Posted: 6/19/20 at 7:29pm
Ravenclaw said: "I also want to add that it really bothers me when a successful artist has a failure (or something less successful than their previous work) and then everyone rushes to redefine their opinion of the artist's previous work. The fact that13 Reasons Whyis a bad show doesn't mean that Yorkey's book and lyrics ofNext to Normalare great accidentally. You see this happen all the time in theatre--when Spidermanwas on Broadway, suddenly everyone who had been extolling Julie Taymour's genius started saying thatLion Kingwas only successful because of the producers who reigned in her crazy sensibilities. When Ben Platt posts a bad self-tape audition on twitter, people who loved his performance inDear Evan Hansensay he wasn't actually that great, or he's a one-trick pony. When Jack O'Brien directs a couple of bad revivals while in his late 70s, people start saying that his work on Hairspray was only good because of Jerry Mitchell or his work on Stoppard plays was only good because the texts survived bad direction. I remember a thread here about a year ago about the Glenda Jackson King Lear in which people claimed that Sam Gold didn't actually direct Fun Home, that most of the work was done by a "ghost director" who saved the show. I don't know why people find it so hard to believe that good artists can do bad work. I get the principle that "you're only as good as your last show," but the rewriting of memory is a pervasive problem. The beauty ofA Streetcar Named Desireis not invalidated by the latter half of Tennessee Williams's career--he was a genius writer who wrote many great plays and many atrocious plays. I had a teacher who used to point out that in baseball, a batting average of .300 is considered amazing."
I agree with every word of your post, including the specific examples you gave. Artists shouldn't judged by failing on the 2nd major project. But the 3rd? The 4th? The 5th? The 6th? At a certain point, you start to see a pattern.