Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Posted: 9/3/08 at 11:46am

A terrific piece by one of the best--maybe the best--theater writers working today.
Plea for theater producers to be less predictable

"Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.” ~ Muhammad Ali

re: Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Posted: 9/3/08 at 12:00pm

Very strong piece that echoes my sentiments exactly.

I'm now even more interested in the Ian Rickson/Mary Louise Parker revival of HEDDA knowing that Christopher Shinn is doing the adaptation.

re: Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Posted: 9/3/08 at 12:08pm

I'm actually excited about the Mint doing Tennessee Williams' VIEUX CARRE. Its a hugely underrated play.

re: Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Posted: 9/3/08 at 1:05pm

Unfortunately it seems the author lumps "13" into the movie-to-stage catagory, when the new Jason Robert Brown piece is an original musical.

re: Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Posted: 9/3/08 at 1:50pm

Eh. I sort of get the point he's trying to make, but I don't think it's that strong at all. The number of new plays and interesting revivals have been quite interesting, especially in recent years. Yes, we will always have our Heddas, Blanches, Noras, Maggies and Amandas but we are getting a decent mix of expected classics as well as unexpected (though I agree about Hedda...third revival in 15 years...hopefully the adaptation will prove to lift itself from the eye-rolling expectations of yet another Hedda). I'm not entirely sure why he wants to see Mamet's lesser works produced on Broadway (I saw Cryptogram and it was excrutiating) rather than two good works that have not been revived in over 20 years. I'm all for taking risks, but there is a fine line between risk and stupidity. Sure it's an opinion, but I don't think Broadway is necessarily more artistically healthy by producing a bad play rather than introducing a revival to a new generation. I do think it is healthier to wait a generation before reviving, though.

As for musicals, it's more or less the same old why-can't-things-be-like-they-were speech. Broadway isn't the same. Audiences are not the same. The demographics are not the same. The world isn't the same. I wonder how many articles were written in the 50s and 60s lamenting about how many musicals were based on plays. Good grief!

"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian

re: Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Posted: 9/3/08 at 2:04pm

I think the last paragraph resonated with me the most:

"A similar caution seems, increasingly, to guide Off-Broadway's nonprofit institutions. I know, I know: They're up against the fiscal wall like everybody else. And they do, somehow, always mix in a few playwrights I love among those I find unendurable. Still, far too often, their choices, both lovable and unendurable, fall into a familiar range; the authors' names ring recognizable bells; a reticence about risk, about challenge, about stretching the imaginative field, is noticeably on display. I want to see that change. And the freedom to change it doesn't come from money but from feeling free, from knowing that the only obligation a new season entails is the obligation to bring the theater to life again. And life, as we know from the world outside the theater, is far from predictable. That's why it seems so exciting."

re: Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Posted: 9/3/08 at 7:34pm

This man is my new hero.

My friend "Mark" took a class in theater book writing. He wrote an original show...all new ideas...new characters...new themes...new music. He took it to class and was told it was good. He was then given, at the completion of the class, some contact information to whom he could submit his book and vocal score, producers who might be interested in his work. A few of these people were major names.

Well, long story short; they wouldn't even give him time of day. Why? Because his show was not a movie-musical, adaptation or revival. They wouldn't take a chance.

I have to tread carefully here because I got ripped to shreds for having this opinion on another thread regarding this very topic, but what I would give to see just one solid season with none of the above. Is Broadway really that bad off, that we could do away with predictability just for one season?

I guess it is....

"Sticks and stones, sister. Here, have a Valium!"

re: Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Posted: 9/4/08 at 1:28am

Ok, here's my take.

I personally think that the article is wrong and right at the same time. Do I think that theatre producers should take more risks and try to find shows to challenge the mind and to make the art form evolve? Yes, I do. However, I also think that without surefire money makers, you will see Broadway producers less inclined to give the amounts of money it takes to run a show these days with expenses and such. *even for the low-tech shows* There is room for new, experimental theatre/scattered or lesser known shows by legendary playwrights, AND touristy shows.

I think the thing that a lot of people forget is that without the touristy shows, Broadway would end up losing more than it gains. There's a certain level of accessibility that shows like Legally Blonde, Rent, Hairspray, or any of the Disney Theatricals bring to people who might not be as inclined to go see a show. Those are the shows that get people in the door and realize how incredible live theatre is and hopefully they go on and learn more about theatre in general. Which then leads these same youngsters *or any age really* to become the next generation of audiences/creatives/performers.

Broadway should NOT be an elitist community of nauseatingly pretentious jackasses that shove people out because they're not looking for the next evolution in theatre.

anything you do let it come from you and it will be new.

Posted: 9/4/08 at 3:58am

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 03:58 AM

#10

re: Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Posted: 9/4/08 at 5:03am

And when you get over this hurdle, you then get to the problem that I complain about on the West End board - that most adventurous new work is sensation driven but not well written. I came out of London's latest "sensational new play" (That Face) bemoaning the lack of perception and insight, and the weak writing. I came out of Shopping and F*CKing ten years ago, feeling the same way.

But sensation creates box-office...

#11

Posted: 9/4/08 at 5:07am

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 05:07 AM

#12

re: Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Posted: 9/4/08 at 10:08am

Sorry, but what a bunch of hypocritical BS.

The minute someone tries to produce something risky, bold or out of the box it is crapped on by critics (and by people on boards like this one) unless the style of the risk is in line with their own personal taste. Yes, they appreciate the effort so long as "the writing isn't bad" as someone here so hilariously put it. That's the problem with theatre criticism today - zero appreciation for artistic risk coupled with a sick need to turn a "failure" into a journalistic sideshow. If they don't like something, they taunt, tease and kick 'em while they're down.

Michael Feingold complaining about a lack of artistic courage is like a bully taunting his unconscious victim.

#13

re: Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Posted: 9/4/08 at 10:17am

It seems to me that the most unusual show last year was PASSING STRANGE which was rather praised by the critics. As was a production of the dense TOP GIRLS (a revival, I know, but still...) Fiengold's comment about "a systematic de-education of New York's audiences" totally holds water in my opinion.

I would just hate to see what's happening on the West End to happen here....RAIN MAN with Josh Hartnett? With an A-list director and playwright attached? As much as we bitch about Broadway, it hasn't sunk that low yet....but it sure as hell does look like its sliding that way.

#14

re: Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Posted: 9/4/08 at 7:55pm

"The minute someone tries to produce something risky, bold or out of the box it is crapped on by critics."

So what did the New York theatre community make of Black Watch?

Notice I say "New York theatre community" and not BWW - when I did a search for Black Watch on here a few weeks ago all that came up was a thread called "What are you wearing today?"

Updated On: 9/4/08 at 07:55 PM

#15

re: Please letterbomb New York with Feingold's Article

Posted: 9/5/08 at 10:45am

Black Watch - great, you came up with an example.

And although Black Watch was inventive in its staging, I wouldn't call the subject matter particularly risky. Who's going to object to former soldiers haunted by memories of their dead friends? Don't get me wrong, I think its very moving and beautiful, but really ain't nothing out of the box there.

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95