the most for your comedy dollars, find where the Second Stage is located as soon as you enter the Main Gates. At the Xfinity Center in Mansfield it was tucked off into a picnic area off to the side of the main concourse. Many patrons I talked to later in the night were a little upset that they hadn't taken it in because they didn't even know it was there.

There are really funny local comics performing on this stage. In fact, I saw two of them open for much larger acts later in the year.

6. Even If You Are Only Interested in the Mainstage Acts, Get There Early.

I've already pointed out that these venues are massive outdoor concert halls, which means a lot of patrons, which means a lot of traffic.

If you think you are going to roll up to the venue at 6:45 and stroll in for the 7:00PM start, you are sorely, sorely mistaken. What you will run into is literally thousands of cars trying to do the same thing you are. And you will most likely be parking in a lot a long way from the venue. You will have to walk to the venue and then stand in a physical line with all of the other people trying to do the same thing you are, and you will then maybe take your seat around 8:15 PM (if you're lucky), having missed a bunch of the comics already.

I talked to several patrons last year you had this happen to them.

7. It's a Festival! Avoid the Traffic, Get There Early, Park and Chill Out With Other Comedy Fans.

Your venue's website or Facebook page should let you know when the parking lot officially opens. Usually this will be a couple of hours ahead of the Main Gates opening time. For the Oddball Festival, the gates open at 5:00PM, so shoot to arrive at the parking lot around 4PM, bring some lawn chairs, some soda, some tunes and some sandwiches. Treat it like a concert and hang out with the other fans who will be there early as well.

Notice that I haven't used the word tailgating, even though that seems to be exactly what I am describing. This is because different events, venues, counties and cities each have specific rules about tailgating and/or the consumption of alcohol on their lots.

I doubt many of these venues are against people chilling out with lawn chairs frisbees and snacks, but they might not want grills and beer. So please check with the venue on what is allowed.

Fill up on food and hydrate before you enter the park because.....

8. Concession Prices are Apocalyptic and the Lines Are Long

You are going to be paying about $5.00 for a small bottle of water and about $9-$11 for a beer. Food is expensive as well and it is typical ballpark/carnival food.

You may think this is a "no duh" type of warning, but understand that this is a long evening. You are going to be there for many hours. Bring some extra cash in case you want a soda or a hot dog.

I've been to many outdoor concert venues around the country and I can never understand this, but I've just accepted that the lines are interminable, even to just get a hot dog.

There are a couple of intermissions during the Mainstage show, don't for a second think that you will be able to procure your pizza and beer during the intermission. If you really want something, leave to get it while an act is onstage. You'll still wait, but it will be much more civilized.

9. Know Your Venue's Cooler and Water Policy

Outdoor concert venues know that part of the fun is treating it like an outdoor event and most will allow you to bring in a small, soft cooler. Once again, SMALL and SOFT. The venue will have very specific guidelines on this, look them up. These are great to put a few sandwiches, some fruit and snacks into.

The Xfinity Center in Mansfield allowed this in 2013. The only food item I purchased during the festival was a large soft drink. (And yes, I waited in a long line for it.) However, in 2014 NO FOOD OR BEVERAGE INCLUDING WATER was allowed in.

Some venues will also allow you to bring in one regular-sized bottle of water that is unopened. Check with your venue to see what the policy is on this. Don't assume. If the rules don't allow it, they'll make you toss the bottles at the Main Gate.

10. You Really Get Your Money's Worth - But It's A Late Night

This is especially important for anybody who is arranging for a babysitter. Last year, our show ended at just about 11:00PM. That is when Dave Chapelle finished his set.

When I read other people posting reviews and talking about the event online, I saw that this was pretty consistent through all of the dates.

So, if you are hiring a babysitter or having a relative take care of the tykes, don't have the expectation that you are going to be home at 10 or 11. You most likely will get home well after midnight, since you will have to get out of the parking lot with the thousands of other people leaving at the same time.

11. How Does the Mainstage Line-Up Work, When Are Certain Comedians Performing and for How Long?

This seems to be the number one question on the Oddball Facebook page, (aside from people asking why a certain comedian is not on the slate for their particular city.)

The actual order of performers will be up to the festival. I will tell you how the lineup worked for us in Mansfield, MA the last two years:

2013

Dave Chapelle and Flight of the Conchords were the headline acts. Then there were four other well-known comedians like Al Madrigal, Hannibal Burris and Kristen Schall.

7:15PM Comedian Jeff Ross took the stage and did a little introduction and some comedy. He was the host for the evening. He introduced each of the comedians and they would come out and do about 20 minutes each. This portion of the show lasted until about 8:30PM.

8:30PM-8:50PM INTERMISSION.

8:50PM-9:50PM Headliner #1 Flight of the Conchords took to the stage. They performed for about an hour or so.

9:50-10:00PM BRIEF INTERMISSION

10:00PM - 11:00PM Headliner #2 Dave Chapelle performed. He performed for just about one whole hour. I think I remember he ended the set at almost exactly 10:59PM.

