I came across this story on Facebook today (thanks, Robin, for the link!). For you who don't hyperlink, I sum up: Edmonton actor Jeff Haslam posted a vitriolic reply on a fan blog. Apparently, one of the subscribers to his theatre company wasn't 100% in love with their latest show. The Globe & Mail article is pretty anti-Haslam on the topic, and I agree that his comments aren't exactly warm and fuzzy, but I do appreciate the fact that he had the courage to respond to a review of his work... to a point.
The really exciting thing about online publishing tools, from blogs to Facebook to Twitter, is that we now have an unprecidented ability to engage in dialogue and debate. Unfortunately, some people hide behind the anonymity of online comments to say some truly hateful things (as my very dear friend Junaid, among others, can tell you). But the fact that Haslam commented openly and sincerely is laudable. I would love to see more artists responding to their critics like that. After all, why would the critic or the reviewer get the last word? The idea of a critical dialogue between a reviewer and an actor or a playwright or a novelist or a filmmaker is pretty inspiring, actually. Though Haslam's comments in this case were pretty immature, petty, and unprofessional. In my opinion. (See my previous posts on the topic of thick skins and artists.) Nonetheless, props to him for publishing his response openly and sincerely, and under his own name and profile pic.
Where he really loses me, though, is this comment: "I wish she’d stop subscribing to my theatre company." (He also calls her "icky" and a "pretentious doof." Uncalled for, since the blogger in question didn't start the name-calling. But it's not like other reviewers haven't resorted to name-calling, so he has a right, I guess.) Since when are only purely positive reviewers welcome in a theatre audience? How fascist has Edmonton become since I moved away, that we now ask critics who offer any sort of actual criticism not to patronize artistic establishments? More importantly, how financially flush is Teatro La Quindicina that they can afford to hand-pick their subscribers like that? Don't we all wish we had that kind of financial independence? From now on, I am only sending my work to publishers that are going to love it. If they have any notes on my writing or--dare I suggest it---if they would even consider rejecting it, forget them. I don't need their journals or their imprints, or their money (for those literary magazines that can still afford to pay their contributors, anyway). While I'm at it, next time I teach, I only want the students who are going to give me a glowing review on my teaching evals at the end of the year. I really don't think that educational institutions should even consider admitting students who are going to be in any way critical of the teaching staff, curriculum, administration, or subject matter in any of the courses. They should like it--all of it--or drop out.
Of course, as Haslam points out, theatre companies can dispense almost entirely of audiences. He writes, “I wonder if [Yeo] knows that her crappy 19 bucks goes to less than 40% of what it costs to pay all the artists she isn’t always smitten by?” He is really on to something here, don't you think? I mean, why bother running the risk of an audience that isn't going to love your play. Theatre companies should just close their doors entirely, and perform to an adoring director, AD and Board of Directors every night. That oughta take care of those pretentious, presumptious reviewers!
So I'm getting a little ranty here. I guess it just irks me that someone who has the privilege of working as an artist should be so unreceptive to feedback, or the possibility of dialogue--so much so that he actually suggests censoring his audiences! His stance is troublingly hypocritical: he feels entitled to comment on the reviewer's blog, and challenge her opinion of his performance, but he wants to rescind her ability to attend his plays in order to provide her own feedback? Have we really rached a point where plays can resist censorship, and take on contentious issues, but the audiences aren't allowed to comment on the actors' or playwright's handling of these topics? Have we moved to a place where art is a monologue, and as patrons of the arts, we're all meant to just take it? Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I always thought that opening a dialogue--not closing it--was kind of the point...
