That Darn Hedy Weiss.....

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 8/29/06 at 12:01pm

http://www.dramaguild.com/content.aspx?id=publicpolicy_weiss&level=1

Chicago Sun-Times Irresponsible Review of Musical Workshop

On August 16, 2006 The Chicago Sun-Times ran a review of Stages 2006, a three-day musical theater festival that had presented eight works-in-progress at the Theater Building from August 11th through August 13th. The review was written by theater critic Hedy Weiss, against the expressed wishes of the festival, which had asked Ms. Weiss not to review any of the works since they were still in the developmental stage. The following is Guild President John Weidman's letter to The Sun-Times expressing the Guild's view of this matter.

August 24, 2006
John Cruikshank
Publisher
The Chicago Sun-Times
350 N. Orleans
Chicago, IL 60654

John Barron
Editor
The Chicago Sun-Times
350 N. Orleans
Chicago, IL 60654

Dear Mr. Cruikshank and Mr. Barron:

Last week your newspaper published a collection of reviews by your theater critic, Hedy Weiss, under the headline “Stages’ Eight Musicals Show Serious Flaws.”

Ms. Weiss’s decision to review these eight shows at this early stage in their development, in violation of the express wishes of the theatre, was a shocking and irresponsible betrayal of one of the fundamental understandings which makes the creation of new work possible.

These musicals were presented in workshop. Every musical in workshop is understood to be a work in progress. Workshopping a new musical provides an opportunity for writers to evaluate their work as it evolves, protected from the consequences of critical appraisal. This security allows writers to take chances, to be bold, maybe even to embarrass them­selves—in short, to do their work.

Ms. Weiss has been your theater critic for over fifteen years. Surely she understands how new work makes its way from the page to the stage. That she would choose to review these evolving works as if they were finished works is appalling.

But even more appalling is the fact that she formed her opinions of these shows without seeing even one of them in its entirety. In some cases she sat through an act. In most cases, clearly, far less. In one case, according to an observer, ten minutes.

How does a responsible theater critic pass judgment on a new show based on having seen only a fragment of it, a fragment which the critic understands to be in flux. The answer is a responsible theater critic doesn’t do this. A responsible critic knows the impact a review has. Did Ms. Weiss intend to stop these shows in their tracks? If that is what she intended, then what she published was more like a preemptive strike then a review.

As it happened, Ms. Weiss’s reviews were all negative. But her reviews would have been equally offensive had they all been positive. Had she attended the theater simply as another member of the audience, Ms. Weiss would have been entitled to form any opinion she wanted of these shows, positive or negative. Attending as the theater critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, however, she was not yet entitled to form any opinion at all—particularly one expressed in print, in one of the most influential news­papers in the country.

Art isn’t easy, as Stephen Sondheim wrote. It becomes close to impossible when the creative process is violated as casually and unprofessionally as it was in this case, eight times, by Ms. Weiss.

She owes each of the bookwriters, composers, and lyricists involved an apology, one as public as the premature review which appeared in your newspaper.

More important, however, is what happens next. What happens to the next writer whose work-in-progress play or musical is being workshopped in Chicago? What happens to the writer who is reluctant to have his new play or musical workshopped in Chicago at all because of what happened this year at Stages 2006? What happens to the writer who drops out of the workshop process altogether for fear that her work will be reviewed before it is ready?

In light of the debacle at Stages 2006, we hope that the Sun-Times will make it clear to its editors, feature writers, and reviewers, that henceforth, new work which is specifically identified as work in development, new work which a theater explicitly asks critics to leave alone until it is finished and ready to be evaluated, will be accorded this fundamental professional courtesy.

Your food critic would not judge a restaurant by bulling her way into the kitchen and tasting the dishes when they were half-cooked. Playwrights, composers, and lyricists deserve the same consideration.

Sincerely,

John Weidman
President of the Dramatists Guild of America

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 8/29/06 at 12:17pm

That woman just keeps stepping in it, doesn't she? When are they going to wake up and dump her ass?
I love that she compares these shows to GYPSY. Give me a break, and can her already.

Updated On: 8/29/06 at 12:17 PM

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 8/29/06 at 12:23pm

What a well-written letter! I still am struck by the absurdity of her Wicked review.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 8/29/06 at 12:27pm

Not to mention she has her Hedy far up Mary Zimmerman's ass she wouldn't know good theatre if it bit her.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 8/29/06 at 12:44pm

I'm interested to see what the response to the letter will be, if there will be any.

[kgee30]

Posted: 8/30/06 at 9:27am

Oh dear. Hedy begs to differ: http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=11772


Updated On: 8/30/06 at 09:27 AM

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 8/30/06 at 10:03am

I think the the producers were more concerned about the effect Ms. Weiss' reviews would have on the writers of the shows than on the effects at the box office. In this he said/she said argument for her to compare new works in progress unfavorably with one of the best musicals ever written is just immature and amateur. She just doesn't get that most people in Chicago think she is a joke.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 8/30/06 at 10:12am

And she makes it sound as if the Trib has only ONE critic and when he goes on vacation things just don't get reviewed. Please.

[secondcity]

Posted: 8/30/06 at 11:03am

I disagree completely!!!

