Today

We've just embarked on a major project at Critic-O-Meter, plus I have other writing duties today (including writing my first ever-- gulp-- theatre review for Time Out New York and researching how unconscious racism affects hiring and employment in America). Thus, light posting day. From me, at least. 

Consider this an open thread. Anything you wanna mouth of about, have at it!

Comments

[Be Nice]

Congrats!

[RLewis]

Did I hear the Zinoman reviewed a show for NYT that he walked out on mid-way through? I could care less, but since I'm not seeing any outrage, does that mean Hunka has been vindicated? Maybe I should check Superfluities Redux for all the apologies. ;)

[isaac]

Rlewis,

Don't be an idiot. Jason left a show before it was over and blogged about leaving in a blog post in which he specifically said it was unethical to review a show without seeing all of it. He mentioned the show by name, but the subject of the blog post (which is squirreled away on the Times' ArtsBeat blog amidst coverage of all sorts of other stuff rather than in the actual print edition arts page) isn't the show itself but about when/why you might leave a show before it's over.

[RLewis]

Hey, I'm just asking. Thanks for the clarification. Idiot? Jeesh, pardon my being a regular fan of your blog.

[Anonymous]

For clarification, here's the lead of the not-a-review that Zinoman posted, though "the subject of the blog post ... isn't the show itself":

"There have been worse Fringe shows than 'The Alchemist of Light,' scores of them, I’m sure. But while watching the star gesticulate his way through a portrait of George Melies, the trailblazing French director who practically invented the fantasy film, it was hard to think of one. That may have been because after about thirty minutes of cartoon acting, a tedious kidnapping plot and monologues that sound less like a trip to early-twentieth century France than to an encyclopedia entry, the only thing in my head (besides 'Help!') was this question: Is it wrong for a critic to leave before curtain call?"

RTWT here. When is a review not a review, in print or on line? Like RLewis, I'm just asking.

[isaac]

Ha!

Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but I thought you were doing the pseudo-provocative slate.com contrarianism thing where someone who should know better says something they probably don't really believe for the purpose of challenging an imagined consensus. Which is, I'll admit it, probably my #1 pet peev in the blogosphere. sorry if i over reacted. maybe you were actually just asking what was up with the Zinoman thing.

[K. (Since I Post After J.)]

The lead of Zinoman's not-a-review of the show which was not the subject of the blog post, squirrelled away or not, was this:

"There have been worse Fringe shows than 'The Alchemist of Light,' scores of them, I’m sure. But while watching the star gesticulate his way through a portrait of George Melies, the trailblazing French director who practically invented the fantasy film, it was hard to think of one. That may have been because after about thirty minutes of cartoon acting, a tedious kidnapping plot and monologues that sound less like a trip to early-twentieth century France than to an encyclopedia entry, the only thing in my head (besides 'Help!') was this question: Is it wrong for a critic to leave before curtain call?"

RTWT here. So the question is: When is a review not a review, in print or online?

(Sorry if this is posted twice, but apparently the comments software ate my first one.)

[mirroruptonature]

Actually,

The paragraph that keeps being referenced here reads just like a miniature of George Hunka's incendiary review.

I would classify this Zinoman blurb as a review, however short. I'm sure the creators of the show would as well, for better or worse.

However, I remember most of the discussion/argument at the time was result of the timing of Hunka's review. The walking- out part seemed to be brought up more as a way to hammer home the "inappropriateness" of George's actions.

George reviewed the play during a designated preview period and well before the official press night. This was the focus of, (I would guess,) 90% of the discussion.

RLewis, without trying to release the worms from a forgotten can, I'll say that I don't think this is really the same situation.

[kb]

Jason Zinoman showed a lack of professionalism, he is a critic for the NY Times, and owes that highly acclaimed newspaper some respect as well as the playwrights and people involved in the production this play. (Albeit, he is not of the caliber of Frank Rich). If the purpose of his blog was about etiquette and is it OK for a "professional" critic to leave a play before it is over, then write about that, he should not have mentioned the play by name.