2014

7:00PM Brody Stevens took the stage and hosted the following comedians:
7:05PM Brent Morin
7:20PM Jerrod Carmichael
7:35PM Chris D'Elias
7:50PM Hannibal Burress

8:15-8:45PM Intermission
8:45PM Sarah Silverman
9:10PM Dave Attell
9:30PM Amy Shumer
9:55PM Louis C.K.

Louis C.K. finished at about 10:40PM and then the night is over.

As you can see, the flow of the evening is very different from year to year. This year it was very fast and furious. You are seeing a lot of big names, but not for long sets.

12. The Cheaper Your Seats, the Farther Away You Will Be, And I Mean Really Far

I know this seems like common sense, but, as I have said, these are large venues. If you opt for lawn seating, or the cheap seats, the comedians will look really small on the stage.

But don't worry, these venues are equipped with very large jumobtron video screens and excellent amplification. You'll see and hear your favorite comedians from every angle. Bring a small pair of binoculars if you want to get an up-close glimpse of them.

13. Lawn Seating is General Admission and Full of Different Types of Characters

We sat on the lawn one year and had a great time. But we prepared beforehand. Here are some things to know if your venue has lawn seating.

a. Lawn seating is the cheapest, but it is really far from the actual stage.

b. Most venues DO NOT allow you to bring chairs for the lawn seating. So bring a blanket to spread out on.

c. Lawn seating is almost always general admission, so you don't own any particular real estate. If you have a good spot, just realize that as the show fills up, people will start to really crowd the area you have staked out for yourself. Just chill out and accept it.

d. Scope out your neighbors while you are waiting for the show to begin. If they are assholes and annoying before the show starts, they are not going to quit once the show does start. Move away from these jerks or you will regret it. Don't wait until after it gets dark to try and find another place to settle down.

14. Prepare for The Elements

Three things to remember about the Oddball Comedy Festival:

1.) The venue is outdoors.
2.) The event is performed rain or shine.
3.) It takes place over many hours.

I've already explained how the gates open at 5PM and the last comedian finishes at 11PM, right?

Well, think about that for a second. That is six hours! Not only that, but it is six hours going from daylight into dusk, then into evening, and then full on into night. The temperature can change quite a bit during that time, so I would consult the weather report and bring some layers accordingly.

One year, we were slathering on sunscreen at 5PM and then throwing on our light fleeces and cuddling up under a blanket at 9PM. There were definitely some other audience members who were under-dressed for the evening temperatures and they were shivering quite a bit by the end.

At these venues there is an overhang that will protect most of the higher-priced ticket buyers from rain, but if you are on the lawn, or in uncovered seating, you really need to bring some rain gear if there is any significant chance of precipitation. My suggestion is to purchase a really good poncho rather than just a raincoat. A quality poncho will keep you really dry, but you won't feel like you are getting rained on.

Remember, even if your seat is technically under the overhang, yet close to the edge, if there is wind and rain blowing in a certain direction you may find yourself getting just as wet as the uncovered audience members.

DON'T BOTHER WITH AN UMBRELLA. They will take it away at the Main Gate, and even if you somehow do get it in, and you try to use in the Main theater area they will confiscate it, but not before the audience members behind you start yelling at you because they can't see.

Be strategic packing your clothing and gear. Venues have specific bag and cooler policies. Some don't allow backpacks, so you might be carrying your fleece or rain poncho in hand. A good solution is cargo shorts with big side pockets that you can slide a folded poncho into. If your venue allows a soft cooler, these usually have an extra pocket or two you can make use of.

15. Understand The Parking Situation

This is not like going to a movie theater, or a local comedy club or even a regional theater to see a Broadway touring show.

This is more like attending an arena concert or a professional sporting event. For instance, the Xfinity Center in Mansfield, MA is 12,000 capacity. To give you a comparison: a large theater that would have a comedian like Louis CK usually has a capacity of somewhere around 1,000.

Lots of people means lots and lots of cars. There are usually acres of parking lots at these venues. You will not choose where you park, you will be directed by parking lot attendants.

Here are some things to remember:

a.)The later you arrive, the further away you will be parked from the venue.
b.) Like anything in life, the closer you get to the start time, the more traffic there will be.
c.) You will arrive during daylight, but return to your car at night. Make note of where you are parked.
d.) Everybody will be leaving at the same time. There will be a lot of traffic leaving the lots and a long wait to get out. If it is imperative that you be home early, then leave the show early. That is all there is to it.
e.) Make sure you have a full tank of gas, because it could take like an hour or more to get out of the parking lot. I'm serious. It could possibly take that long.

16. Get the Premiere Parking. For the Love of God, Get the Premiere Parking!

Some venues offer some type of preferred, VIP, or Premiere parking option. This is usually purchased in addition to your ticket. For example, at the Xfinity Center in Mansfield, MA it is called Premiere Parking and it is an extra $40.00. You can purchase Premiere Parking no matter where your tickets in the venue are. These premium parking offers usually allow you a dedicated lane entering the venue parking lots along with a lot closer to the venue.

