Voter said: "Sutton Ross said: "Voter said: "Chavkin has a habit of ruining everything she touches. Hadestown was so much better off broadway before the addition of the nonsense workers plot, Lempicka was better at Williamstown, and Great Comet was good because Malloy is good."
She's an incredible artist with many successes.Oh, and Hadestown is a huge success everywhereso take your sexist bull*hit elsewhere.
Don't you just love that failures are 100% her fault but successes are because of someone else?
Funny, isn't it?"
So I can't criticize Chavkin's work because she's a woman?Her work consistently fails to impress me and she makes tons of directorialchoices that just confuse me, especiallywith Hadestown. Just because she has successes my opinion is wrong?It's so ridiculous you jump to "sexism" when I had actual criticisms of her work. Get a grip. And also, no need for this thread to bederailedover my single comment."
Sure, you can criticize Chavkin's work, but when the big successes seem to outweigh the misses, you need to bring more to the table to support your criticism. When you complain that a very successful show that continues to run all over the world to great reviews and word-of-mouth, you really need to explain why you feel certain elements hurt the production, not just that certain elements hurt the production. If you give more substance to your criticism, people may disagree with you, but they won't just write you off.
The same is true for your comments on Great Comet. The way you worded things make your criticism seem derogatory and, indeed, a bit sexist, even if that was not your intent. The more detail you give to your criticism, the more likely people are to understand where you are coming from and take you seriously. People here disagree all the time, and that discourse is great, but that is only true when everyone is taking their time to explain their thoughts and criticism.
