In Which I Outsource My Commentary to Playgoer

I just couldn't get it up to go 9 rounds with the latest Isherwood travesty. Luckily, Playgoer has no such problems.

Comments

[sashanaomi]

Yeah, I had a problem with it when I read it too. Damn Isherwood. Here's a random fact I discovered while trying to google his reviews: He, however, unlike many of the artists he criticizes, does not have his own wikipedia page. There's something to think about.

[Ken]

The opening of the Isherwood piece is ridiculous. The fact that it was penned by a critic for the most prestigious newspaper in the nation’s cultural capital is reprehensible. I know that he doesn't do much (if any) reviewing of the real obscure off-off scene, but he has colleagues who do (and who presumably take it seriously). What is Isherwood saying about them, let alone the writers, directors and actors who are working there because it offers them something valuable artistically, not because they're losers who can't get gigs anywhere else?

[Tim]

Yeah... generalities and stereotypes, I know. The thing is... Last weekend, just before I read this article, I saw two shows: an Off- show with a minor TV name in the cast and the audience paying sixty-some dollars to get in (I was comped); and an Off-Off- show which was in a church basement well away from the theatre district without air conditioning, which was clearly in violation of the fire code, and where the actors were paid nothing (but maybe a travel stipend). In other words, he exactly described the two experiences I had.

Both shows were good, the Off-off show was maybe even a little better, but that's not the point. While Isherwood's descriptions aren't true of all Off and Off-Off productions, as a slightly-amusing, tongue-in-cheek set-up to the article, I'd say they're generally pretty accurate. Ultimately, his job isn't to promote the changes we'd like to see, but to summarize and report on the way things are.

[Tim]

Yeah... generalities and stereotypes, I know. The thing is... Last weekend, just before I read this article, I saw two shows: an Off- show with a minor TV name in the cast and the audience paying sixty-some dollars to get in (I was comped); and an Off-Off- show which was in a church basement well away from the theatre district without air conditioning, which was clearly in violation of the fire code, and where the actors were paid nothing (but maybe a travel stipend). In other words, he exactly described the two experiences I had.

Both shows were good, the Off-off show was maybe even a little better, but that's not the point. While Isherwood's descriptions aren't true of all Off and Off-Off productions, as a slightly-amusing, tongue-in-cheek set-up to the article, I'd say they're generally pretty accurate. Ultimately, his job isn't to promote the changes we'd like to see, but to summarize and report on the way things are.