Most importantly, Premiere Parking offers you a dedicated exit lane when you are leaving at the end of the night. This is worth the $40.00 alone.

Note: There are still a lot of people leaving the Premiere lot, so you will still have a short wait, but it will be nothing compared to the hellish snarl of traffic leaving the regular lots.

Contact your venue to find out if there is premiere parking available for purchase and get it today!

17. Have Fun!

The Oddball Fest really is a great time, and it is unique in that you get to see a ton of comedy with a lot of fellow comedy lovers.

I hope this answers some people's questions about the event.

Once again: This is based on my and other's experiences at the 2013 and 2014 Oddball Festivals, along with my experiences going to outdoor concerts and festivals.

Lineups may change and shuffle around. I would highly recommend liking the Oddball Festival's official Facebook page, as they tend to keep you updated somewhat on last minutes replacements or schedule changes.

Always check with your venue for their specific regulations, rules and policies.

Come and Knock on Our Door! - But Slide the Summons Underneath

2014-02-07T13:40:00.000-05:00

Joyce DeWitt, John Ritter and Suzanne Somers
in Three's Company

Playwright David Adjmi is in a tough spot.

He spent a lot of time writing a play, a dark satire of a well-known sitcom of the 1970's. The play even received a New York production off-Broadway at the Rattlestick Theatre. The reviews were mixed, but enough on the positive side to secure at least a few well-placed regional productions, right?

Wrong.

As the curtain was coming down on that initial production, the playwright received a cease and desist letter from DLT Entertainment, the original rights holders of Three's Company, which is the aforementioned 70's sitcom that was skewered in 3C, Adjmi's play.

Now, months later, the writer of 3C is petitioning the courts to allow at least the publication of 3C in an anthology of his work.

The New York Times reports:

In a 20-page complaint, which was accompanied by supportive comments from acclaimed theater artists like Jon Robin Baitz, Tony Kushner and Stephen Sondheim, Mr. Adjmi asked the Southern District Court of New York to declare that “3C” does not infringe on the copyright of “Three’s Company,” which ran from 1977 to 1984 and remains in syndication. Mr. Adjmi’s lawyers, citing the First Amendment and the legal doctrine of fair use, argue that “3C” is an original parody that only borrows some elements from the sitcom to examine its premise, character types, and homophobia and sexism in that era.

You can read the complaint here.

I haven't seen or read Mr. Adjmi's play, but images from the production are striking in how closely they resemble the actual show it is supposedly parodying. Of course, that doesn't mean that 3C isn't fair use.

Jake Silbermann, Anna Chlumsky, and Hannah Cabell
in 3C, D at Rattlestick Playwrights Theatre

However, it is actually very difficult to predict the outcome of these cases based on precedent. When reading through many famous parody/fair use decisions, it becomes obvious that judges really take it on a case by case basis.

The court applies many different tests and takes many avenues of inquiry into the parody defense. Questions that come into play:

1. Is it parody or satire?
2. Is the target of the parody the original work, or is it a broader commentary on society?
3. Is the new work transformative?
4. In the case of trademark infringement, would there be confusion in the mind of consumers?

It's tough to say what a judge might think, especially if DLT Entertainment can prove that they themselves are on the verge of launching a live theatrical show of Three's Company, sort of in the mode of the long-running Real Live Brady Bunch from the 1990's.

Wellesley Sleepwalking Through the World - Christina's World.

2014-02-07T12:35:00.002-05:00

My own little meme.

To understand, you can read all about the controversy over this sleepwalking man here.

We Wrote a Movie. And Now We're Trying to Make It!

2014-01-30T14:17:00.000-05:00

Check out our Kickstarter campaign for all the details. Our Kickstarter launch was great, but we've really tapered off.

Are You There, NSA? It's Me, Ron!

2013-11-17T22:24:00.000-05:00

A little video I made when thinking about faith and the surveillance society.

Lone Runner The Day After

2013-04-16T15:59:00.001-04:00

Lonely Runner The Day After, a photo by arthennessey on Flickr.

Critical Defense Posture

2013-04-03T15:55:00.001-04:00

There is a lot of hyperventilating over the state of theater criticism lately.

Just a few weeks ago, we had one of the old lions, retired New Yorker Critic John Lahr, assailing the younger generation of print critics. His hyperventilating turned out to be extraordinarily wheezy though.

This week, Howlround,( the online journal for the Theater Commons at Emerson,) has solicited some pieces from several critics and artists about criticism and journalism in the theater.

