In memoriam: Michael Kuchwara

I'm so sorry I never had a chance to meet Associated Press drama critic Michael Kuchwara, who died Saturday at age 63. He was widely admired as a generous person, a fair-minded critic and a hardworking reporter.

One quote struck me from the AP obituary. In a 2006 American Theatre Wing video Kuchwara said, "I'm writing for an audience that may never see the shows that I'm writing about."

It's a reminder that he began covering Broadway in 1984, when the Internet was still in its infancy.

If you lived outside of the New York City area and you loved theatre it was probably Kuchwara's reviews and articles that you read, hanging on every word that made its way into the local paper.

Perhaps you dreamed of getting to the Great White Way, as a performer or in the audience at a Broadway show. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that Kuchwara's reviews most likely played a role in nurturing those dreams.

Of course it's much easier now for far-flung theatre fans to follow Broadway from an abundance of Web sites.

But Kuchwara's reviews and stories were the most widely disseminated of any critic. He brought a bit of Broadway and 0ff-Broadway to readers in big cities and small towns across the United States and Canada.

And Kuchwara had a job that requires great skill from a writer. Anyone can write long and complex, filled with insider jargon. Not everyone can write clear and concise and accessible to all. (Here are some of his recent reviews.)

Michael Kuchwara was able to spend a good part of his professional life doing something he loved, no small accomplishment. From reading the tributes that have been coming in, it's clear that the theatre community has lost a great champion.

Why should I wait until opening night?

Wow, some people just don't get it, do they?

British theatre producer Michael Codron, who received an Olivier Award for lifetime achievement earlier this month, has some harsh words for theatre bloggers.

Here's what the 79-year-old Codron told Mark Lawson in The Guardian:

His single flash of anger is aimed at the bloggers who, in defiance of theatrical convention that comment is embargoed until press night, review a play during its previews. "It's almost invariably reactionary responses. They're the modern equivalent of the lot that used to boo the plays in the 50s and 60s. I think they're ghastly."

When I started my blog, if I saw a preview I wouldn't wait, I'd post my review immediately. Now, I do tend to wait for opening night simply because it's more fun that way! If I saw a preview performance, I always mention that.

But since I pay for my tickets I'm under no obligation to anyone, especially the producers, to hold off on stating my opinion. And, I might add, I've paid full price for shows in preview.

The blog isn't my job, it's a hobby. It's simply an extension of a conversation I might have in everyday life. It's a way for me to jot down my thoughts, to vent occasionally, to write about something I enjoy.

To say that I shouldn't post a review until opening night is as silly as saying I shouldn't talk about the show with friends or coworkers or post something on Twitter. I should just enter the cone of silence and not utter a word to anyone.

Theatre fans are a pretty passionate bunch - hate it or love it, we want to talk about what we've seen. Why would you want to stifle that dialogue? Besides, the bloggers whose reviews I read regularly are extremely thoughtful and knowledgeable - hardly "reactionary."

Of course if someone accepts a free ticket from a producer with the understanding that they'll wait until opening night, well that's a different story. It's just not mine.

Theatre criticism and serendipity

At first glance, it may not mean much to the average theatre fan that Variety has laid off critic David Rooney. Variety is a trade publication and unless you're in show business, or an especially devoted fan, you probably don't read it.

But as this Playbill article mentions, Rooney is merely the latest addition to a line of theatre critics who've been let go by more mainstream publications, replaced by freelancers if they're replaced at all. (By default, Michael Kuchwara of the Associated Press is probably the most influential mainstream theatre critic in the United States.)

I know there's the argument that criticism hasn't declined, it's simply changed, gotten more dispersed and democratic with the advent of blogging. There are more theatre critics nowadays, not fewer.

Well, bloggers can pick up some of the slack and we do have a role to play. Our passion for theatre goes a long way toward keeping the conversation going. We can be a great source about what's going on in New York and elsewhere and our reviews are widely read.

But as I see it, there are a few obstacles to theatre bloggers taking over the world:

• we're preaching to the choir, people come looking for us because they're already interested in the subject; (Does anyone aimlessly browse the Internet?)

