Mood:
Now Playing: Everybody Wants to Rule the World, Tears for Fears
A couple of days ago Hy Bender published is reportage of Travis Tanner:
56. Travis Tanner
www.geocities.com/travistanner05
Left after first 15 minutes (of 2 hour show)
After posting this political opera to my list, but before making any comments other than how long I stayed, a nice person from the production emailed to inquire what in the world led me to flee after just 15 minutes.
Basically, there were two considerations. The practical one is that I attended Travis Tanner in the last days of the festival, a period when sticking with any show means giving up on catching the final performances of other shows running around the same time.
To be entirely honest, though, I was also really uncomfortable during those 15 minutes.
There were over two dozen people on stage. If a show is going to create the equivalent of a Times Square subway platform during rush hour, it had better be doing something epic.
What came across, however, were lyrics such as this (from a song titled "What the F"):
They think the F word
Is the verbal equivalent of a turd.
But I've never been ambivalent with that word
And among the crowds ineloquent, it's preferred.
Can listening to it heard
Turn your brain into curd?
At that moment, yes, I felt my brain turning into curd.
Not long afterwards, about half the chorus exited through the theatre door. It was least disruptive to simply follow them out.
Is it possible the rest of the production was a whole lot better? Of course. But it seemed wisest to take my chances at a difference venue.
As a general rule, though, I do believe in committing to a show; and of the 56 attended at this year's Fringe, I watched 54 of them from beginning to end.
http://www.hyreviews.com
I read this Sunday afternoon, and immediately I fired off this response:
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 12:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Melanie N. Lee"
Subject: What the F, indeed!
To: "Hy Bender"
Dear Hy:
I just read your review--or reportage--of Travis Tanner on your website.
http://www.hyreviews.com/
Yes, I'm just reacting off the top of my head, and maybe I should wait before
I speak, but I'll be as impulsive as you were.
Of all the stupid, shallow, brainless reactions to a show, yours takes the cake.
Weren't you listening? The show began with an impression of 9/11, a matter
of two comedians losing their jobs, and a graduate student afraid that her city's
declining finances would hinder her being hired after graduation. She revealed
her ambitions to write a book about "sacred clowns", and wondered about the
sacred significance of her favorite comedians.
If that's not "epic", it certainly is important. Or at least "heavy".
And you were turned off by "What the F"? You decided from that one song, after
all you heard beforehand, that the entire show would be juvenile? That song was
revealing an aspect of Travis' character and methods--not the intelligence level of
entire oratorio itself!
Now, you agreed to read the script before you published your response. Yet, you
did not mention the rest of the script in your reportage. Why not? Did the script
prove not to be so juvenile, and you couldn't admit in public that you were wrong?
By the way, in case you weren't aware, the producers of individual Fringe Festival
shows have little control over which venue they receive--and they're only notified of
the venue a few weeks before the show opens. It's true that we at Travis Tanner
chose more people for the cast than we had originally intended, but we also asked
for a bigger stage than we received. I really don't think reviewers of Fringe shows
should get so hung up on the cast size that it ruins their entire enjoyment of the show.
Also, you wouldn't have "remembered" the lyrics of "What the F" had I not sent
you the script. The fact that you had the entire script at your disposal, yet chose
only those words that supported your original impression (ignoring the rest), tells
me I'm dealing with someone who is being dishonest with himself, if not the rest
of the world.
I realize the things I'm saying here won't endear me to you. However, if you have
the right to walk out of an amateur show, as a reviewer, after fifteen minutes, then
I certainly have the right to give you my initial reaction to your words after five
minutes. I am very disappointed in you. I feel twice cheated.
Prove me wrong. Write back and explain yourself. If I've wronged you or misunderstood
you, I'd like to know.
Also, what show did you catch instead of ours?
Sincerely,
Melanie N. Lee
Librettist/Producer, Travis Tanner
Now, I don't feel at liberty to publish word-for-word Hy's reply to me, but it was much more reasonable and calmer than you'd expect from someone who'd just been "told off". He said that Fringe shows aren't "amateur productions", that my show charged as much as the better shows in Fringe, and that I was performing in one of the more prestigious venues. He also acknowledged my technical talent as a writer, but that he didn't care for my story or content, and that he had read the rest of the script and found me consistent in my approach, which to him was off-putting.
Actually, I will quote this part of his letter:
"Again, I'm sorry you're upset, and that you
believe I'm a moron.
"But reasonable people can see things differently.
"My feeling is you have genuine talent; but that
you'd benefit from working with a co-writer,
director, or editor who seriously challenges you
on your content choices and approaches.