Rob Weinert-Kendt starts off with an essay about the parallel circumstances of the critic and the theater artist:

I refer also to the grittier, less exalted ways in which theater critics are as much like theater artists as to be indistinguishable as a class: the meager pay, the struggle for recognition, the dwindling audiences and disproportionate power of a few make-or-break gatekeepers, the sense in which one is stuck with a habit as hard to shake as it is difficult to explain to outsiders, who tend to imagine what you do as either glamorous fun or corrupt, frivolous nonsense, but never honest work.

There’s a deeper affinity, and it’s rooted in the fact that critics and theater artists literally share the same workplace for the most important part of their jobs. Glance again at that hypothetical list above—of miserable, ecstatic, and mediocre theater experiences, and of various ways to respond—and consider that the true critic feels called, duty bound, and, if they’re lucky, contractually expected to respond publicly, and in more detail than most of us ever will, even with shrinking word counts, to all three kinds of shows, and many more varieties besides. If that sounds hard—on the soul, on the brain, on the ass—it is. And if it is not nearly as brave or as arduous as making or performing theater—jobs with as much grind and obligation to them as inspiration and gratification—it is hard work when done well, and it is no more a job for just anyone than are acting or playwriting. We all may have felt the critical impulse, but no, not everyone is a critic.

Wendy Rosenfield dispels the persistent myth that a critic couldn't possibly want to be a critic. And she proudly states that theater knows it needs critics:

Without that critical assessment, without critics going on record to champion a playwright, performer, or movement—or conversely, without critics opening up a can of whoop-ass on a show they despise and occasionally receiving a bigger one in return—would theater retain even its peripheral position in our culture? No way. Not even if it’s a review of your city’s 10,000th touring performance of Nunsense. It’s a critic’s job to compare and contrast, to examine the spaces in between those performances, to see where they intersect with our lives and where they diverge, and to keep this ephemeral living art form among us a little longer by recording what happened onstage, while challenging audience passivity in the bargain.

And yet criticism, which by now should have evolved from a one-sided conversation (and we critics all know colleagues who are so accustomed to spouting opinions unchallenged that every “conversation” becomes a monologue) to a full-fledged back-and-forth between audience and critic, still drags its knuckles.

Dominic Taylor, Associate Artistic Director of America-in-Play, points out that poor critics might not be able to accurately assess a work's primary goals:

The dangerous thing about critics examining any work, then, is not the authority that they have over a work, but their individual and collective potential to conflate an audience. This conflation is most problematic when they assume that the primary function, and the primary audience, of all artists is the same. There are ways in which the aesthetics of this understanding can be made clear—even within the one work of one playwright, these factors can shift. I might go so far as to say that the primary audience for August Wilson’s Jitney is different than the primary audience for his Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, and that difference might be a reason why one of the plays has landed on Broadway twice, while the other play never has.

John Moore, the former Denver Post theater critic, assures us all that if you didn't like the old way of doing things, just wait until you get a load of the new way. He exposes a strange new network in Colorado in which arts organizations actually pay reviewers to review their plays. Then he goes on to point out the reality of the life of an online critic:

Two things the new generation of self-starting blogger critics have in common: Almost none of them are paid anything close to gas money to write about theater. And, perhaps coincidentally—perhaps not—what they write is almost always insufferably, uselessly positive. Some do it for love. Some just want to cheerlead for the community, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Some hope it leads to bigger and better-paid writing gigs. But where are those gigs, exactly? Who is paying anyone a living wage to write about theater anywhere? No one, in part because there is no demand from consumers that “The Man” do so.

Speaking of, who is “The Man” anymore, anyway? The Examiner? The Huffington Post? Those are newfangled networks of web sites that publish articles by citizen journalists who are paid next to nothing.

On Thursday, April 4th, Howlround will be initiating a Twitter discussion on this subject using the hashtag #newplay. Details here.

Light Trails - Massachusetts Avenue

2013-03-26T22:27:00.001-04:00

Light Trails - Massachusetts Avenue, a photo by arthennessey on Flickr.

I had the camera on a tripod in the car. But Boston roads are very bumpy.

Jupiter Rising

2013-03-12T10:43:00.001-04:00

Jupiter Rising, a photo by arthennessey on Flickr.

Abstract photography with Oil and Water.

Criticism And Reviewing - "I'm Versus You. Completely Versus."

2013-03-07T13:39:00.001-05:00

Refined Or Philistine? Critic or Reviewer?
(Seth Numrich in the Lincoln Center production of Golden Boy)

The critical community rallied to separate camps this past week after former New Yorker critic John Lahr took a swipe at the general state of the profession.

Lahr wrote an essay, The Illumination Business; Why Critics Should Look At and After the Theater, for the Winter 2013 Issue of Nieman Reports which included several other essays about criticism and reviewing.

Building off of two distinct examples of what he considers lazy, inaccurate opinion-making, Lahr builds a platform upon which he can lament the rise of reviewing over criticism.

Stop me if you've heard this one. No, really. Stop me.

Many critics took umbrage with the piece. Charles McNulty, the theater critic for the Los Angeles Times, took to Twitter to respond to what he considered to be an unfair attack on the authors of the two reviews Lahr chose to single out for criticism. McNulty later compiled these tweets on his Facebook page.