• few of us, even on a great day, reach as many people as a TV station, radio station, magazine, newspaper or their Web sites;

• since most of us don't blog for a living, we pick and choose what we write about. We don't have an obligation to cover everything in our communities.

All of this may not mean as much to Broadway or to a major regional theatre company that will still get coverage, that have built-in audiences.

But what about the small company just starting out? How does it get noticed? What about a theatre in a community where there aren't a lot of theatre bloggers to pick up the slack?

And there's one more thing that troubles me about the decline of general-interest criticism. Our culture has become so decentralized, with everyone wrapped up in their own little sources of information, that we've lost the opportunity for serendipity.

That means there's less chance we'll come across something we've never heard of, never thought about reading or attending or listening to, but our curiosity has been piqued. It means there's even less chance that a non-theatergoer will hear about the theatre.

Homophobia in theatre reviews

I could not believe what Bloomberg News theatre critic John Simon wrote in his review of The Pride, a production of off-Broadway's MCC Theater.

In discussing his reaction to the play by Alexi Kaye Campbell, which examines gay relationships in 1958 and 2008, Simon writes "Another problem is men kissing each other ..." Then he quotes this bit of dialogue:

Oliver: The blonde one’s had his tongue in the other one’s ear since we got here.
Philip: Yummy.
Oliver: They’re sweet.

He ends the review by remarking, "I wonder how mainstream audiences will take to Campbell’s tongue in their ears."

Wow. John Simon, if you think that two men kissing is "a problem" then you clearly have "a problem" with gay people. If you can't leave your homophobia at the entrance to the theatre, then you should not have reviewed this play.

I mean, imagine the outcry if a critic had written about the musical Memphis, which features an interracial love story, "Another problem is a white man kissing a black woman." We would be outraged - and justifiably so.

At Parabasis, blogger Isaac Butler has gotten the discussion going. And apparently, Simon isn't the only theatre critic who has trouble keeping his prejudices in check. (Thanks to the West End Whingers for pointing out the following item.)

Christopher Hart penned this line in his review of Plague Over England in the London Sunday Times: “There’s also quite a lot of men kissing. I can cope with most things on stage — rape, torture, the plays of David Hare — but I still have to lower my gaze at men kissing.”

So you can put up with viewing rape and torture on stage but the sight of two men kissing forces you to avert your eyes from the horror? Unbelievable. Viewing violence against women is palatable to Hart but a display of affection between two men sends him over the edge.

I don't know whether this is simply a generational thing - Simon is 84. Or whether it's a matter of two male critics trying to prove their bona fides lest they be considered a little less than straight.

Whatever the excuse, both reviews are offensive. The stories of gay men and lesbians deserve to be told and their relationships deserve to be treated with respect. It should be that way in theatre reviews and in real life as well.

Personally, I have no problem with two men or two women kissing and being affectionate with each other. I think it's sweet. They're part of "the mainstream" and so are the rest of us who consider them friends, family, coworkers, neighbors.

The "problem" as I see it is letting the bigots control the conversation. Their voices shouldn't be the only ones that get heard.

Oy, they were Jewish enough!

Before the Broadway revival of Neil Simon's play Brighton Beach Memoirs sadly closes tomorrow, there's something else I have to say. One aspect of the discussion about this terrific production disturbs me. It's shown up on the Broadway message boards and in at least one of the reviews.

Here's an example from All That Chat:

"I also happen to think David Cromer put together one of the most goyish casts I could imagine for a Jewish family. Accents were spotty, and I never felt these actors were a real family."

Critic John Simon mentioned the same thing in his review for Bloomberg News:

"What the evening sorely lacks is aromatic Jewish-American inflection and idiomatic gesticulation, somewhat deficient even in the original production, presumably from fear of being mistaken for patronizing caricature, instead of recognized as leavening authenticity."

Well, I find this argument offensive and bewildering. You don't think they were a real family? Fine. But don't base your opinion on a stereotype.

It's entirely possible to be Jewish without a thick Yiddish accent or wildly moving your arms around when you talk or having everyone yell at each other at the dinner table. Even in the 1930s, when Brighton Beach Memoirs takes place.

Trust me on this. I grew up with two Depression-era Jewish parents. And when I lived in Israel for a year, I learned that there's no "one way" to be Jewish.

