Of Fringe Dramas, Theirs and Ours
So it’s been a while since I did anything other than write up a show, eh? And surely you all, no matter how high-minded your approach to Fringe, expect a certain amount of trash-talking here at Fringe & Purge.
(I’ve got an excuse, involving my sister, my nephews, and a beach house on the Isle of Palms. Hope y’all had a similarly good week.)
But I’m back in the Fringe groove now, so let’s address that dish deficit.
Speaking of which, we’ll get all up in Julianne’s business in a minute. But before we throw stones, a note about our own glass house:
Performance-Us Interruptus - One of Fringe & Purge’s guest bloggers ducked out partway through a show earlier this week, then panned it royally here on the blog. A certain number of the commentariat was outraged — as was one of the show’s cast, who sent me a tart e-mail.
Among the bullet-point complaints (certain paraphrasal liberties have been taken) in that note:
- Ditching mid-show is disrespectful to the cast, the crew, the Fringe Ideal, and anyone who sat dutifully through Hot Feet.
- Other festivals insist that reviewers/judges ”stay until the bitter end of any assigned show — no matter how bad.”
- Dude complained in his review that the show had no story — but he had left before the story “really had a chance to begin.”
- Y’all should really send somebody else to re-review. And maybe fire the putz.
Now, while we’re sometimes flippant here at Fringe & Purge, we do take this stuff seriously. The City Paper once dismissed a contributing writer who filed a review without telling either her readers or her editor that she’d left the show at intermission. I don’t see why a similar standard ought not to obtain here.
But our contributor did disclose that he’d bailed — disclosed in the review itself, in fact.
And while I’m open to argument about whether it’s kosher to complain about the weakness of a show’s bones when you haven’t stuck around to assess every last metatarsal, our blogger reports that he stayed for 40 minutes of a show that runs an hour and ten. Which doesn’t strike me as outrageous.
Also: I’m of the belief that respect for the artists or no, it’s within the pale for a critic to leave a show that’s not going well. It’s hard to say when it’s justified, and it’s not something I’d do every week. But bottom line, if you’re convinced that no amount of basting is gonna save a turkey, it’s OK to hit the Eject button. (Not to mix a metaphor, or anything.)
Should our guest blogger not have filed a review at all? Not entirely my call. Blog editor Brian Reed has this to say:
“I thought it was a very funny and particularly honest review (that he discloses his early departure both earns him all this flack but also espouses a certain integrity), and therefore didn’t worry too much about posting it. Since then, as you know, several people have responded either with outrage or their own appraisals of the show.”
Indeed: By my estimation, Power House has now gotten more attention on this blog than 9/10ths of the other Fringe shows. And you know what they say about publicity, no-such-thing-as-bad department.
As for the re-reviewing: Without wishing to suggest that the show was owed a second look, I draw your attention to the comments section of the original post. Brett Abelman, who’s one of our other guest bloggers, also took in a performance, and he’s offered up his thoughts in a longish comment. Which we hope the show’s other partisans will also feel free to do.
One last pair of observations: Dan Owen, the offending guest blogger, strikes me as a smart, funny guy. Works for a big honkin’ international-development organization, has traveled the world, seems like a no-bullshit sort.
But I also know that Shawn Northrip and Shirley Serotsky, the writer and director of Power House, aren’t just f–cking about. They’ve been Fringe heavies since Year One, and between Titus! The Musical, Lunch, The Musical and The Many Adventures of Trixie Tickles, they’ve done their share of entertaining, button-pushing, balls-to-the-wall work.
So I’m inclined to chalk this one up to chacun à son goût – and to point out that taking a chance on shows that may not appeal to your taste is, after all, what Fringe is all about.
Rehearsalus Interruptus - Heard a hilarious story one night under the Baldacchino: Apparently the Fine Wine Players were rehearsing in a vacant Capitol Hill townhouse, and something about their enthusiasm alarmed the neighbors. Who called the cops. Who — according to the version I heard — arrived with guns drawn, thinking they were responding to a domestic-violence incident.
Fine Wine’s Charlene James-Duguid didn’t mention unholstered weaponry (of any sort) when she called me back to confirm the incident. But she did commend the MPD on their diligence.
And she said that when she explained to the boys in blue that her troops were prepping a show for Fringe, the centurions didn’t miss a beat: “Well, we’ll have to see that,” the officer reportedly said.
Naked-ness Interruptus - As you may have heard, one early performance of The Naked Party ran a touch long. So long that Fringe staff turned up the house lights and shooed everyone out.
As one Fringe-goer tells us:
“So now you have these actors, on stage, nude. And they immediately break character. The women covered themselves with their hands and then ran for their clothes …. The men stood a little like a “deer in the headlights” ….
Ironic, that, in a show that uses nudity as a metaphor for vulnerability — and that seems to be at least partly about overcoming shyness.
