Review Oversimplifies Quills

To the Editors:

The review of Quills which appeared in last week's edition of the Review brought to light once again the impenetrable ignorance of the task which shrouds your arts reviewers. Ben Gleason's "review" was more of a hopelessly inadequate and inaccurate book report - sadly, standard Review fare.

Why is it that theatrical reviews of late have all been of this stale, impartial, plot-oriented variety? Is there some confusion among the reviewers as to what they are meant to be doing? Time and again we see articles which are not so much reviews of original theatrical productions but summaries, or at best reviews of scripts.

In case you've forgotten, a script is something written by an author, comprised mainly of dialogue between characters who, through this dialogue and through actions described in the play, act upon one another and their environment in order to bring about some greater event. The sum of these actions and their goal is conventionally known as plot. To review a script, a writer should read it, and then analyze the importance of its aims and the grace and craft with which it pursues those aims.

A theatrical production is an interpretation of a script. It involves whole teams of people, not just a writer: actors, directors, designers, stage managers, production crews, producers. These people come together and collectively try to evoke some feeling or reaction in an audience. By telling the story which is found in the script, they try to affect spectators, influence them, make them think. When reviewing a theatrical production, a writer should consider the effectiveness, artistry and skill with which these people pursue their goal. Furthermore, a writer should express his or her own opinions about the success or failure of the endeavors of these people, so that prospective audiences can decide in an informed fashion whether or not to attend the performances.

To offer nothing more than a book report - and an inadequate book report, at that - in lieu of a review is inexcusable, and either betrays massive ignorance or simple and gross negligence. Are the arts reviewers of your staff incapable of forming opinions, or are they simply unaware of what is expected of them?

I suspect that in Gleason's case it was simply the latter; he was so busy, it seems, copying down clever phrases from the script that he might later insert into his article, that he didn't bother to watch the show. How can someone review a show, if they will not allow themselves to watch it and be affected by it? How can you form an opinion, if you are constantly jotting down notes?

For all of his note-taking, Gleason still managed to miss the point of the show. He complains that Quills concentrated on the minutiae of the Marquis' life, while ignoring the big picture - and yet, in this fictional account of the Marquis' imprisonment and execution, only one scene devotes itself to biography, while the rest turn to consider issues like censorship, the culpability of an artist, the very nature of mankind, the frequently indistinguishable line between good and evil, the necessity of subjectivity and the impossibility of impartial judgment. These are issues hardly specific to the life of the Marquis de Sade, and hardly rooted in minutiae.

Perhaps most atrociously of all, while reviewing the most original and intensively designed production of the last few years here at Oberlin, Gleason made no mention of the design elements whatsoever, except to comment on a musical score which the play did not have. What he was listening to was an incredibly effective original sound design - not a score.

Reviewers, please - if you are going to review our shows, watch them!!! We can loan you a copy of the script to peruse at your leisure; it is the least important part of what we would show you. If you cannot let yourselves watch and be moved, then you cannot write a review. This is clear from the tripe you currently offer us.

--Melon Wedick, College senior

Gleason's Review off the Mark

To the Editors:

It is necessary to explain to your staff the difference between a theatrical review and a high school book report. One is a written evaluation of how successfully a work of theater has accomplished its goals through the different elements it employed, such as light, sound and set design, staging and direction, acting, and so on. The other is generally a plot summary, designed to prove that the student and author had in fact read the book in question (or at least the cliff notes), with a few vague opinions thrown in for flavor. These opinions are generally unsupported by any manner of argument, but contain the full force of the student's thesaurus in order to mask the fact that they have nothing at all to say with various impressive-looking words.

Your review of Quills, published on Feb. 18 and written by Ben Gleason, sadly falls into the latter category. The bulk of the text is an outline of the plot, which is a cardinal sin in the writing of a review. What, pray tell, does it accomplish to publish a poorly written plot summary when the play itself can be read or attended? What little is provided in the way of critique takes the form of such inane statements as "Quills overemphasizes the minutiae of the Marquis' life when such trivialities are best skimmed over." Since the plot of the play itself is historical fiction, and the only account of the Marquis' own life to be found therein is limited to but a few minutes of dialogue in scenes two and five, what minutiae are being referred to? Perhaps I should simply be impressed by the fact that the word "minutiae" was used. At least the sentence falls within the boundaries of English grammar; a large chunk of the text was not so lucky.

That the reviewer was clearly of the opinion that our play wasn't particularly good does not concern me, though vanity insists that I point out both that the show completely sold out the day after we opened and that our last two performances received standing ovations. If contrary opinion had been well argued in any way, shape or form in your last issue than I would have shrugged and reflected that there's no accounting for taste. Instead, you published a book report, and a poorly written one at that.

--William Alexander, College senior

Accuracy Needed

To the Editors:

Please train your reporters to record quotes accurately. Please encourage reporters to use quotes in context.

--Aaron Benjamin Leavy, College junior

Theatre Critique Does Quills Production Injustice

To the Editors:

What some of your readers look for in a paper called "the Review" is exactly that - arts reviews which propose some sort of well-articulated critical look at the arts. Last week's issue contained a 'review' of Quills which contained no mention of the production itself, the director's take on the show, or the issues presented by the play, only an inaccurate plot summary in lieu of journalism.

The article completely ignored the issues the script raises (censorship, responsibility, morality) as well as its beautiful structure, unusual style and historical basis. It completely ignored the actual performers, giving mention to Jeremy Carlson's performance but only describing a "lackluster performance from the supporting cast" which I never saw (though as a designer I saw the show every time, and was still flinching by the Sunday matinee). In fact, there was really no "supporting cast," but several large roles. At least two acting professors were very impressed by the performances of all involved.

Although I might forgive a simply unobservant reporter, one who does not do any research seems a little lackluster to say the least. There is no mention of the fact that Quills is an honors project and therefore had not only passion but research behind it on the part of director Chris Niebling. It was also a Winter Term project, meaning the performers and technical staff had been working for quite some time, putting everything they had into the show. Despite this, neither the director nor the cast and crew were ever interviewed by the reviewer, nor were the director's notes consulted in writing the article.

Mr. Gleason also ignores the massive amounts of technical and design work put into Quills; as one of the most technically complicated student shows in recent memory, some mention of the actual production aspects of the show would have been more pertinent than a script summary. He did not mention that it was highly unusual in having a Hall staff member (Jen Groseth, an instructor in the Theatre & Dance dept.) working on a student show. Considering the audience reactions to the sound, lighting, makeup, sets and props, one is forced to question whether the reviewer actually saw the same show.

Frankly, the review even fails as an exercise in craft. From sentences like "At the heart of the ... play ... is a play..." to its inability to stay in one tense, to misquotation of the script and complete misrepresentation of the plot and characters (there is no character called "Monsieur," for instance), the writing lacks not only style and coherency but correct usage of basic English. What's more, a review should not give away the plot and turning points in a play but should describe and critique the production; the author's failure to grasp this concept is quite apparent.

The review of Quills is by no means an exception; the Review is notorious for awful theatre reviews and when it receives complaints generally asks why the theatre community does not take it upon itself to find someone who can write. The answer is that it's not our place; both the theatre community and Oberlin audiences in general need someone who will write a critique - good or bad - of productions with an honest, outside eye. I ask not that you obtain a new staff, but that you read some real reviews, actually watch the shows, and provide an informed look at the entire production. After all, anyone can read a script and write a book report; it would seem that The Review cannot even muster its own ignominious name.

--Alice Dodge, College senior

Quills Critique Unconstructive

To the Editors:

I am writing in response to Ben Gleason's "review" of the recent production of Quills. Before I get started, some of you may be quick to point out that I was a member of the "lackluster" supporting cast. However I ask you not to immediately dismiss my criticism as that of a whining actor incapable of accepting a negative review. I have dealt with bad reviews in the past. In fact I couldn't whine about Gleason's negative review of the production under any circumstances, for there was no review. What Gleason offered instead is a lengthy summary of the play.

Gleason provides us with six sentences pertaining to the production before we delve into summary for the remainder of the "review." These six sentences reflect Gleason's bold and concise journalistic style. His opinions of six of the seven performances are contained in these six words: "lackluster performance from the supporting cast." Issue closed. The work of these actors is not mentioned again. Jeremy Carlson's performance as the Marquis is summed up in three sentences of praise. Director Chris Niebling is said to have "incorporate[d] rich artistic gestures to emphasize the devious workings of the Marquis de Sade." Both specific and meaningful. The remainder of the six sentences contains three extraordinarily vague opinions about the play in general, one of which is a repetition of the headline: "Quills is Dying to Break Free." That's it. The lighting is never referenced, sound is barely mentioned, the set is not discussed, costuming is not alluded to, we don't find out what any of the director's "rich artistic" choices are. What we do find out is the entire plot.

For eight weeks a director, a stage manager, seven actors, an assistant stage manager, a lighting designer, a sound designer, a costume designer, a set designer, two makeup specialists and many others worked obsessively to put this production together.

Does a lot of hard work mean that Quills deserves a positive review? Absolutely not. It deserves a legitimate criticism. I agree with some of Gleason's thoughts; there are simply too few of them presented and with no justification for those that are. Not once is anything specific cited as the root of his observations. For the vast majority of his article, Gleason is not critiquing, he's relaying the story. That this summary should be presented in response to eight weeks of dedication is a slap in the face. I am insulted, not as the actor who played Dr. Royer Collard, but as an aspiring artist, to have our production be treated with such little respect.

Gleason's "review" is useless. It provides remarkably scant insight about the production. If an athlete can't play the game, she's cut from the squad. If a college applicant doesn't have the grades, he's not accepted. If an actress isn't right for a part, she isn't cast. If Ben Gleason can't intelligently criticize, he shouldn't be published; that simply demeans the work in question.

I invite any reader (especially people who saw the show) to read his "review" and find any redeeming qualities in his criticism.

--Peter O'Leary, College sophomore

Unjust Judgement

To the Editor:

I had a most unfortunate incident happen to me over the weekend on campus. I was sitting in ZKE lounge with one other person watching a t.v. show, when an RC from Burton on her rounds noticed that I had a bottle of beer sitting in front of me. She didn't say anything to me she just observed me from behind, (my back was to her and I was seated on a couch), and left. Five minutes later Security walks into the lounge area and informs me that they had just gotten a report of "many people drinking in the lounge." I was the ONLY person drinking at the time. Security explained to me the rule about no beer in the lounge and I complied with NO ARGUMENT.

After Security left, I called the RC on duty and tried to explain to her that if she would have just said something, I would have done away with the beer. She told me that she was "5 foot nothing" and she did not feel as though she could say anything because she "felt threatened." (At the sight of me I guess!!) When asked why she thought that, she said that I was a "drug-infested, drunken bastard" and said that she did not know what I WOULD HAVE DONE TO HER if she said anything to me. ?!!

Later Res Life Reps would explain to me that if an RC feels threatened in any situation, it is proper procedure to call Security. NOW I DID NOTHING THAT ANYONE COULD CONSTRUE AS THREATENING TOWARDS HER. I was not drunk nor had I even started drinking that evening. She said nothing to me nor I to her. So the question becomes why did she feel threatened? For one, I am a large African-American male (5'9" 2701bs). If she felt threatened at the sight of me, then she should not be an RC. Racist and biased views have no place in positions of significance on this campus.

Res Life fired the RC of ZKE last year after an incident and I would like the same swift justice now. If not, then they are only encouraging such harassment to continue. And if Res Life does not feel as though firing her is the proper course of action, then at least move her to an area where she does not have to feel threatened at the sight of a massive African-American.

--Markeith W. Reed, Oberlin, OH