Transmographied

            As a writer, it is not always easy to determine the impact of one’s words.  The task becomes easier when writing editorial or critical work, where the explicit vector of one’s intentions defines the genre.  Though clear in regards to opinions, my reviews on this blog may not clearly communicate my intentions, which are collaborative even when my tone is condemning.  I imagined that my reviews might serve more than my ego’s need to share, that they might help create an environment where people write and speak about theatre with the complexity I believe it deserves.  But lately I’ve been reconsidering.

Critics and reviewers presently function mostly (though perhaps for not much longer) as an important catalyst to the commercial success of theatre and often as ambassador between artist and audience.  I find this relationship particularly odd considering that most theatre critics don’t make theatre, and are therefore limited when judging its quality or commenting on its art.  I’m not saying non-theatre professionals aught to be excluded from theatre review, or even that they intrinsically give bad critiques; I’m simply saying that they lack a perspective that I desire when trying to answer ‘Should I see this production?’

Of course the underlying issue is trust.  The public needs one of their own to tell them ‘see this’ or ‘don’t see this,’ someone without investment in the commercial or artistic success of a production.  Without personal investment, the critic is arguably an objective voice, and the public can therefore trust them.  If the critic or reviewer is artistically or commercially invested in the production they review, they loose the trust of not only the public, but fellow artists, and that’s why I’m ceasing my critical reviews of theatrical productions.

A creative and collaborative environment withers without trust, and if I’m ever going to forge relationships with the Bay Area artistic community, it probably doesn’t set the right tone to begin with, “Hi, I wrote that review about why I think your show sucked.”  It’s probably better to begin with, “Hi, I think you had some great moments in your last show, maybe we can work together and make something even better!”  After all, negative reinforcement is nowhere near as effective as positive reinforcement.

Now, I know what you’re going to say, “He is compromising his personal integrity to get in bed with people who can help his career.”  While there are many people in this business I would like to sleep with, I don’t think I’m compromising anything.  It’s simply a change in tactics.  Gandhi said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”  If I want better theatre in the Bay Area, then I need to go make it instead of heckling from the side-lines.  After all, what right do I have to judge artistic work?  And who said my reviews were even accurate?

So I bow out of that gladiatorial arena and embrace a less combative medium.  I’m not sure what form these blogs will take, but it will likely morph into less review and more commentary a la dramaturgy or contextualizing the production.  Without harsh punitive declarations, my blog will no doubt be less entertaining to some, but I hope to find ways to make it an interesting and valuable experience for you my readers.