It pains Tboy ...

... to write this post.

But this blog has been the venue for many a discussion of the aims and ethics of theater criticism, not to mention one convoluted story about a local critic who blogged herself out of a job.

So Tboy would be less than responsible if he didn't draw your attention to a regrettable incident involving one of his own paper's longtime contributors.  A explanatory Editor's Note appears in the Sept. 22 edition of the Washington City Paper, which hit the streets today, Thursday.  It reads as follows:

On July 21, the Washington City Paper published Pamela Murray Winters' review of Ellington: The Life and Music of the Duke, a MetroStage production that closed on Aug. 20. Here's an excerpt from the review:

"Duke Ellington led an interesting life; unfortunately, you’d never know from David Scully’s grade-school lecture of a script, which is way more concerned with weary rhymin’ than with wit, energy, or even content. We get birth and death dates, and the idea that Ellington moved around a lot and changed his style to suit both himself and his audience, and that’s it."

As it turns out, this paper was in no position to render such summary judgments on Ellington. The reviewer left the show shortly after intermission and did not return, and the review made no mention of this [fact]. Washington City Paper regrets this inexcusable lapse in critical integrity and apologizes to MetroStage and all those involved in the production of Ellington.

Tboy will now set aside the third person briefly.

City Paper initially became aware of the Ellington incident when a non-MetroStage source brought it to my attention. This, as you may imagine, put me in a difficult position. The problem was compounded when, in inviting the paper to review Girl in the Goldfish Bowl, MetroStage specifically requested that I, in my present role as interim assigning editor for theater, agree not to send Winters.

On the one hand, I personally rather like Winters, who's written for us for years, and who's almost always available to pinch-hit when Bob Mondello and I can't get to every opening. Her reviews tend to be measured, informed, and often generous. The last theater piece she contributed, which included a review of Olney Theatre Center's In the Mood, was an honest and forthcoming response to a play that framed the life of a character with bipolar disorder, from the perspective of a writer who's dealt firsthand with someone living that condition.

On the other hand, I cannot think of any circumstance that would induce me to leave a performance early, neglect to inform my editors that I had bailed, and then file a review (negative or positive) that left readers under the impression that I'd seen the whole show. It's simply unethical.

After some thought, I discussed the matter with managing editor Andrew Beaujon, who took it up with Winters and with the newspaper's top editor, Erik Wemple. (I am not privy to the details of Winters' conversations with Beaujon and Wemple, or to the details of why she felt compelled to leave the performance early.)

I do know, however, that last Friday Wemple informed Winters that she will no longer be permitted to contribute to the newspaper.

Winters, when I spoke to her today, thanked me for the chance to respond, but indicated that she'd prefer not to discuss the incident or its fallout any further.

Comments

[dcepticon]

Thank you for being so forth coming.

While I do not know the full details of what occurred at Metrostage, I am aware of at least one other situation where a critic left half way through a performance.

It was the summer and the local paper of record had been unable to send any of their regular reviewers to a production, which to be honest was selling extremely well without any sort of review good or bad.

However as we all know you still want to have some evidence that a show was indeed produced. The Post sent a reviewer who, from every indication had never written a theater review before. He too left half way through the performance. When I found this out I immediately called his editor. I told them I didn't care whether the review was good or bad we did not want half of our show reviewed. They apologized and sent the reviewer back to see the second half of the show.

When he arrived he told me I had "over reacted" and that he had intended to give the show a good review. This experience was early in my experience of dealing with the press and has always left a very bad taste in my mouth, and to be honest sometimes colors my dealings with the Post.

I appreciate the City Paper's and your honesty in dealing with this matter, I wish Pamela the best, but this is just one of those things that breaks whatever social contract that exists between performer and critic and should be taken very seriously.

[landlesstheatre]

I sent an email yesterday asking Pam to consider reviewing our opening of Night of the Living Dead at DCAC, and received a short response that she would no longer be reviewing theatre. I was totally out of the loop, but fortunately, Tboy delivers the dirt. Thanks!

Though I understand the ethical dilemma here, I would also report that back in the pre natal years of my own company, Pam sat through an entire performance in which we were the only people in the audience. She totally trashed the show (never one to shy away from that), but to paraphrase Mae West, it didn't matter whether she liked it or not, it only mattered that she came. She wasn't above hitching up her skirt to visit the grungy underbelly of DC theatre, and she respected the work of hardworking kids as much as the local stars - sometimes maybe even more. She was pro-risk, anti-pretense-and-bullshit. Whether or not she liked what we did, you could always tell she loved the fact that we were doing it. We're going to miss her.

Pam has always been a champion of the "scrappy" theatres who do their own thing regardless of funding or politics. I hope that is how she will be remembered durng her time at WashCP, and that she will carry on somewhere else.