"I also suspect that you'll look back five years
from now and have a markedly different view.
"If that reaction is of no use to you, though,
then please simply ignore it. As I mentioned
last time, "Take what you can use and
let the rest go by."
"At any rate, I wish you nothing but success
and continued growth as an artist."
Now I'm wondering about myself: do I think someone's responses are intelligent when they take the time to pay me a compliment? Here's what I wrote back:
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Melanie N. Lee"
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com. Learn more
Subject: Re: What the F, indeed!
To: "Hy Bender"
Dear Hy:
Wow, you do show some intelligence after all! Most of what you've said has
some merit to it, at last.
There is one statement I disagree with. We have different ideas of what an
"amateur" show is. You think an amateur show is a free show. I think an
amateur show is one in which the actors, and sometimes some others involved,
don't get paid. I didn't pay my actors, though I did pay my musicians and stage
manager, and I plan to pay my director and sound board operator.
For example, I'll be a Royal Wife in an upcoming production of The King and I
at the Free Synagogue of Flushing (Queens, NY). The King and I is a stellar
piece of work. We will do the best we can with it. We're charging $14 admission,
or $12 for children and seniors, I think. We actors are not getting paid, although some
of us have professional or semi-professional experience. I consider this an amateur
production.
Now, you say--and I wish you had said this in public, and you still can!--that you
recognize my technical skill as a writer, but you didn't like the content and the
overall story. Now, this is an opinion I can respect. However, as usual, I want
more. What specifically about the story did you dislike? In your publicized
reportage you didn't acknowledge the story at all! Quoting the introduction to
"What the F" in no way addresses the story. That's like quoting John Lennon's
nonsense lyrics from "I Am the Walrus" as the example and epitome of his
lyrics. (One reporter, apparently ultraconservative and a Lennon-hater, did just
this after John was killed.) So, although you as an observer may have concentrated
on content, your reportage did not do this.
There's an unfortunate tendency among reviewers to dismiss totally a work, and its
creators, if they find the work lacking or disappointing. I think this trying to look
"sophisticated" or "cool" at another's expense must end. On a Broadway level this
is acceptable, though still uncool in my book. On an Off-Off-Broadway level, it sucks.
A reviewer's job is to report on what the work tried to do, and note where it succeeded
and where it failed, and why. You had failed to do this with me. (And yes, I have written
reviews myself, years ago.)
So I ask again: what specifically about the story did you dislike? Be detailed about
this, please. You don't have to take apart the entire script, but I want something I
can chew on. Now I believe you are intelligent and thoughtful enough to do this if
you put your mind to it.
Sincerely,
Melanie N. Lee
Possibly at this time I'm coming off to some of you as a very needy shrew. In fact, I've been sharing my correspondence with Bender with the cast, and one of my actors has asked to be taken off the list of those receiving these missives. My director and co-director reminded me that after a show everybody has a down, and I especially, after putting so much time and money and emotional investment into it, would be the most "down" of all.
Now because of Hurricane Katrina, I was wondering if Sister Helen Prejean (of Dead Man Walking fame) was all right, and I sent her an e-mail, which I cc'ed to Jake Heggie, who composed the Dead Man Walking opera, and whom I met at a conference at Hofstra University in November 2000. (I was writing a paper about the opera.) This led me now to looking at Heggie's website and related websites. I found an interesting interview with him:
http://www.usoperaweb.com/2004/spring/heggie.htm
Heggie had some interesting things to say about dealing with reviews, and about New York's resistance to new operas. (He's from San Francisco.)
Anyway, Aaron Frankel, who ran the Musical Theater Workshop at the New School, wants to share some comments with me, and I'll probably call him later today.
Y'know, I did write Travis Tanner about very recent events, and as a writer it may be hard to have the best perspective on things that have just happened, or are happening. Will I think in five years that Travis Tanner is trash? I doubt it. No one in the cast or crew that I know of thought it was trash. It's possible that this story will appeal only to performers, and to nonwhite urbane or leftist Christians. That's fine with me, although I wouldn't mind reaching for a broader audience if I kept true to the original spark and truth of the story. And actually, I believe a good part of the audience enjoyed the work!
It is possible that in five years I won't think it's a good, or as much of a "gem, however unpolished", that I think it is now. But I must honor who I am, where I am, now, and grow from there. I like my works for what they are.
If Bender will care to tell me specifically what turned him off about the story and content, I'll have something more concrete to work with. To say, "I didn't like the work, and here's why" is a lot more beneficial than "This is trash; don't bother."
Posted by mnl_1221
at 2:28 PM EDT



