Slings, Arrows, and Shots in the Foot

Those daggers some theater people have been flinging at that local reviewer? They've hit home.

Washington Post theater editor Michael Cavna phoned Tricia Olszewski this afternoon with the verdict on whether she would be continuing to cover theater for the Paper of Record.

Just joining us? Here's the backstory:

On Monday, correspondent "Morgan Kent" sent Tboy a link to the bio page from Olszewski's movie-reviewing blog, MovieBabe. "Kent" raised a virtual eyebrow at a couple of lines (since removed) on the topic of T.O.'s Post reviews: 

... drama nerds can find my snooty takes on local theatah on washingtonpost.com. Help make MovieBabe a success so I don't have to see any more pretentious plays!

Now, this is the place for Tboy to say that he knows T.O. (she freelances movie reviews for the City Paper) and is not unkindly disposed toward her. That said, he was a little surprised to see that language.

On the other hand, the above crack was followed--immediately--by an I'm-just-joshin' parenthetical:

Disclaimer: Movie Babe is not insinuating that all productions in the Greater Washington, D.C. area take themselves too seriously. Just some of them. And by some, I mean many that I'm sent to.

"Kent," as you might suspect, was gnashed to discover on Tuesday that T.O. had taken that language down sometime during the past 24 hours.

"No matter," he reported in a satisfied tone (if an e-mail can have a satisfied tone): "I sent her link to many a theatre person yesterday who saw it before she changed it.  At least we all know what we are dealing with."

Meanwhile one of those theater persons, this one not anonymous, was e-mailing Tboy to ask why the flap wasn't already featured on the blog. Said theater persons provided a screen-grab (at right) of the language in question.  And one or more wrote to the Post about it.

T.O., with whom Tboy has talked about all this by phone and e-mail, sounds frustrated, regretful, and resigned about it. To her credit, she wasn't hesitant to discuss it publicly; she gave Tboy permission to quote freely from their correspondence.

"Peter [Marks] told me about it last night," T.O. wrote on Tuesday, when Tboy was still so busy chasing the Source Theatre story that he hadn't had time to do more than shoot her a quick e-mail asking Whatthefuck? 

"It was something I wrote last year and, since I'm not quite that stupid, I did try to make it playful. And I understand the initial uproar, but I think I should be judged by my reviews, not by a joke."

Tboy knows there's a sense among some theaterfolk that T.O. shouldn't have been writing about theater in the first place, that she didn't "get it" in the way a critic needs to.

Tboy's not so sure. More from her e-mail:

I don't dislike theater. There are aspects of reviewing it that make me uncomfortable -- the social aspect of getting to know the people who run these companies (being the social phobe that I am, that right there makes my stomach turn) and seeing them again and again even if I give them terrible reviews.

Plus, unlike with big dumb Hollywood movies, I'd much rather see a good production than a bad one, less for my own entertainment but because I know these people are passionate about what they do and are not out to make big bucks by knowingly putting out crap. But obviously, I don't enjoy sitting through garbage, either, and being on the low rung I've certainly been sent to my share.

Tboy thinks, regardless of whatever other reservations people may have about T.O.'s appetite or lack of it for theater in all its gruesomeness and glory, that those last two lines are telling. The first is a big part of the "getting it" that's one of the essential qualities of a good critic. The second is the kind of blunt realism that keeps a good critic from getting so Kool Aid-drunk as to be unable to separate the shit from the shiny bits.

T.O. continues:

If I was vicious about everything I saw, I could understand making a big deal out of this. But I believe my reviews are fair and diplomatic and I'm thrilled to give people credit for a job well done. And as you once pointed out, these companies are asking people for quite a chunk of money to see this stuff, so you can't sugarcoat things, either.

And in a later e-mail:

I wouldn't be as unsettled if I didn't already feel like the red-headed stepchild of the theater world. ... [I]n the CP roundup last year (was it a double byline?) the anonymous quote from a director complaining about being reviewed by "second stringers" bothered me. (Nothing against you or Bob, I know I was being overly sensitive about it.)

Between Nelson, Celia, and me, I'm the one with the least experience and theater background. ... And I suspect that because I *don't* go to see shows I don't review -- I think I've done so twice -- it comes off as complete disinterest, when actually it's because I'm juggling so many things I often don't have a night to myself.

... [A]fter [Peter and I ] talked I emailed him an apology for causing any embarrassment as well as an offer to make some sort of statement if necessary. Last night I felt I should keep the site comment as it was, so as not to self-implicate; this morning I was feeling less confident.