When I first read the review in the Sun Times last Wednesday, I immediatly thought she was completely in the wrong by reviewing the reading. These pieces are way too in their "infant" stages to be getting any sort of press.

However, after finding out that many members of certain press where given tickets, press packets and encouraged to cover the event, I have changed my view.

It is painfully clear that the folks at TBC wanted this publicized. Also there is something to be said about one very important rule of thumb: IF YOU CHARGE ADMISSION YOU ARE NOW OPEN FOR BUSINESS! This is not a gray area with many folks. Take Hollywood for example, if you want to do a screening on a film for audience input you do not charge to see it otherwise it is open to critical interpretation. Major mistake! Bottom Line, she should not have reviewed the shows, and the producers should have not invited the press and sent out press kits!

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 8/30/06 at 11:09am

Not having seen the press kit, I can't respond to what was in it, but it is not too hard to understand that the producers/writers wanted people to show up. Then the press package would be used to get the word out, not necessarily to invite the press to review the works in progress. You do have a point that if admission is charged they are fair game, but I think all involved knew that these were unfinished pieces being presented, not for critics to praise or pan, but for constructive feedback to help with the creative process.

Posted: 8/30/06 at 11:47am

The Sun-Times has been embarrassed by Ms Weiss far too many times. I wish they would promote Mischa Davenport (Who has been a far far better theatre reporter than Weiss could ever be) and can Horrible Hedy.

Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out Chris Jones, who has been a wonderful theatre columnist for the Sun-Time's rival the Chicago Tribune. His reporting and reviews have been particularly great lately.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 8/31/06 at 11:14am

Oops, this is the one I meant to bump.

[loridunn]

Posted: 8/31/06 at 3:04pm

After reading these articles I was looking around for any other reviews that Hedy has made that were out of line. I stumbled upon her review of Caroline or Change.
http://www.jewish-theatre.com/visitor/article_display.aspx?articleID=691
I cannot believe that she got away with this review and is still employed. That is so offensive and she never apologize for offending Mr. Kushner. I definately agree taht she should be canned, theatre reviewers need better etiquette than what Hedy is showing.

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 8/31/06 at 3:15pm

Oh wow. That is REALLY offensive.

Posted: 8/31/06 at 4:45pm

She is perhaps most infamous in Chicago for seeing a Nazi overtone in Wicked. Hedy thought that the wizard looked like Hitler and that the Shiz uniforms looked like Nazi Concentration camp uniforms. I don't know if that made Elphaba Anne Frank or what, but no one here takes her seriosuly after that.

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 8/31/06 at 5:09pm

[Don't forget Hedy's idea that Wicked had something to do with slavery when they hung Fiyero - who happened to be played by Derrick Williams in it's original appearance as a tour, pre sit-down in Chicago - from the poles..]

Oops, she did it again!
She wrote a review -
She made people mad -
Oh Hedy, Hedy...

[Fosse76]

Posted: 8/31/06 at 5:13pm

The fact that press was invited and given press kits does not mean they wanted the works reviewed. But even if it did mean that, she still had no right to review ANY of the shows when she left during the middle of each and every one of them (her own admission). What happens if a reviewer decides to print a review of a show based on a table reading? Is that fair? How about reviewing shows during their first public preview? I know, let's have book reviewers review the first half of each book...but the book cannot be finished and cannot have yet been edited! It's all the same. A work-in-progress should never be reviewed if the author says it's not ready. It'
s not as if these shows were having official openings...these were workshops.

[madophelia]

Posted: 8/31/06 at 5:30pm

JoeKv99 wrote:

She is perhaps most infamous in Chicago for seeing a Nazi overtone in Wicked. Hedy thought that the wizard looked like Hitler and that the Shiz uniforms looked like Nazi Concentration camp uniforms.

This link to Stephen Schwartz's website forum has some interesting information.




The Totalitarian State of Oz

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 8/31/06 at 6:19pm

madophelia, Oz is intended to be a totalitarian state, not Shiz. Shiz is a school. And if she had paid attention to the show (and had half a wit about her) she'd realize that the Animals are the ones being taken away, not the students. Having read her original review, it was not intended to be some deep insight into the meaning of the play (that's been obvious since the book), but just to find ridiculous complaints about the show.

What is her justification for the offensiveness Fiyero was lynched, because when she happened to see the show, Fiyero was played by a black man? So, what, the producers should take that into consideration and never cast a black actor as Fiyero? Then they'd be guilty of unjustified discrimination in casting and someone else would sue.

[madophelia]

Posted: 8/31/06 at 6:31pm

Thanks, orangeskittles, I got momentarily confused and can't recall what the school uniforms looked like. Seeing Wicked once was enough for me.

It would seem appropriate to add: Pay no attention to that man behnd the curtain!

Not to make excuses for Hedy, but could she have been thinking more along the lines of the uniforms of the Hitler youth? But that's neither here nor there and probably an unnecessary avenue to walk down.

From all accounts, getting back on topic, it would appear that she committed no breach of ethics. The shows were open to the public. Admission was charged. And she had reviewed them in the past. Regardless of how one feels about Ms Weiss' competency as a critic, she shouldn't be pilloried for what she did on this specific occasion, which was to give a broadly stroked negative review. You can't have it both ways. Updated On: 8/31/06 at 06:31 PM