From: ***@***.***
Delivered-To: fixup-msp@goldfishpublishers.com@fixme
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 00:59:21 -0600
Reply-To: ***@***.***
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mspt@goldfishpublishers.com
Subject: Review
Mark... I was sum what disappointed in your review. I appreciate you kind words personally but I was quite in awe to the fact you missed the point. This genre is musical theater with a cross to vaudeville and stand-up comedy. It is my job and the shows job to make the audience laugh and enjoy the show. Listening to you laugh throughout the performance, you have not been honest to your heart nor your gut. This production should not to be judged against any theater that you have seen in the past but by the laughter it generates. I warn everyone at the beginning that its dumb, stupid, zany ...etc,. and if you remember, the audience gave this show a repounding acceptance to that end. A stand-in, not even a understudy, deserves a benefit of doubt. I think the overall effort and result of this show deserves more than a "D +" for this unique performance. I do my job extremely well to receive a substandard grade like the 2 1/2 that you gave my show. Dinner theater died because of bad food, production cost and audience apathy. You didn't see any of that at the Barn. I think you got carried away with cutsey stylized writing that seems to be typical for your job and not the actuality of what you felt nor saw. I'm disappointed in your ability to listen to the echo's of your experience at the Barn Comedy Theater. You missed the dream.
Rocky Joe Quarles
Mr. Quarles,
And I think you missed the point of my review. I did not give you a "D+," but a fair grade of "C+" in the very least. I have no idea how you think that 2 1/2 stars out of 5 is a "substandard grade." If you look at my website closer, you'll see that 2 1/2 stars means it is an average show. I don't believe in "grade inflation," and if I feel that something was solid, but not overwhelming, I give it 2 1/2 stars. Just as dinner theatre was killed by mediocrity, theatre criticism is dying thanks to equal amounts of over-kindness and out-and-out nastiness. I strive, almost to schizophrenia, to be fair, and to listen both to my heart and to my head. I did this, and after the fact, I ignored many of the blaring theatrical problems of your production and said it was average.
As for your claim that "this production should not to be judged against any theater that you have seen in the past but by the laughter it generates..." I would like to point out that I did just that, telling audiences that this was more of a stand-up comedy routine than show. I can think of no other way to label this show for potential audience members.
I'm sorry that you think the writing style of my review is "cutesy." This is the first time I have ever been accused of this, and know for a fact that many other theatre professionals and my fellow critics in Arizona would find this assertion laughable. I went out of my way to booster your company, and give it the benefit of the doubt. If I didn't glow about your show's awful script, and your unfortunate-but-necessary, unimpressive cast replacement, then that's just my way of making sure that audience members don't write back to me and ask why I didn't point out these blaring facts. As an 8-year veteran of dinner theatre, I remember how hard it is to bring in cast members in the middle of the run, but I also remember that I would not demand compliments from a critic for a problem-filled performance from an understudy. (Please note: I feel that he should be called an understudy, since I was told that he had actually been in the show for a week prior to my seeing him. A stand-in is a one-night situation, while an understudy stays in a role as a replacement.)
Yes, Mr. Quarles, I laughed. I laughed with you and with the woman playing Calamity, because you were both impressive. I also cringed when listening to "Illegalese," as did my parents, many others at tables around me the night I reviewed it, and others who have since seen the show and have said that I was much too kind. My boostering of a new company only goes as far as telling the truth, and the truth is, when you and Calamity were onstage, I very much enjoyed the show. But you both weren't onstage the entire time, and that's why you received a mixed review.
Just one last thing that I feel I should mention to you in my "defense." In speaking to the owner of The Barn just after the show, but before I spoke to you, knowing that I would only be able to give a mixed review with as much of a positive slant as I could muster, I offered to not run a review for this particular production. I offered to instead review your next offering, since he assured me that it would have a much more professional and competent cast. He declined my offer.
I'm sorry you think that I "missed the point" and "missed the dream," because, honestly, I am the only theatre critic in this town that would bother to booster you and your new company. I have a professional and dinner theatre background that could have worked to your advantage, and that I would have gladly offered to add to your 25+ years of experience out-of-state. But, with your nasty tone and unrealistic demands, I must simply bid you good luck, and hope that your dinner theatre company does not go the way of most of the others in the Valley of the Sun.
With the usual regrets,
Mark S.P. Turvin, M.F.A.
Theatre Critic, Goldfish Publishers, LLC <http://www.goldfishpublishers.com>
Phoenix Theatre Critic for Aisle Say--The Internet Magazine of
Stage Reviews and Opinions <http://www.escape.com/~theanet/AisleSay.html>
Arizona Regional Reporter for Back Stage Newspapers® <http://www.backstage.com>
Member of the American Theatre Critics Association™