In a rally not so much to the defense of Lahr personally, but more to the point of the Nieman essay, theater blogger George Hunka characterized McNulty's twitter flurry as an ad hominem attack that chooses to avoid Lahr's overall thesis:

But what I want to point out here is that McNulty seems to engage not with Lahr’s opinions or ideas but his person and his career, attempting to undermine any authority with which Lahr may speak, responding to the person, not the ideas he expresses. One can trashtalk Lahr and even his criticism to one’s heart’s content, but that’s not a response to the concerns he articulates in this particular essay (with some of which, McNulty admits, he concurs).

Alas, this is not rare, especially on the blogosphere.

George's post has, to this point, drawn 14 comments, most of them continuing to defend the targets of Lahr's attack, if not attacking Lahr's critical acumen.

With every comment it would appear that Hunka's point strengthens. However, Lahr's essay is just too weirdly constructed and lazily evidenced to be defended. Yes, even though it seems to be stating the truth.

Now, I do believe that there are distinctions between reviewing and criticism, and, of course, there are arguments to be made about the state of theater criticism. Hunka himself has written a follow-up post entitled "A Modest Proposal" which examines some of the hurdles the art of criticism is having in the internet age.

However, everybody should avoid the boring way in which Lahr chooses to engage these problems.

Kenneth Tynan, one of the critics Lahr holds up in his pantheon of great writers for the theater, would never have turned in such a shoddy piece of work.

I know, the blogosphere may not yet have yielded a Kenneth Tynan, or a Richard Gilman, but it certainly can provide a corrective to lazy thinking and writing on the part of establishment writers.

For instance, I may not have the skill or talent to write criticism like Robert Brustein or Walter Kerr, but I can actually read the reviews which Lahr chooses to illustrate, or (I'm sorry,) "illuminate", his points. Furthermore, I can read Lahr's own reviews as well.

Scott Brown, theater critic for New York Magazine, comes in for harsh criticism as Exhibit A in Lahr's piece. Of course, Brown is not named, and the review which Lahr references is not hyperlinked on the Nieman site. (This type of online editorial policy, should be annoying to any readers with functioning brain cells, but I digress.)

Here is a link to the review in question, you can peruse it if like. In it, Brown is reviewing a lauded revival of Clifford Odets' Golden Boy.

Lahr is offended, greatly, by Scott Brown's opening passage about how Odets, for a couple of generations of theatergoers, was more of an intellectual acknowledgement, rather than an actual theatrical presence.

Lahr provides an overly defensive defense of the Odets legacy, citing royalties and, strangely, focusing mostly on Odets' successes prior to the 1960's. This is his proof not only of Scott Brown's ignorance, but also of Scott Brown's joy in his own ignorance?

If that isn't enough, the rest of Brown's actual review provides a little more confusion for Lahr's argument. Brown goes on to consider how Bart Sher, the director of Golden Boy, was able to succeed in pulling off the revival. Brown says the secret is that Sher focuses on the street lyricism of Odets' dialogue:

In fact, Sher backseats “concept” entirely, tucks it into the shadows with Michael Yeargan’s ghostly suggestion of a set, and instead amps up the sound of Odets, the musical palookaspeak that might represent his greatest contribution to the American Voice on stage and screen....

This is a Golden Boy that’s as much sung as performed, and Sher has assembled one hell of a tabernacle choir to sing it. Even better, he’s managed to keep everyone in the same mighty key.

Please hold on to that image of a symphony and a conductor for a moment.

You see, if you do a little Googling, you will find that this is the way that Lahr himself chose to characterize the very same Lincoln Center production of Golden Boy: "This distinguished, symphonic production has finally put Odets in the pantheon, where he belongs." This, of course, right after he points out that, "for decades Odets has languished in the discussion of the American theater."

Notice, Odets was not in the pantheon, by Lahr's own estimation. In fact, while recapping the year in drama for the New Yorker, Lahr recalls his own observations about the late 20th century fortunes of Odets among the theater-going public:

When I began as Senior Critic, in 1992, the second show I reviewed was Clifford Odets’s “Awake and Sing,” in Chicago. Odets seemed to me a woefully overlooked major writer.

To go even further, in a long "Critic at Large" piece about the playwright of Golden Boy, Lahr writes, "Odets didn’t lose his talent; he lost the attention of his audience."

As for the second major example that Lahr gives, a 2003 (almost ten years old!) New York Times review of The Retreat from Moscow, well, I could go back through my collections of Gilman, Tynan and Brustein that are on my shelf, and cite numerous examples of those critics working in their overall opinion in their opening paragraphs.

I won't bother though. It seems that type of rigorous effort won't get me in Nieman Reports, or land me a job writing at The New Yorker.