My boyfriend and I, decided to see some Fringe plays this year, (we are Fringe Novices) and our taste gravitates more to dramas than musicals or performance arts. We decided to see “Alchemist” last Friday, because my boyfriend is familiar with Meliles’ work, and there was a “talk-back” after the show. We must have seen a different play than Jason, because we thought it was riveting. It was extremely well written, well researched, for historical accuracy, - we learned at the talk-back, that some of the tragic events depicted were based on true events,- and the play was brought to life by some very capable actors. No one in the audience left, during the show, and about 1/3 of the patrons (the theater has 100 seats and it appeared almost filled to capacity) stayed for the Talk-Back.
Clearly a lot of work was put into this play, and given the constraints imposed by the Fringe Festival itself (as disclosed by the talk-back moderator) it was a very good show. In the end, Jason did not see the whole play, he got the plot wrong, but he wrote about it. This he also got wrong.

[isaac]

kb,

it's worth noting that TONY hated alchemist of light as well:
http://newyork.timeout.com/events/fringe-festival/298314/alchemist-of-light

Jason's an old family friend, so I'm probably not exactly partial here... but I see no evidence that he did anything wrong. The paragraph in question didn't appear in the print edition of the Times. It didn't have the word "Review" above it. It appeared on ArtsBeat, the Times' arts section blog, which is sectioned off on both the arts and theatre pages. Just because you liked the show and he didn't (and used strong language to explain his dislike) doesn't mean he did something wrong. Can't we disagree with someone's taste without making a federal case out of it?

[RLewis]

Okay, I hate to do too much back-and-forth in any comments sections, but I was so embarrassed to be referred to as an “idiot” on a blog I really like that I had to go back and check this out.

First, I would say that the NYT blog post in question has generated more comments by far than their other Fringe posts, so clearly I’m not the only idiot.

But more importantly, what confuses me is that what I’m reading here: that the blog of a regular-joe playwright who happened to write reviews on his personal blog (with no possible print edition) is more important than a blog run by the biggest newspaper in the country? I don’t care how “squirreled away” it is, it’s the Times!; and with their critic saying that a show is not worth sitting through, who would go see it now? Wouldn’t it just have been better to just review the show poorly, instead of this back-handed pan?

It makes me reflect on recent posts of bloggers admitting that they don’t always write what they really mean for fear of how it may affect their careers. Here, clearly the NYT folks have much more potential in this regard than Superfluties. Is that double-standard at play here? (I’m just asking a question, and I don’t read Slate.com, so please do not call me any other names. Seriously, you asked us to “mouth of” here.)

----------------------------
Okay, I wrote the above over the weekend while still greatly disturbed, but seeing that Jason is a good friend of yours, now this makes much more sense. Unfortunately, not in a good way. Sorry, I’m not trying to make Cote happy, just have to be honest.

[isaac]

First off, once again, I don't think I should've called you an idiot in case the follow up comment I wrote about it didn't make that crystal clear.

Second, to me, one of them was a review, one of them wasn't. We can argue this back and forth, but it's not going to go anywhere. They both appeared on blogs, which confuses the issue. But Jason wasn't writing a backhanded pan. He was writing a frank blog post on a blog. That was called "a blog post". And not a review.

Re-reading Jason's post now, it reminds me, frankly. of what a lot of blog posts look like. Specific example in the intro paragraph, followed by discussion of what is raised by specific example in the body. Only 25% of the post is even about the play. Other than Jason deciding to start a blogger account to post two posts and then never write on it again, there's not much else he could've done to differentiate it.

George's post was a review. It was structured like a review. It was called a review. It had the same look and feel of everything else on his site called a review.

That being said... I really really don't care. If George had posted that review today, I don't think I would've talked about it. It just seems so penny-ante. . I don't think reviewers should review plays that they haven't seen to conclusion. I don't think that's what Jason did. But either way, it's just not worth it.

[resume writing]

Good luck to you with the new project!

[Generic Cialis]

Szia, nagyon szép munkát végzett, sok embert keres a most fognak talál elegendő forrás az Ön tippeket, még várjuk a további tippeket, hogy

[ドボネックス]

Lavoro veramente bello, ci sono molte persone alla ricerca di che ora troveranno fonti abbastanza da vostre punte.

[Wholesale jerseys]

You are fantastic as your work and I really think that this is a good topic to share