Letters from Jean Sidden and Ron May concerning the removal of
my review of Valley Youth Theatre's Oliver!, and response.From: ***@***.***
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:24:12 EDT
Subject: Where's Oliver?
To: mspt@goldfishpublishers.com
Mark, what a shame that you felt you had to take out the review of 'Oliver'. We don't know if this letter was from a younger person or not. I would'vebeen very interested to read it, as I understand the adult roles in this production have gone to adults, therefore making it more of a standard 'Oliver' than a youth theatre 'Oliver', which is an interesting choice for a self defined youth theatre to make. Therefore, it seems the production would've been wide open to reviewers. After all it's part and parcel of this show to use children in the workhouse and gang scenes anyway. I agree that the choice for Fagin is usually more towards his being Jewish and that is correct according to the book, but even that could've been misconstrued as politically incorrect by someone who was unfamiliar with the original source.
I haven't seen the show, this production of it, but to hit on effeminancy could be interpreted in our ultra closed minded and conservative world as being threatening to the concept of 'family' entertainment - you know, to have an old queen prancing around with the children and whatnot. Maybe the actor made that choice because of the use of "my dear", though that was a typical English endearment, adults to children no matter their sexuality. Well, anyway, interesting you went out on that limb and I would've liked to have read the review.
take care,
Jean Sidden
From: "Ron May" <***@***.***>
To: mspt@goldfishpublishers.com
Subject: re: removal of the "oliver" review
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 17:47:29 -0700
i'm confused.
1. you "stand by your assertion(s)"
- yet you remove the review.
2. your mission pronounces yours is a forum for "free and
open exchange of ideas" - and you have been challenged and
harangued before - yet, here - you remove the review.
3. you insist the remark was about the "characterization"
and not "the actor" - yet - you remove the review -
denying anyone who hadn't read it the chance to see your case.
why? because you pissed someone off? because you're afraid of pissing someone else off?
either way...i think that's cowardice.
and...please...you can't HONESTLY believe that this PROVES your sweeping "hunch" that you shouldn't review youth theatre, do you?!?
what kind of chop-logic is that?
you have an mfa in writing for god's sake...you know all about etymologies. you MUST have known referring to someone's performance using a "clever" (your word) allusion to "fag" (a disparaging remark in almost anyone's vernacular - gay or straight) would ruffle SOMEONE'S feathers. it's a hot-button word (see eminem)...i don't care if it's children's theatre or adult theatre or...puppet theatre...you're begging for a charged reaction.
...and you got one.
...and you somehow atribute this to the fact that it was a youth theatre production?
come on.
let the world read that review if you stand by it.
if we are artists and believe in the possibilities of our work to nudge the collective consciousness every now and then...then instead of atacking someone for using a "word" that doesn't suit us...let's go where the problem is and see what we can do to stop propogating cliched stereotypes (if that's what's bothering us) - so that we don't have a world that believes effeminate immediately implies one thing and one thing only - "gay".
we can try and "edit" people all we want and ask them to "apologize" for what they say - and as soon as they run with their tails between their legs and start "editing" their opinions - we feel we have acheived something and celebrate our victory.
but that person's thinking hasn't altered...others, who may be inspired to take a different route to ensure we work to stop that kind of thinking are denied the exposure...and we win nothing but a sanitized, antiseptic view of things where we can falsely believe, "There. See? It's gone. Everything's O.K. now."
...but it's not.
if we don't want a future generation to subscribe to the same thinking, show THEM the review (or whatever it is that chaps your hide) and say outright - "see this? don't. here's why..."
censorship simply makes others ignorant of the issue...especially in this case.
...and retracting the review (say what you
like - actions speak volumes more than words) - reads as one of
two things -
1. you honestly agree with your detractor and DO believe you fucked
up - but won't admit it.
2. you don't stand behind your words.
...or both.
cheers!
- ron may
Mr. May and Ms. Sidden,
I have reposted the review.
Mr. May: all of your points are absolutely valid. Thank you for taking the time to write in.
Why did I remove it? Because I am not paid to do this. I review theatre for the love of it. I lose money doing this. When someone mentions a suit, I get scared. I can't afford a law suit, frivolous or not. Call it cowardice if you wish. This one review that I didn't want to write in the first place has caused me problems in a personal relationship that I cherish and threatened my financial stability.
I have reposted it because, crass or not, I said what I believed to be the case. I deeply regret implying the word "fag." In retrospect, I should have found a better way of saying that this appeared to me to be a homosexual characterization.
I figured removing the review would remove the situation, but it's not going away. The show is over. I said something stupid. I did not slander the actor. These are my last assertions. If the review is offensive, I'm sorry. I've learned a valuable lesson.
Cheers,
Mark S.P. Turvin
Goldfish Publishers, LLC
http://www.goldfishpublishers.com