There will, of course, be those who think I am unfairly nitpicking Mr. Lahr's essay in order to willfully ignore his larger point. I can assure you that these questions concern me enough to have recently compelled me to read and dissect 20 professional reviews and 69 Amazon customer reviews of a recent bestseller in order to try and decipher differences between criticism and reviewing. You can read the results here.

That's not the type of thing Harvard publishes, I know, it's just what bloggers sometimes do.

We're such hacks.

Links to sources referenced in this post:

John Lahr's original column in Nieman Reports
Charles McNulty's Response on Facebook
George Hunka's Defense of Lahr's Thesis
George Hunka's Follow Up: "A Modest Proposal"
Scott Brown's Review of Golden Boy
John Lahr's Review of Golden Boy (Subscription required)
John Lahr's Critic at Large Piece about Clifford Odets
John Lahr's 2012 Year End Wrap Up
2003 New York Times Review of The Retreat From Moscow (Subscription required)

The Evergreen Movie Tax Credits Debate Now Moves To Stages

2013-02-06T12:56:00.000-05:00

Tax credits for film production are a familiar enough concept for those who follow Massachusetts political and cultural news.

As I posted last year, the concept of tax credits for large, Broadway touring or try-out shows, hit the mainstream in places like Toronto and Chicago.

Now, Geoff Edgers, writing in the Boston Globe, reports on how legislators in the Bay State will be considering a similar tax credit proposal:

The credit would grant up to $3 million to a production that plays in Massachusetts before opening in New York or to a touring show that starts here, reimbursing up to 35 percent of its state labor costs. Advocates of the proposal say the credits would create hundreds of jobs and drive millions of dollars of business into Massachusetts.

Of course, there are arguments for and against this new idea. Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Globe, fired off with both barrels:

Local theater honchos are warning, of course, that unless the Legislature showers them with a lucrative new subsidy, Massachusetts can kiss big stage productions goodbye.

“We need this credit,” the Citi Center’s Josiah Spaulding Jr. told the Globe. “Illinois has one. Louisiana has one. And if we can’t get one, we won’t be able to attract pre-Broadway shows again.”Uh-huh. That is what rent-seeking special pleaders — sports team owners, mutual-fund companies, video-game makers, solar-energy firms, filmmakers — always claim. And almost invariably the subsidies and benefits and tax breaks they clamor for turn out in the end to be what the critics predicted: ill-advised corporate welfare that costs far more than it generates. (See under: 38 Studios. Or Boston Convention & Exhibition Center. Or Evergreen Solar. Or Nortel Networks.)

However, the most interesting cautionary note, to my mind, was voiced in the Edger's story by long-time Broadway producer Tom Viertel:

“The problem is that in order to do a good job with a pre-Broadway show, you have to be able to keep it in front of an audience for close to a month while you work on it,” Viertel said. “The daunting aspect, from a producer’s point of view, is, ‘Can Boston really provide a month’s worth of audiences?’ Even with the tax credits, Boston may be a little limited as to what it can attract.”

(Note to Mirror readers. The Globe has opted for a pretty restrictive paywall, so I apologize if the links don't work for you. More on this in an upcoming post.)

Gambling is Coming to Boston. What Does It Mean for the Arts?

2013-01-15T10:57:00.001-05:00

Rendering of one of the casino proposals for outside Boston.

This is an important date in the future of the Bay State's cultural landscape.

Today is the deadline for casino developers to submit proposals for the three possible casino development licenses in Massachusetts.

Gambling is coming.

What does it mean for the culture makers and performance artists of the Commonwealth?

Almost on cue, Chris Jones has written a column in the Chicago Tribune addressing this very topic. Chicago faces a similar situation as the Hub, a large gaming facility is on the very near horizon.

Jones suggests a proactive approach:

Any Chicago casino must, first and foremost, not be seen as a Chicago casino at all. Instead, it should be viewed as a major new cultural hub, which happens to have a little gambling going on alongside its many other attractions. And that won't happen unless Chicago's creative professionals — its architects, entertainment executives, chefs, artists, actors, music promoters, cultural officials — hold their noses and overcome, as did the former street performers of the Cirque du Soleil more than two decades ago, whatever qualms they may have about becoming involved with gambling, which will arrive with or without them. They must grab hold of this civic debate right now, before the chance is lost for good.

The main energy of a Chicago casino should have everything to do with experiencing architecture, watching spectacular shows, eating at world-class restaurants, interacting with thrilling technological art and the like, and as little as possible to do with gambling.

Is this an approach for Boston or any of the other possible casino locations? Could ArtsEmerson have a stage over at the old Suffolk Downs?

Side by Side by Side Reviews of Sondheim

2013-01-14T15:31:00.000-05:00

Phil Tayler and Erica Spyres in MARRY ME A LITTLE.
Photo by Andrew Brilliant/ Brilliant Pictures.

The critical waters in Boston are growing shallower by the year, as evidenced by Tom Garvey's recent post comparing word counts at the various cultural outlets.

I've always been of the mind that it is helpful to have various voices on stage and off.