I got a call that night from an outraged audience member — a DC lawyer friend, whose response was along the lines of: “Dammit, we were just getting to the denouement, and I want to know what happened.” That Fringe-goer, who titled her e-mail “Best Fringe Incident Yet,” alerted CP arts editor Mark Athitakis a couple of days later.
I’d have blogged about all this earlier, but y’know, beach house and all.
Still, I checked in with Julianne, who pointed out that based on the show’s tech-rehearsal timings, they were on target to run over by about 20 minutes — and that other shows were lined up to load in at that venue.
“Think of the poor venue manager,” Julianne pleaded. “The show after this we would have had to hold, and the one after that. That would have made more people pretty pissed.”
Then she noted that all Fringe fests have similar don’t-blow-your-time-slot rules, chiefly to keep the trains from running completely off the tracks. And she noted in LARGE letters that that night’s audiences were offered refunds.
For his part, Naked Party writer-director Jason Schlafstein did a double-back mea culpa with a half twist.
He and his cast had rehearsed with an invited audience, he said, but never with a real one — and crowd reaction added time. And there was apparently a miscommunication with Fringe: the festival staff had booked x minutes of time, and the Naked partiers were under the impression that they had x-plus-five.
(Forgive the algebra, he was talking fast.)
Schlafstein stresses that he takes full responsibility, that he was mortified, and that he and his gang aren’t sticking any pins in their Julianne doll.
(Anymore. No, no — I said that, not him.)
That very night, he says, “I went home and sent out a bunch of cuts to the actors.” Took 10 minutes out of the show. And since then, they’ve been playing to ”pretty much universally positive reviews.”
And near-sold-out houses, Schlafstein says — so if you’d like to see it, you might want to book your seats now.
Happy Fringing,
Trey
Tags: Baldacchino, Brian Reed, Charlene James-Duguid, Dan Owen, Fine Wine, Fringe mishaps, Fringe WTF?, Jason Schlafstein, Julianne, mea culpas, Naked Party, nudity, Power House
July 20th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
I appreciate your revisiting the bailout-reviewer episode, but in the end, this entry made me a lot less respectful of (and interested in) the opinions of this blog. You need to decide whether your staff is reviewing these pieces in even some tiny manner that resembles ‘regular’ reviews of non-Fringe drama, or whether this is just another toss-off blog of opinions that are deserving of no more weight than the 20 million others our there.
Restaurant reviewers, movie reviewers, any other reviewers are expected to soldier on through whatever they are addressing, because it’s their damn job to do so. Otherwise they don’t deserve any extra attention for their opinions. This is not like spitting out an unpalatable bite of food before swallowing; it’s like leaving before dessert because you hated the entree. And, my friends, that is simply not allowed in anything approaching a responsible review.
I don’t really care how experienced, well-traveled, or otherwise prescient the reviewer might be. He might be entirely correct in his predictions, but reviewers are paid for opinions derived from the full experience, not prognostications based on samples. So make up your minds - either support his review, or don’t - but this entry is really just trying to get away with neither.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:15 am
Listen, while your at it you should add “Slash Coleman has Big Matzo Balls,” to your fringe offender list as well. If there had been a reviewer there, they would have most likely walked out of that piece of racist sh*% too and I would have taken them out to dinner for doing so.
How the fringe can give a platform to something so obviously antisemitic is plain disturbing. Four of us, all Jewish, walked out and I hear it’s not the first time it’s happen with this show in particular.
Get your act together guys. The reviewers are just working with what they’re given.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:35 am
Yeah, they should cut the lights out on all fringe shows that run over - that’s just a practical, good house-keeping policy.They do it in San Francisco!
As for Abe’s comment above, I saw the Matzo ball man offend his audience at the fringe preview at R&R a few weeks ago. As a Christian in the bible belt - I think a Jesus stand-up routine hits below the belt.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Dear “Fringe & Purge”,
Just to let you know, I am friends with a cast member in “Powerhouse” and I was actually at the 10:00pm show on July 17th. This is the same show that your reviewer was “at”. Check and you will see that I am correct. I am just here to clear a few things up. your reviewer came into the show, and I remember him because he introduced himself to the female cast members during the pre-show while they were handing out glow sticks and getting people to dance and told them that he and his friend were “having a contest to see who could get the most e-mail addresses and he was winning and wanted to keep it that way.” After they told them to keep dancing he asked for their phone numbers; he was obviously intoxicated.
I was astonished when I came across his review complaining about the interaction with the audience, was he just upset that the girls in the show wouldn’t give him their numbers? And coming to a show drunk, reeking of beer with a friend does not sound like a dedicated reviewer to me, what about to you? I sincerely hope this isn’t the policy that you give your reviewers, to come drunk to shows and hit on the actors.
Now, he said and you reported that he left after 40 minutes of a 1 hour and 10 minute show. This is laughable. The video played at the beginning of the show, of which he talked loudly through while making wisecracks at with his friend and proceeded to yell at the actors telling them to “turn up the music” even when the show started. I can speak for myself and the rest of the audience when I say we were more than glad when he and his friend left after 15 minutes of being there. Thats right, 15 minutes, not 40 minutes, 15 minutes. So yes, he was correct in saying there was no story, at least there was no story in the play that he saw, the 15 minute version.
