Big River @ Encores — Page 4

Times responded:

Dear Rocco [Landesman] and Jack [Viertel],

Thank you for reaching out about the Laura Collins-Hughes review of Big River.

As Dean Baquet has noted, we stand behind Laura’s take on the show, while we certainly understand there’s room for disagreement.

First, a word about Laura: She is an enormously conscientious critic; while she had seen the Deaf West revival, when she got this assignment, she quickly headed off to the Lincoln Center Performing Arts Library to watch the original Broadway production on videotape. She approached this version with an open mind, but also made sure to be familiar with the show’s stage history. That she knew Lear deBessonet’s earlier work as a director made her that much more well-suited to give readers an informed evaluation. To call her assessment “cringeworthy” is a disservice to the seriousness with which all Times critics take their responsibilities.

We do not hold art works to any sort of litmus test. But theater lives and breathes in the moment of its watching. Many of our critics—of theater and other genres—have found themselves seeing old works through new eyes in this cultural and political moment. Laura did not let that overwhelm her account of a "buoyant" show; she gave due credit to the “fine performances,” the “pleasingly old-school” score, the “clear” staging. But it’s incumbent upon our critics to think out loud about how a stage work might register with a 21st century audience. To do otherwise is to make theater nothing more than a scholastic enterprise.

Finally, as fans of the Encores! series, we appreciate the reminder that the program is not set up to launch shows into renewed commercial life. Our reference to the “whiff of hope” was more about how musical-theater fans approach the series as about how its creators do. It was a tribute to the passionate following you’ve generated, but, yes, we could have been more precise in making our point.

Nearly 40 people have commented on the review online, a healthy tally for a show with a brief run. Many agree with your complaint; others don’t. That’s good news to us -- a sign that the New York theater and The New York Times are engaged in the big issues of the day.

Sincerely,

Scott Heller, Theater Editor

Danielle Mattoon, Culture Editor

"But it’s incumbent upon our critics to think out loud about how a stage work might register with a 21st century audience. To do otherwise is to make theater nothing more than a scholastic enterprise."


As the first to complain about the Hughes review on these boards (and notice I took offense to Green's review as well) I find this paragraph to be particularly specious. The complaint (Viertel and mine) is not about her "think[ing] out loud about how a stage work might register with a 21st century audience.". It's how ludicrous her opinion WAS regarding such. Plus, as I noted earlier, I'm sure the "Sunday in the Park" reviews will have no such "registering" comments. So the whole thing is bulls*it.

Oh, I'm sorry Dancingthrulife2, was that last sentence way too anti-PC for you?

Updated On: 2/14/17 at 07:55 AM

It's never transferring to Broadway, so that isn't any part of this conversation.

AC126748 said: "Viertel's letter is definitely a personal attack, and it's deeply mean-spirited in a way that Laura's review wasn't at all. He belittles her intelligence and asserts that she went into the production with an agenda and an axe to grind. I do find it hard to believe that he would come after a male critic in much the same way. There is a tone to Viertel's letter that should be instantly recognizable to any minority person who's had to endure a white man explaining to them why their perception of something is invalid and wrong."

Yes to this comment.

I'm glad the Times responded and yet it also feels a little uncomfortable that they had to shore up a defense of her background with the show. At least they held back on giving her credentials and the college she graduated from. Critics have subjective opinions all the time that can point to valid weaknesses of a show, though perhaps those critiques don't affect some other people's enjoyment. Not that this one is, but some reviews can also be reductive, vicious, meanspirited, etc. It doesn't mean you call for people to be fired over an opinion. And one NYT review doesn't mean they're burning all copies of Huck Finn and no one will ever read it again.

From across the pond:

Andrzej Lukowski: It took a Broadway tantrum to make me feel better about British theatre - The Stage




https://apple.news/AS4UjW6x2NPerqgbMpLTcQw



(I don't know how to turn the darn link into a hyperlink (is that the right word? Any help here?))

Updated On: 2/22/17 at 07:41 AM