I was looking over three recent reviews of the New Rep's production of Marry Me a Little, a musical revue of Stephen Sondheim tunes.

I was struck by how different the focus was in each review. While all of them at least touched on several of the same points, each reviewer keyed in on an aspect that would form the spine of their criticism.

Writing in New England Theater Geek, Craig Idlebrook focuses on Sondheim's music and how it frustrates, and never so much as in a revue format:

Listening to Sondheim’s repertoire in the musical revue Marry Me a Little, currently being staged by the New Repertory Theatre, is like taking a master class in songwriting with Sondheim, with melodies that feel both familiar and haunting, easy on the ear and flat-out wrong. Lovers clash musically with competing versions of a fairy tale or declare their undying devotion as long as it doesn’t cost too much. All this musical discomfort can be overwhelming musically without dialogue to temper it; even a Dear John letter has familiar words for the hurt heart to find refuge. In the revue, there is nowhere to hide.

Meanwhile, Tom Garvey sees a revelation in the cast director Ilyse Robbins has brought together:

Which brings me back to my first point - once again I've found myself watching a cast that easily negotiated issues and funny twists that would have sent Boston's best pros spinning only a decade ago. The quartet here - Aimee Doherty, Phil Tayler, Erica Spyres and newcomer Brad Daniel Peloquin - all have delightful voices and acting chops to spare. Peloquin, often perched on the top level of a sprawling set, sometimes had a projection problem (the actors were wearing mikes, but the amplification, if it was there at all, was blessedly subtle) - but in general the singing was wonderful, and the vignettes accompanying the songs ran the gamut from haunting to hilarious.

And, at the Boston Globe, Don Acouin's review is more woven around the concept, or hook, of the production:

Now, nearly a decade after Massachusetts led the way nationally by legalizing same-sex marriage, the New Repertory Theatre is staging a production of Stephen Sondheim’s “Marry Me a Little’’ that broadens its scope to include gay relationships. It works, and beautifully, too. Directed and choreographed by Ilyse Robbins, the New Rep’s “Marry Me a Little’’ is an appealingly understated gem of a revue. Melancholy and uplifting by turns — but mostly melancholy; this is Sondheim we’re talking about, after all — the show underscores the necessity and difficulty of human connection, gay or straight.

Three different takes on the joys and challenges of the New Rep production.

Critics Have Actor Nightmares, Too

2013-01-13T12:22:00.003-05:00

New York Times theater critic Ben Brantley recaps his winter vacation, during which he saw no plays, but happily saw New York stage actors in many of the end-of-year, award season movies.

In the article, he admits that his break from theatergoing did engender critic fever dreams, which he describes here:

To start with, when I’m not working, I tend to have the critic’s classic nightmares. These are much like the actor’s nightmares (as in Christopher Durang’s peerless one-act play on that subject) or the student’s nightmares. In the critic’s version, you discover that you have arrived late for a play already in progress that is a) being performed in an unknown language; and b) features a central character that has yet to be cast and that you are expected to portray – right now.

Boston Theater - Friday Roundup

2013-01-11T09:38:00.000-05:00

2013 is getting into full swing with a lot of openings

Here are some of the shows you can see in and around the Hub this weekend:

Opening

A variety of Boston's best actresses are on the boards at the Lyric Stage for 33 Variations.

Ralph Ellison's iconic novel Invisible Man is brought into theatrical view at the Huntington Theater Company. (Photo above.)

Whistler in the Dark, (fresh off their triumph with Tales from Ovid,)presents the seldom produced Caryl Churchill play Vinegar Tom at the Calderwood Pavilion.

Anne Hathaway may win an Oscar this year, but previously that name was most commonly associated with Shakespeare's wife. The Bard's spouse is brought to life in a one-woman play Shakespeare's Will at the Merrimack Repertory Theater.

For those who want to start the theatrical New Year with a little Sondheim, New Rep presents Marry Me a Little, a revue of the composer's music.

Flat Earth Theater Company dashes off A Memorandum at the Arsenal Center for the Arts. The play, by Vaclav Havel, is satire of bureacracies.

Christmas season may be in the rear-view mirror, but Imaginary Beasts are back with their annual winter panto, this year is Legend of Sleepy Hollow.

Speakeasy Stage opens the curtain on Jon Robin Baitz's Other Desert Cities.

Ongoing:

David Cromer's landmark production of Thornton Wilder's Our Town continues at the Huntington Theater Company.

The Broadway bound Pippin keeps tumbling at the American Repertory Theater.

(Photo Credit: Teagle F. Bougere in the Huntington Theatre Company's production of INVISIBLE MAN. Photo by T. Charles Erickson)

New York Centrism - Critic Says, We're All In the Same Boat

2013-01-09T11:13:00.000-05:00

Michael Feingold, writing in the Village Voice, takes in the latest Pulitzer Prize winning play to have originated at a regional theater outside of New York City. Water by the Spoonful, last year's winner, had its premiere production at Hartford Stage.

