Letters to the editor: February 2009

On "Reviewing the media" issue

The coverage of media relations on the site this month is both timely and accurate, something every arts org should print out and put on the house fridge. It's important to note, too, that tough times for the arts also means tough times for publications that cover the arts. We're shorthanded; we have fewer pages in which to cover things. Meaning we're going to be even grumpier and shorter on time than usual. And also that arts org are going to have to be even savvier and luckier than usual to get their works in the mix. And I do mean lucky. Because in any given time frame, the media is looking for a mix of events--we don't want all dance and no theater, or all theater and no dance, and if you happen to come up against four amazing productions, including two Dostoyevsky's (as is happening this spring) that could be lucky (if we decide to frame it as, look at all this great Russian drama!) or unlucky (if we decide we have to choose). As for Melodie Bahan's points on the content and quality of local arts reviews, there are many here who think she was unwise to rattle the cages of the critics, who have no little experience on their side. I think generally her ideas are great — we'd love to cover the whole enterprise of the arts in a town where it is not just an evening’s entertainment but a significant economic, political, and social factor. The personalities, funds, and rises and falls of it all are exactly what we personally would like more information and more stories on. And I would agree that the newspapers seem more devoted to reviews and previews. Now, it's a lot easier to cover the real deal, the behind-the-scenes stuff that isn't fluff, when the "gate-keepers," so to speak, trust writers with more than controlled glimpses or if they even pitched these angles our way. Because the thing about going deep, peering beneath the surface, is that we don't know what's there — the artists do. And rarely has anyone in press relations reached out to share the behind-the-scenes stories, even, I would argue, when it's often in their best interest. (How someone likes playing a character is not what I have in mind.) There is a lot of caution there, yet I believe that the more honesty and flow of information that exists in an interview, in a relationship with writers, the better the story that comes out of it. And the better the story, the more likely it will be read — which is ultimately what we're all after. In good times or bad, this you can count on — all writers want just one thing: a good story. By the time I decided to check into Jeune Lune, it was really too late for them — but if they had pitched the media on, “Hey, frankly this is what's going on here, this is what happened, and we need the public's help to make it better,” it might have made a difference. Now, whether the media should curtail reviews if they haven't the resources to make them as literate as Frank Rich's, it's important to remember that how the New York Times covers the arts is a niche as much as an ideal, and most audiences will still look for a quickie thumbs up or thumbs down, there or elsewhere. All signs suggest that reviews with even a modicum of explanation do serve a purpose for readers: while some enjoy in-depth insights into art, many simply want an outline of a play or movie or restaurant, and a hint as to whether it's worth their time and money. That's not a reflection on the artist; it's a reflection on how we make decisions. Ultimately, it's not the length, depth, or even quality of writing that will draw readers but the source itself — if they've been steered wisely before, they'll return to that source for more recommendations. Short and sweet restaurant reviews are the No. 1 reason, by far, that people turn to our website, and as long as that demand exists, there will be reviews.

—Tim Gihring, Senior Writer and Arts Editor, Minnesota Monthly

I was again in the interesting position of being asked by someone if a friend of theirs should see a particular production or not. In many ways, this is essentially what critics are being asked regarding each show they review. And whatever a reviewer’s real or perceived shortcomings, they could almost certainly be helped by being given more room to respond. Too often it seems that critics end up discussing only the mechanics, the execution of a given production; plot synopsis, then how the acting was, the directing (possibly), a tiny bit of context, and maybe a nod to the design team. This is OK when we all know the play, like a classic by Shakespeare or Tennessee Williams. What generally is lacking is enough of both a probing discussion of the actual content of the play’s ideas and then how the choices that were made in staging it serve to bring them out – especially for new or unfamiliar plays. That, of course, is where the really fascinating discussion takes place. After all, that is what people who work in theatre end up talking about — when we have more than just a few cursory minutes. These discussions fuel the desire to continue practicing theatre. And they lead to getting other people interested in and fired up about going to see live theatre too. But these discussions, especially in print, need time to unfold. And this restriction on the space available for discussion and insight is certainly part of the problem in many reviews. Hand in hand with a general desire to see increased performing arts coverage, I wish that a return to a longer-form review were possible. Live theatre is a powerful and unique form of the ongoing human dialogue across time and place. If we want it to continue to grow and thrive, then it is incumbent on all of us to be thinking of not just the best ways to create and experience it, but also how to make discussing it afterward continually fascinating. And this is not usually a short conversation.

—Peter Hansen, Artistic Director, Gremlin Theatre

Minnesota Playlist also encourages you to read and contribute to the comments on articles around the website.❦