It appears that a goodly discussion is growing in the local theater community, prompted by today's SF Chronicle review of "The Village Bike" at the Shotgun Players. To be blunt, the reviewer really did not like the play, to the point of giving it an empty-chair rating (the lowest available). [For more info on the Chronicle's iconic rating system, see history here and an amusing cinematic application and commentary here.] The comments on the online version of the review so far seem to be largely opposed, meaning people liked the play, and/or disliked the review.
I can't comment on the play itself yet: I'm scheduled to see it this weekend, and will comment at that point. I will note a couple of things about The Village Bike now, however:
- In case anyone reading this doesn't know, I am a board member for the Shotgun Players, so I will not pretend to be uninvolved, uninterested, or unbiased. I am friends with most of the staff and company, and also with many of the artists.
- I read "The Village Bike" script a couple of years ago and didn't care for it (for reasons quite different from those expressed by the Chronicle reviewer). I read it again at the behest of Shotgun Artistic Director Patrick Dooley, who felt I might have missed some things he liked about it. I still didn't care for it.
- At the time I read the play, Shotgun was considering it for inclusion in last season, the season made up entirely of plays written by women. I argued against including it, in part because I didn't care for it myself, and in part because of other plays I thought were stronger.
- As it turned out, Shotgun did not include Village Bike in that season, but did put it in this year. Patrick tells me that he had my objections and concerns in mind as he went about directing the play. So I look forward to seeing the production, whether I end up liking it or not.
I didn't join the Shotgun board because I like everything they do. I don't expect to like every show at any theater I subscribe to. Indeed, if I like everything a theater does, that theater isn't trying hard enough. So far, pretty much every season at Shotgun has included at least one play that didn't appeal to me, but that's great. I realize that it's not all about me, and that other people like and appreciate things that I don't.
Ironically, the post I had planned to write today was about how we've gone about choosing which theaters to subscribe to, and how that process (and the choice of theaters) has changed over the years. Still lots to say on that subject, but this particular discussion kind of trumped the larger picture.
A couple more points
I quite appreciate the way Shotgun is embracing the challenge of this negative review. A review in the Chronicle can really make or break a play in this market, and Shotgun has come out in both the Chronicle comments section and social media as welcoming the discussion. I'm glad the new Chronicle reviewer has the spine to take a stand. A review that doesn't provoke thought and discussion is no better than a play that doesn't. If the theater-going public just wants to sheepishly follow the dictates of a middle-of-the-road review, then they deserve the endless repetitions of "Wicked" and "A Christmas Carol" and such that will result.One forum of discussion on this production is ongoing at Works By Women San Francisco. The discussion predates the Chronicle review, but the comments have now embraced and included it.
And finally, I think it's terrific that there is a dialog going on about this. This is why theater exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment