Review Lacked Research
February 25, 2010 • By Nathan Taylor,
Print This Post
Email This Post
When reviewing theatre, critics have a certain obligation to their readers. Primarily, they should be well aware of what the script contains, what it adds to the play, and what the audience’s reactions are. Which is why Rachel Dozier’s Feb. 22 article “What Should Be Left Behind the Screen?” is not only misinformed, but also detrimental in its purpose.
The article thrives on anecdotal evidence – Dozier is “a seasoned theatre viewer and an amateur performer,” she considers herself “a mature audience member,” and even tosses in a friend’s opinion to the equation.
The problem lies in the fact that Dozier didn’t do her research after becoming so outraged. Dubbing it “artistic license,” it’s clear that she has never read the script, which is even more graphic than what was witnessed on stage. I’m not going to blame somebody for not running out to Borders, or having to interlibrary loan some play they saw and wanted to check up on – but the play is available through JMU’s library. More than that, the play is available online. You could literally read it from the comfort of your own home, where the sexual boogeyman can’t harm you.
But you shouldn’t need me to tell you that. Director Connor Davis says “the text…calls for these graphic scenes in the play.” So what is the purpose of this article? It appears as if Dozier didn’t have a problem with the play she saw, but the script that was enacted.
“There should be a definite difference between theatre and film” is a wonderfully nondescript statement, but if Dozier is looking for differences between theatre and film in regards to ratings, I’ll happily oblige. The MPAA defines an “R” rating as a film including any or all of the following: “adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements.”
Now look at any number of “R-rated” motion pictures (for my purpose, I will use some of the highest grossing); “Wedding Crashers,” “There’s Something About Mary” and “300” are all explicit movies. The first two are comedies, the third action, but there’s no way to argue that they had more artistic merit than “Red Light Winter.” And that’s coming from somebody who saw and enjoyed all three (I, too, can hop on the anecdotal bandwagon). All three movies listed above were more explicit than what I witnessed on stage in “Red Light Winter,” due to the artistic nature of the play and the way Davis handled said scenes.
As for further warning, I’m not sure what Dozier wanted since there’s no reason that she couldn’t have looked up or asked the person selling her the ticket why the play was described as mature audiences only. If you wanted to know why a movie was rated R, you’d look it up (oh hey, look at that nice available script) or ask somebody familiar with what you were about to watch (it’s common knowledge around the theatre department what this play was about).
If you’re going to let yourself be taken out of the play by a realistic portrayal of sex that has the purpose of furthering a character’s motivations (and you’re not watching a Brecht play), then maybe criticizing theatre just isn’t for you.
Nathan Taylor is a junior theatre and English major.
Contact Nathan Taylor at taylorna@jmu.edu
Comments
Got something to say?
Best of the 'Burg Supplement
April 29, 2010 Issue in Print