This afternoon, having told T.O. that he'd hold off on stirring the pot until the Post had decided whether to keep her on, Tboy phoned to check in with her.

She'd heard from Cavna not long before.  She'll no longer be writing about theater in the Washington Post.

And though some theaterfolk will doubtless have trouble believing it, she sounds genuinely sad about it.

Comments

[t-rae]

Another Point:

Who the heck doesn't want an educated and passionate critic to view their production? You're preaching to the choir in that regard, my anonymous friend. But, unlike you, I think that from my lofty perch of "theatre artist," even the critics who I would deem as "not educated enough," deserve some value in my book. Let's agree to disagree; besides, I digressed from my original post by addressing yours. I also wish you nothing but peace.

Back to the matter at hand: T.O. should not be let go from her position at the WP because she threw up some insensitive remarks on what's essentially a personal webpage (though I haven't seen it), ESPECIALLY when she attempted to take it back. I feel like I'm witnessing a strange version of Harriet the Spy: the whole class read T.O.'s notebook and then took it a bit too far. They just ostracized Harriet for a little while--they didn't expell her from school. All judgment about what she said and her past work aside, that just ain't right in my sheltered world.

[tricia]

I’ve been debating all day (yeah, got some time on my hands now) whether to respond to these comments when much of my defense has already been quoted by tboy. I decided that this will haunt me to no end if I don’t -- but I’ll try to keep it short to avoid further embarrassing the Post, myself, or anyone who feels that they’ve been deceived or attacked by me.

First, just because I admit to having less experience and background than the other Post critics doesn't mean I’m a bumpkin off the street. I have an English degree and studied plenty of drama -- some modern, mostly classics, which is likely why I’ve had an especial affinity for companies such as Stage Guild and WSC. And from the very start I’d tried to make up for the lack of deep knowledge my colleagues have by researching the hell out of works, playwrights, and even theater companies I was unfamiliar with before I’d write a word. Besides, many critics of all sorts of art forms I’ve talked to over the past several years have said they knew little about their eventual area of expertise when they began reviewing -- including tboy (whom, btw, I harbor no ill will toward for reporting on this). And Trey, please correct me if I’m wrong.

Neither was I automatically put off by low-budget or experimental theater -- some of the most bare-bones or nonlinear productions I've reviewed have been ones I’ve loved. Charter and the three debut shows by Solas Nua come to mind, as well as some Longacre Lea shows and “Gertrude Stein: If You Had Three Husbands,” probably the best thing that the defunct Stanislavsky ever put on. And I’ve always, always been able to separate my personal taste from whether something was well-done or not. I’m not so arrogant to have dismissed a production just because it wasn’t up my alley.

And the bottom line is that my preference for reviewing movies over theater, which I acknowledge could not be discerned from the few offending lines on my website, is largely because of my disposition. I am a very, very introverted person, and I was often nervous as hell in the clearly close-knit theater world. And I’m flabbergasted by the comments that I could be mean or personally attack someone, because I tried to be as diplomatic as I could when criticizing a work or an actor -- and have seen vicious reviews by other critics that have made me cringe. Yeah, I’ll be the first to admit that I often shoot daggers in my movie reviews, but again, that’s because a great chunk of that industry is slimy and just out to make a buck without any regard for a product’s quality. I know that the theater world is different, that it’s fueled by passion for the art form and people who have chosen to pursue what makes them happy instead of trying to get rich. So if a production or a particular performance wasn’t very good, I did not relish the fact that my job was to point it out after people have put their hearts and sweat into it.

Last (sorry, this wasn’t short at all), my use of “theatah” was meant to be lighthearted and wasn’t an indictment of the industry. The word “nerd” is used playfully (and often for self-description) by pretty much everyone I know who’s really into something, including myself -- not an ounce of offense meant there. And my comment in general was equal to what in my other life I would emphatically refer to as “film,” to reflect something with a bloated sense of its artistry/genius. Anyone who thinks that all theater, all movies, or all whatever deserves praise (and an audience’s $$$) just because it exists is deluded.

And for the person who questioned whether anyone would continue to publish me, you’ll keep seeing my byline in our Paper of Record -- despite their decision to remove me from the theater beat, I was encouraged to continue pitching music or anything else I’d like to write about.

Thanks for hearing me out, though I suppose I’ve changed no one’s opinion.

[theaterboy]

And I think that, with that, we'll close comments on this one.