University of Virginia Library

Steve Wells

Examining The Real Issue

Before the Charlottesville
theatre season begins this weekend
with the Albemarle Playhouse's
production of John von Druten's
"Bell, Book, and Candle," I think
it's necessary to examine an
incident which occurred here in
August and briefly re-evaluate the
function of the critic in local
theatre.

The incident to which I refer is
the dismissal of Jere Real as the
drama critic of The Daily Progress
as a result of the controversy
created by his unfavorable review
of the Playhouse's summer finale,
"Oklahoma!", which, ironically,
turned out to be the biggest success
in the Playhouse's short history,
according to Managing Director
Patrick Stoner.

Real, who thought that the
show "rarely (rose) above the level
of a mediocre high school
production," was in obvious
disagreement with the local
theatregoing public and the
Progress readers let the paper know
it. The avalanche of letters to the
editor and an uncalled-for visit to
the Progress office by Stoner to
ask for another review of
"Oklahoma!" blew the incident
entirely out of proportion and cost
Real his job.

Biased Judgement

There are of course, different
sides to the story. Although he did
not ask for Real's dismissal, Stoner
felt that Real allowed personal bias
to interfere with his critical
judgments, especially of actors.
"There's a lot of childish
vindictiveness going on," Stoner
said, "a lot that I cannot talk
about."

Stoner, however, is one of the
few people I have talked to who
does not regret the loss of Real as
the Progress critic. None of the
drama faculty here at the
University sees anything invalid or
unfair about Real's criticism of
"Oklahoma!" even though some of
them enjoyed the production.
Moreover, they feel that Real was a
highly competent critic who is
going to be missed by the
Charlottesville theatre community.

The entire episode becomes all
the more ludicrous when the
comments of Ben Kent, Executive
Editor of the Progress and the man
who decided to make the personnel
change, are taken into account.
Kent believed that after four years
of running Real's reviews it was
time for "fresh blood," despite the
fact that he respected Real and
considered him to be "pretty
professional" in his job. When
asked (get this, now) whether Real
might be too good a critic for the
general readership of the Progress
to appreciate, Kent replied that it
was "quite likely," and added that
"he's too damn good for this
town."

Thus, what we have is a critic
losing his job because he has too
much talent. It's absurd! If, say,
Kent agreed with Stoner that Real
was prejudiced and took pot shots
at actors, then it would be a whole
different ballgame. But Kent didn't,
and instead of standing behind his
critic, he look the easy way out and
fired him, with the result being an
almost certain lessening of the
caliber of drama criticism his paper
publishes, which will be particularly
harmful to those people involved in
local theatre who are seeking an
honest evaluation of their work.

This brings us to the roll of the
critic. Contrary to what you may
believe, most theatre people do not
want to receive praise unless they
feel it is deserved. One of the things
that irked Stoner about the letters
which were written to the Progress
was that some of them look the
attitude, "Well, these are nice kids
doing their best and trying to do
the community a service, therefore
your critic should give them a
break." Although Stoner violently
disagreed with Real's review of
"Oklahoma!", he'd be the first to
tell you that there is no place for
charity in drama criticism only
honesty; and if Real or any critic
had valid objections to the show, he
was obligated to write them.

Big Meanie

The critic always seems like a
big meanie when he tears a
production or performance to
pieces. Yet, as Real wrote in a letter
to the Progress after his dismissal,
"I believe a reviewer who
uniformly praises all is not doing
his duty to the public. The best any
critic-reviewer can do is bring to
bear what theatrical experience or
knowledge he may possess and
write it down. His is always merely
one man's hopefully intelligent
opinion and the public should feel
free to make their own judgment
(italics mine).

This last sentence says two
things about drama criticism which
people tend to forget. First, reviews
are based primarily upon subjective
criteria. If you disagree with a
critic, this does not mean the critic
is wrong any more than it means
you're wrong. It's simply a
difference in tastes, expectancies,
or even backgrounds.

And secondly, too many
potential theatregoers expect to be
spoon-fed by a critic. A review is
not some godly proclamation that
commands you either to go or not
to go to a particular production.
Use your own minds, read between
the lines, see if the critic's tastes are
similar to yours. No critic has ever
asked for his readers to agree with
him all the time; but he does ask
that his opinion be respected.

Qualified Judge

A critic, after all, is supposedly
well-versed in his chosen field. He is
a man or woman with an affinity
for the theatre who feels qualified
to make value judgments. He knows
that criticism hurts and, unless he's
a back, he doesn't enjoy cutting
people down. But he also knows
that, in any theatre, situation,
constructive criticism is necessary if
a consistently high standard of
production is to be achieved and
maintained.

As for Jere Real, he got caught
in the middle and, for better or
worse, is no longer in our ranks. His
successor at the Progress is a
woman named Jean Thompson,
whose "matinee matron" image has
made local drama people skeptical
of her ability to write meaningfully
and criticize adequately.

In any event, we wish Mrs.
Thompson luck. She has to prove
herself while writing in the shadow
of a knowledged and perhaps
ill-treated predecessor. She'll have
her first chance this weekend, and
the Charlottesville theatre circle
will be watching with great interest.