What Cromer has done so effectively in directing the play is to strip away the excess - and I don't remember any exaggerated New England accents in his production of Our Town either. As Chris Jones says in his Chicago Tribune review, Cromer "rediscovers the actual, vulnerable Americans underneath."

As Kate Jerome, Laurie Metcalf isn't a stereotypical Jewish mother one generation removed from Eastern Europe - but that's the enormous strength of her performance.

When Eugene asks his mother why she doesn't buy a half-pound of butter instead of a quarter-pound at the store, she responds: "And suppose the house burned down this afternoon? Why do I need an extra quarter pound of butter?"

Yes, that's funny. But the way Metcalf says those lines it's not a joke. I understood that behind the quip was the very real insecurity of a Depression-era family struggling to make ends meet.

When Kate expresses her wariness of the Murphys across the street, I have to admit she reminded me a bit of my mother, who would always ask me before I brought a friend home from school whether they were Jewish. (A line of questioning that infuriated me!)

But when Kate tells her sister Blanche: "How many times have Stanely and Gene come home from school black and blue from the beatings they took from those Irish hooligans," I understood the real fear behind her wariness.

The same goes for Dennis Boutsikaris, who I think is terrific as family patriarch Jack Jerome.

Near the end of the play, he says about his son Stanley, "I want him to go to shul with me on Saturday. They stop going for three or four weeks, they forget their religion altogether." He acted and sounded authentically Jewish to me without stooping to caricature.

In fact, the original text, which doesn't contain any Yiddish at all, has Jack saying "temple," not "shul." Whoever made the change - Simon or Cromer - it's a brilliant touch that works perfectly. It's exactly the word Jack would have used and Boutsikaris nails it.

The issue of who should play which roles has come up a couple of times in the past few weeks regarding able-bodied actors taking on disabled characters.

The deaf community is upset that a hearing actor - Henry Stram - has been cast in the role of a deaf character in Carson McCullers' The Heart is A Lonely Hunter. And some advocates for the disabled expressed disappointment that a deaf/blind child wasn't picked over Abigail Breslin for the role of Helen Keller in the upcoming Broadway revival of The Miracle Worker.

To me, only criteria is whether or not an actor is believable in the role. The family onstage at Brighton Beach Memoirs seemed totally believable, regardless of the actual religious or ethnic background of the actors.

Despite the title of this blog post, there's not an oy or a vey in Brighton Beach Memoirs - and that's fine. A Jewish family - absolutely. But not one drowning in schmaltz. I'm just sad that more theatergoers won't have a chance to see them.

Theatre critics and cheerleaders

Blogger Kris Vire, from Storefront Rebellion and Time Out Chicago, has an interesting discussion going on over at his blog about the role of the critic.

His Chicago colleague, the Tribune's Chris Jones, wrote a review of the musical High Fidelity, presented by the Route 66 Theatre Company, that wasn't entirely complimentary. A reader named Allison took Jones to task for being insufficiently supportive of Chicago theatre.

She said, in part, "theatre in this country is suffering right now. You are a Chicago theatre critic, by your own words "America's hottest theatre city." You are supposed to support and encourage theatre in this town.

Here's my 2 cents, as someone who's never been to Chicago and doesn't know much about the theatre scene there.

Let's suppose Jones, in a desire to be supportive, had written a more forgiving review. How exactly would that help if the show simply isn't very good? How would that accomplish Allison's goal of encouraging theatre? Wouldn't it have the opposite effect, by discouraging audience members who saw it and were disappointed?

I think Jones is supportive of good theatre. I first read about David Cromer's production of Our Town in his blog. His rave is what made me want to see it in New York. It made an impression on me because he doesn't rave about everything. That's why I trust his opinion.

When you praise a show whether or not it deserves the accolade, you lose that trust. You're not doing the audience or the show any favors at a time when there are so many choices for people's limited entertainment dollars.

I think you can best encourage and support theatre by saving your highest praise for what truly is great, what will give people an unforgettable experience and make them want to come back for more. Save it for a show that people simply can't afford to miss.

Cheerleaders are fun but they don't score any points. You've got to win the game on the field.