Big River @ Encores — Page 3

Viertel and Rich (who, let's face it, is a pretty good writer but has never been the most astute thinker) exhibit the kind of white fragility that usually rears its ugly head whenever white people (especially white men) are asked to examine how white and black stories are told. It's also extremely disquieting for the artistic director of a major theatrical series to essentially call for the dismissal of a critic because he disagrees with what she wrote. Laura is hardly the only writer to make this argument (see Jesse's review), so it raises the question of why Rich and Viertel are going after her with such zeal.

AC126748 said: "Viertel and Rich (who, let's face it, is a pretty good writer but has never been the most astute thinker) exhibit the kind of white fragility that usually rears its ugly head whenever white people (especially white men) are asked to examine how white and black stories are told. It's also extremely disquieting for the artistic director of a major theatrical series to essentially call for the dismissal of a critic because he disagrees with what she wrote. Laura is hardly the only writer to make this argument (see Jesse's review), so it raises the question of why Rich and Viertel are going after her with such zeal."

I'm with you on that- this seems highly unprofessional on Viertel's part. Of course he has a right to disagree with the review, but it's uncalled for to single out a particular critic, especially when other critics had similar issues.

Not to mention, the idea that Big River is the first show to give voice to a black tradition of gospel and blues on Broadway is pure nonsense. It suggests to me that Viertel wrote this without really thinking much about it- and maybe it would have been wiser for him to not have published it at all.

The Viertel letter feels like a personal attack on Ms. Collins-Hughes rather than a criticism of her piece. Doesn't help his case that she's a minority as a female theater critic, and a stringer.

Agreed completely.

Oh my Good Lord, the heavens-to-betsy pearl-clutching on behalf of this poor unjustly maligned so-called critic.

I'm honestly shocked that mine appears to be a minority reaction on here, but the letter was a well-reasoned, well-founded and entirely justified response to a review that was one of the most inept pieces I've ever seen in the New York Times.

Maybe it's just the circles I travel in but everyone I know this weekend - male, female, gay, straight, African-American, Latina, feminist and, I guess some would say, "white privileged" - was talking about what an embarrassment that review was for the Times... because, even worse than being horribly written, it committed the sin of being utterly ignorant.

I agree with Kad that Jesse Green makes some of the same points in a more nuanced and less offensive way. If anyone thinks that makes my viewpoint "disturbing" because Green is a man and Collins-Hughes a woman, then that's on you, and is one more example of the bend-over-backwards bleeding-heart-liberal P.C. crap that was the foundation for her review, and is what Viertel is justifiably attacking in the first place. If anyone thinks he wouldn't have written the same letter if the author's name were "Lenny Collins-Hughes", they're not giving Viertel enough credit, or exhibiting themselves much common sense. If anyone thinks that her sentence "I'm not arguing for rewriting Twain... but right now [it] doesn't seem to have much to add" isn't essentially code for "Twain's source material has no place in the world right now" and isn't a dangerous way of thinking, halfway down the road to censorship, then I fear more for our society then I did on January 20th.

Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is every bit as relevant now as Orwell's "1984" - and what's more, like any classic, both of those works always will be. Viertel probably didn't need to call for her dismissal because, given how many people I know wrote furious and dismayed letters to the Times this weekend, I think it's safe to say her name will not be relevant much longer at all.

Who's talking about censorship, exactly?

And this is the point wherein we devolve to circular reasoning: any discussion of race as it relates to this story is marked as an attempt to censor. If that's the avenue you want to take, go right ahead; I'm not going to participate in such a specious argument.

Kad said: "Frank Rich has shared a letter written by Jack Viertel, the artistic director of Encores!, in response to the Times review. It's scathing.

(This a link to a Facebook post- unsure if that means some may not be able to view it; please let me know)

Is the show to be punished for taking that step because those musical moments are not expressed by fully developed characters? The distribution of roles reflects the original novel. The unwillingness of the authors of the musical to betray Twain’s original characters and the structure of his work would be hard to fault. And if Twain, writing in his own time, is now to be discredited for not being here to revise his work to 2017’s political preferences, what am I to make of Anita Loos (Gentlemen Prefer Blondes), John LaTouche (Cabin in the Sky) or Truman Capote (House of Flowers) and all of the others?





"

" It’s true of Twain’s novel, but it’s worth noting that Jim is, in fact, the most important black character in all of American literature of the 19th and early 20th century. Isn’t that enough?"

Seriously?

Comden Green said: "Way to jump to conclusions. Railing against a reviewer Attacking her for being PC. Calling her a clown. After one review. (still not sure what's wrong with looking at the play with "new eyes" and noticing something the rest of us hadn't noticed )



She he made a point. Her point had some validity. A point that you happen to disagree with. That's fine isn't it? Doesn't make her a clown or a purveyor of PC You disagree. Sheesh. Why all the anger?"



Wow, I made a one sentence comment and that equals "railing" . I wonder what you take is of Jack Viertel's letter which is beautifully written. My favorite part "It comes down to whether the Times is willing to publish ill-informed, politically motivated nonsense based on social and cultural trendiness and consider it serious criticism. I certainly hope not."

https://www.facebook.com/frank.rich.315/posts/10154801399545485

And I disagree 100% I'm glad he wrote the letter. It's a perfect response to a truly amateurish pile of PC crap masquerading as a review. Hopefully she won't be a regular reviewer.

Sorry, I guess I should have said ... I hope she is no longer a regular reviewer for the Times. (Apologies, I don't know why this was posted 3 times, I only posted it once.)

Updated On: 2/13/17 at 05:27 PM

.

Updated On: 2/13/17 at 05:27 PM