Critics v. Civilians

This profile of Graceland playwright Ellen Fairey has gotten me thinking. My ambivalence on the show has been well documented here, as has the show's continued success. I'm not here to dump on the show more but rather to discuss the thoughts that it has provoked.

To briefly summarize: what I liked in Graceland were the dialogue, the acting, the staging, and the design. I had three major problems with the script: some of the plot developments weren't credible, I could usually guess what was going to happen in a scene shortly after it began, and the whole production felt like something I'd seen before.

But this leads to an important point: I see a lot more plays than most theatregoers. My guess for last year is 60-75 shows. (I could probably figure it out if I tried, but I don't keep records. Maybe I should.) During the period of January 13th to February 10th of this year, I saw 11 productions--12 if you count both parts of The Brother/Sister Plays separately. There are others who see more than me, certainly (I'm looking at you, Kris Vire), but it's a fair bet that most of them are other critics, industry people, or members of the Saints or the Jeff Committee.

It's not a big leap to conclude that seeing this many shows has an impact on how I watch theatre. Even when not on the job, I can't help but watch with a double consciousness--both reacting instinctively to what I see and analyzing my reactions and the craft onstage. I'm also probably more aware of how stories are told onstage, and certainly keep up with the tricks and trends in theatre. (I think this piece would not have happened if I hadn't seen and read so many plays using dead relatives onstage, for instance.) As a result, I probably get tired of certain devices, techniques, and plays before most theatregoers would. If I accept that it's a matter of taste whether Graceland's plot developments were credible (and I do), the other flaws I saw could easily not matter to someone who sees only 10 plays in a year. Quite possibly the large audience that saw and enjoyed Graceland didn't feel like they'd seen it all before because they hadn't.

I've certainly noticed that phenomenon with my friends who are aficionados of other arts. I've been to choir concerts with my boyfriend Adam (a choir teacher who knows way more about the art than I could ever hope to) and practically seen a different concert than he did. Tim Brayton's negative review of Star Trek was based to a large extent on problems he had with the cinematography and composition that I simply didn't notice when seeing it. (I like movies, but I don't think I could tell you after seeing most movies whether they had more close-ups, medium shots, or long shots, and whether those shots were unusually long or short.) I can articulate what I did or didn't like about a concert or movie and why, but I can't say it in the same way that someone educated and experienced in the workings of choir or cinema can.

So what does it mean that a critic's experience of his or her art is fundamentally different from that of the vast majority of the people reading it?

Some would argue that the critic has a responsibility to review like an average audience member would: those are the people who always comment on the audience that was having a great time when watching a show that a critic panned. (Another manifestation are those who will protest that the show was "just a good time, not a deep drama" or "made for kids, not grouchy grownups," as if either of those meant it didn't still need to be good.) This is ridiculous. A critic can't review from a perspective other than his or her own. It's tough enough for me to figure out my own reactions to a show, much less everybody else's. (This is particularly true because openings are frequently filled with those who worked on the show and their friends, who tend to react much more positively.) It would be dishonest to react with anything other than my own feelings.

But it would be just as silly to say that audiences' tastes need to catch up to critics. I don't love movies enough to become an expert in them, and most audiences could never afford to see as many plays as I do. (Ah, press seats, how I love thee.) Everyone has the right to like what they like. Tastes evolve with time and experience, certainly, but criticizing someone for what they enjoy or don't is a waste of time.

In the end, I think it comes down to the essential contract between critic and reader, which I've discussed previously: It is the critic's job to honestly and articulately describe his or her experience with the artwork and the reader's job to read the review with an understanding of his or her own tastes and the critical thinking to make a guess at the critic's tastes and interests. (Having read the critic for a while and reading multiple reviews for the production helps a whole lot.) No two people have the same tastes and reactions, but you can learn a lot with someone whose tastes are different from yours.

Any additions, disagreements, or clarifications? Comment away.

Graceland Heads East

Ellen Fairey's Graceland, which opened in May and is now set to run through November 15th, is set to move to New York.

The play opened at Profiles Theatre in May and has been extended four times, moving just down the street to the National Pastime Theatre. More information on that run here. (By the way, check out the "reviews" tab there, and compare their quote to my actual review. None of the words change, but the tone sure is different when you add exclamation points.)

According to Playbill, the play will be staged Off-Broadway at the Duke Theatre as part of Lincoln Center Theatre's LCT3 program, devoted to smaller-scale productions of emerging works. It is set to run May 3-29, with an official opening the 17th of that month. No casting announcement has been made, but given that it is to be directed by Henry Wishcamper (who has done some work in Chicago, most recently the Goodman's Animal Crackers), rather than Profiles' Matt Miller, it's a fair bet that the cast will be all New Yorkers.

A huge congratulations to Fairey and everyone at Profiles on the continued success of the play. I'm still a bit mystified--I thought the play had great dialogue and interesting characters, but  found some of the behavior inexplicable and the plot in general pretty predictable, though the strong acting and direction helped a lot. Still, it's never bad when a show strikes a chord, and I hope that Graceland goes on to more success--and Fairey's next play is even better.

New Review Posted: Graceland

I have a new review up on Centerstage: Graceland, a premiere by Ellen Fairey at Profiles. I was decidedly mixed--I thought it was well-done, but pretty formulaic. Other reviews were total raves, though, which surprises me--but I guess I'm bucking the consensus on this one. Ah well.

A small detail I didn't mention in my review--I'm not sure what they used, but the fake pot smoked onstage smelled remarkably realistic.

You know, based on what other people did in college.

A review with ticket info and pictures can be found here, and the text is below. Enjoy!

A pair of troubled siblings with a turbulent past and present, their just-dead father, an aging ladies man and his teenaged son.

A tone that balances quirky humor and emotional outbursts, a plot that includes wild coincidence and honest revelations.

Funny lines, excellent acting and a nifty use of a tiny space.

Ellen Fairey's "Graceland" at Profiles Theatre is a world premiere, but it follows the stylistic formula of many contemporary plays. It's a very funny and extremely well-acted variation on the tragicomic contemporary character study, but it gets few points for originality.

Sara (Brenda Barrie) and Sam (Eric Burgher), have just lost their alcoholic father, and buried him in the title cemetery. Both are stuck in dead-end jobs and unsatisfying love lives. Encounters with Miles (Jackson Challinor) and his father Joe (Darrell W. Cox) complicate the plot and the emotional situation even more.

Fairey has created interesting characters, though they don't always behave in believable or consistent ways. She has an exceptional ear for the way people talk, and her dialogue is often hilarious. It's just that the plot and emotional arc are often predictable—shortly after a scene begins, it's pretty clear how it will end.

Still, there are many pleasures along the way. Director Matthew Miller has a sure way with Fairey's writing, and has guided the cast to strong work. They make the characters believable and engaging even when they are behaving in ways that make little sense. Challinor is particularly wonderful—he brings the melodrama and bizarre charm of adolescence to life in an utterly winning way. The fact that he is actually near Miles's age, rather than a young-looking twenty-something, is a major help.

Fairey has real playwriting talent, and has crafted a satisfying show. Let's just hope that next time she takes herself, and the audience, a little further outside the comfort zone.