Feingold notes that such plays are usually greeted "sniffily" by the New York critics:

New Yorkers like making the nation's taste, not vice versa, and they're not famous for approving of plays coronated elsewhere—a stance that the Pulitzer's Drama committee has increasingly tried to combat in recent years.

(...)

Like New York's haughty preference for being the determining factor when prizes are dispensed, the committee's insistence on hunting elsewhere for a prizewinner may strike one as silly and arbitrary, a well-meaning attempt to resist a bias that hardly exists any longer. The theater's shrinkage as a cultural force in our society has so entangled New York with resident theaters nationwide that we are all, in effect, stuck in the same storm-tossed little boat. The sooner we stop squabbling over precedence and start figuring out practical ways to keep the damn thing from sinking, the better off we're likely to be.

Boston Playwright Gets Mellon Grant - Melinda Lopez Will Take Residency at the Huntington

2013-01-09T10:45:00.004-05:00

More great news for Boston theater. One of our playwrights, Melinda Lopez, has been chosen for one of the Mellon Foundation's residencies for playwrights, which will provide salaries and benefits for three years to the recipient..

Melinda is currently onstage at the Roberts Theatre in the Huntington's production of Our Town, which was directed by David Cromer. (Photo above.)

An article in the Boston Globe covers the details of the Mellon initiative:

The Mellon money is designed to enable the writers to focus more fully on their writing without scrambling to make ends meet, but under the initiative they will also shoulder duties that could include taking part in planning sessions for theater companies’ upcoming seasons, providing a writer’s voice at board meetings, and participating in playwright development programs. A total of $245,000 will cover Lopez’s salary and benefits at the Huntington for the three-year residency. She will also be eligible to apply each year for an additional $10,000 from the Center for the Theater Commons to cover travel and research expenses. Lopez said she plans to finish “Becoming Cuba,’’ a historical drama set on the eve of the Spanish-American War, and also write two additional full-length plays during the residency.

However, this is not to be confused with a MacArthur Fellowship which is a direct gift to the recipient. The Mellon grant is a bit more admin heavy:

Playing a key role in the Mellon Foundation initiative is the Center for the Theater Commons, a research center based at Emerson College. The center will receive a $760,000 grant, of which more than half will be distributed to the playwrights for travel and research expenses, according to the center’s director, Polly Carl. The rest will fund a project to hire freelancers who will closely track the residencies to see how well they are working and what difference they are making for the playwrights, the individual theaters and the communities where they are located, as well as, potentially, the American theater in general.

Congratulations to Melinda Lopez, who is breaking ground for Boston playwrights once again!

Back in 2004 when the Boston Center for the Arts opened the Calderwood Pavillion, Melinda's play Sonia Flew was chosen by then Huntington Theatre Company Artistic Director Nicholas Martin to christen the Wimberly Theater, which was to serve as the Huntington's second stage.

(Photo Credit: Melinda Lopez and Derrick Trumbly in the Huntington Theatre Company's production of Thornton Wilder's OUR TOWN. Photo by Charles T. Erickson.)

Rosebud Diner- Somerville MA

2013-01-08T09:39:00.001-05:00

Rosebud Diner- Somerville MA, a photo by arthennessey on Flickr.

The Year of the Critical Discussion

2013-01-02T11:15:00.001-05:00

Over on Salon, Laura Miller interviews literary critic Daniel Mendelsohn, who has just published Waiting for the Barbarians, a collection of his criticisms.

The short interview ranges through many of the arguments about the state of literary criticism that appeared during 2012, including memoir, non-fiction versus fiction, positive reviews, social media cheerleading, etc. Many of these arguments were crossover hits into the world of theater and film as well.

Here Laura Miller brings up the eternal accusation of the critical agenda:

MILLER: Another form that takes is the author’s response to a bad review. Before, you might complain about it with your friends on the phone or over coffee. Now, that sort of angst often gets expressed on Facebook or Twitter. Or a writer’s friends will take up the cause in those forums and drop sinister remarks about the reviewer’s ulterior “agenda.”

MENDELSOHN: They always say that! Of course, if you’re talking about a professional assignment, no good editor would allow that to happen. I don’t think it’s Pollyanna-ish or naive to say that if you were given an assignment and you had some personal gripe against the author, you would recuse yourself. I’ve done that. But people always instantly assume that you had it in for that person when you’ve written a negative review. It’s a pernicious myth. Of course, we do have agendas that are aesthetic. That’s different. That’s a legitimate agenda.People also have the idea, especially if you’re not liking something very popular, that you’ve been gunning for it the whole time. In my experience, that’s never the case. You always go to a movie or open a book hoping that you’re going to like it. You don’t say, “Oh, everyone loves ‘Mad Men,’ so I’m going to knock it down!” Because why would you put yourself through that? This is actual work. I don’t want to sit through something I hate, knowing that I’m going to have to criticize it strongly. You always start out with an open mind.