I have no problem with a negative review, in fact, they help me to weed out the bad and good shows and which to attend, however this review made me never want to read the city paper again for theatre reviews. I wonder what is being done to clean up the mess this reviewer has created. I am assuming nothing considering that you praise him in your article citing that “he has traveled the world and works for a big honkin’ international-development organization” as reasons why his outrageously disrespectful behavior was somehow acceptable; at least to the standards of the City Paper.
That is all I have to say, and I am not expecting a response, because I know that for everything that I have said there aren’t any responses that can cover up your short comings City Paper.
Sincerely,
FringeLove
July 21st, 2008 at 7:16 pm
In regards to the Naked Party cut-off incident, I was at the performance and I know the individual who tipped you off in the e-mail. I first want to say that the management at Fort Fringe were very accomodating to all of us who went there to discuss the incident and, as one respondent mentioned, they did refund our money the next day. Credit where credit is due.
At the time, and certainly after the fact, I was able to see both sides of the story. Primarily, I wanted to see the ending, as Jason Schlafstein wrote an engaging script and I deeply admired the actors for being able to commit to a performance I probably couldn’t on my best day. I also felt as though delaying the subsequent performance by several minutes on a Friday night didn’t warrant shutting down a production mid-scene with no warning to a paying audience or the seven actors on stage who happened to have no clothes on.
I was also able to see the side of the following company, complete with different sets, a different sound tech, different stage crew and different cast who would have to rush through their setup, possibly leading to technical glitches and/or distracted performances. I understand Fringe’s strict no late entry policy and their wish that no one be frozen out of a performance they had paid to see due to a show running long. However, all things considered, this is above all a festival of free artistic expression in which artists can display their vision with as little attention to commercial viability as is realistically feasible. Let the actors act and let the audience experience the performance as intended. That’s why we go to Fringe.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Addendum to the Dramatis Fringeus:
PHOTOGRAPH-US INTERRUPTUS
The following post appeared Sunday, July 20, on the official Capital Fringe Festival FRINGE PHOTO BLOG:
“Where Did Bob’s Photos Go?” by Bob Morrison.
“If you looked recently for my photographs and they weren’t here I apologize. My web site host rents storage space from amazon.com. Amazon experienced problems all day Sunday that shut down my web site among many others. That killed my photos here because they are linked to my web site, BBPPix.com. The problems have been mostly fixed and I hope all will be back to normal very soon.
UPDATE Sunday 11:30 p.m. More problems and the whole web site host is down. They predict it will be back up shortly. I predict there will be intermittent problems all night. Sorry.”
http://capfringe08pix.blogspot.com/2008/07/where-did-bobs-photos-go.html
July 25th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Dear Matthew and FringeLove,
Kurt Vonnegut once wrote “Any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae.” I can only assume that he would think the same of a critiqu of theater.
I mostly disagree with this particular thought; because I believe that art of all sorts, both novels and theatre performances, have important things to say about the world and the ability to affect people in profound ways. That said, I would endorse the opposite opinion: that anyone who expresses rage and loathing for a reviewer is preposterous. Certainly you can hate that he was loud when he shouldn’t have been (a no-no in the theatre, though perhaps less so in a show like Powerhouse). Certainly you can think him unqualified for leaving before the performance was done (though there are many, many times when you can be sure a book isn’t worth the time to finish well before you reach the end). Certainly you can fault him for being intoxicated and flirting with the actresses (though I personally think there is nothing inherently wrong with drinking or flirting). Certainly you can think he’s bad at his job (which I do not dispute, though I am not prepared to assert).
But why is it that any of these things should cause you such consternation? I think we can all realize that though they are employed by the paper, each reviewer is responsible for his own reviews. That’s why they get by-lines. Feel free to spout vitriol against the reviewer if you want to (though I think it makes more sense just to disregard his point of view), but don’t level allegations of pointlessness at the entirety of Fringe & Purge because you abhor one of it’s guest commentators.
It was right of the paper to publish his review, as poorly founded as it may or may not have been, because it was an honest representation of the reviewers thoughts on the piece, which is all a review is supposed to be. It was right of them to bring the subject to our further attention with the post to which we have all commented. And, Matthew, it was right for them to neither support nor reject his review, because it is in controversial situations such as these that objectivity in reporting is most important.
So I must respectfully disagree with you, FringeLove, when you write, “I know that for everything that I have said there aren’t any responses that can cover up your short comings City Paper.” They may have shortcomings, but they have not tried to cover them up. Rather they have aired their dirty laundry for all of us to scrutinize. And you are wrong to think that no response can be made to your gripes, because Mr. Reed’s logic and integrity in printing the offending review were both sound. Without the review in question, we would not be having the spirited and philisophical dialogue on ethics that we are now having.