Best of This Week’s Theatre Blogs – 31 Jul 2009
Every week our theatregoer reporter Corinne Furness trawls the web to find some of the best gems from the myriad theatre-related blogs and condense them into one easy-to-read “Best of the Blogs” round-up each Friday.
This week, on Time Out New York‘s blog Upstaged, David Cote suggested that bloggers needed to “mix it up more” and theatre bloggers responded accordingly. Cote himself got in on the act firing a barrage of words in the direction of playwright and blogger George Hunka; 99 Seats discussed actors being fired due to what they had written on the internet (Facebook rather than blogs, at least for now); and Don Hall set about challenging Lyn Gardner’s assertion that the arts need more entrepreneurs.
If the Gardner/Hall debate pointed to the fact that money (or lack of it) is an ever present subject on theatre blogs then Parabasis continued the theme (albeit in a less argumentative tones) – asking how might an emotional case be made for the continued funding of the arts.
After the attack on Hunka it wasn’t much more cheery for playwrights elsewhere on the internet. Matthew Freeman blogged about his (rather careless) treatment by a New York New Writing Theatre whilst, in the wake of the leak of information about David Mamet’s new play, The Playgoer asked if such leaks are ever right. Or, indeed, if such problems are the stuff that most playwrights can only dream of.
If that was all too heavy then Kris Joseph tackled with wit the rather painful situation of when an audience is just not getting what an actor is doing…
The Best Possible Environment in Which to Work
“I’d say that the pursuit of money and the pursuit of art are at natural odds with each other – profit motive is, by its nature, about cutting costs and maximizing revenue … And for every example of Shakespeare or Marlowe one touts out as example of brilliant commercial artists I can name an equal number of brilliant artists who were not commercial.”
The Emotional Case For The Arts
“So … the arts. How do we make the emotional case for the arts? And more specifically for Government Arts Subsidy? It seems to me that, while there are some audiences where the “instrumental benefits” argument – that the arts improve math scores and economic outlooks for communities – will work. Certainly, if I were meeting with my congressman, I’d make that argument. But that’s not a very emotionally compelling argument. So what is?”
Let’s All Just Pretend
“It’s just that words like ‘careful consideration’ should have meaning. And if they don’t, they should carry the illusion of meaning. All I ask (this is where my standards are) is that I am allowed to pretend that my submissions are not an empty exercise. I ask literary departments to support my illusion.”
“True, leaking details of a playwright’s work in advance against their wishes may not be a good thing. (Think of all the damage unnecessarily done to Corpus Christi, a priori.) But then again – how many playwrights can even get away with such a news blackout? Only those who can sell a play based on their name alone.”
“From here on in I’ll likely feel like an actor in a nightmare, doomed to repeat the same muddy performance while the audience fashions a litany of interpretations: Hortensio has multiple personality disorder; Hortensio is an undercover reporter; Hortensio is an alien in disguise sent to Earth to prep the planet for an invasion by lizard-like overlords who eat people.”
