GUILD STATEMENTS - Chicago Suntimes Follow-up - DG President John Weidman's Letter
On August 16, 2006 The Chicago Sun-Times ran a review of Stages 2006, a three-day musical theater festival that had presented eight works-in-progress at the Theater Building from August 11th through August 13th. The review was written by theater critic Hedy Weiss, against the expressed wishes of the festival, which had asked Ms. Weiss not to review any of the works since they were still in the developmental stage. The following is Guild President John Weidman's letter to The Sun-Times expressing the Guild's view of this matter.
You can also read the messages of twenty two Guild Council members who wrote in support of the Guild's position and to voice their individual concerns about the irresponsible behavior of the critic and the newspaper.
August 24, 2006
John Cruikshank
Publisher
The Chicago Sun-Times
350 N. Orleans
Chicago, IL 60654
John Barron
Editor
The Chicago Sun-Times
350 N. Orleans
Chicago, IL 60654
Dear Mr. Cruikshank and Mr. Barron:
Last week your newspaper published a collection of reviews by your theater critic, Hedy Weiss, under the headline “Stages’ Eight Musicals Show Serious Flaws.”
Ms. Weiss’s decision to review these eight shows at this early stage in their development, in violation of the express wishes of the theatre, was a shocking and irresponsible betrayal of one of the fundamental understandings which makes the creation of new work possible.
These musicals were presented in workshop. Every musical in workshop is understood to be a work in progress. Workshopping a new musical provides an opportunity for writers to evaluate their work as it evolves, protected from the consequences of critical appraisal. This security allows writers to take chances, to be bold, maybe even to embarrass themselves—in short, to do their work.
Ms. Weiss has been your theater critic for over fifteen years. Surely she understands how new work makes its way from the page to the stage. That she would choose to review these evolving works as if they were finished works is appalling.
But even more appalling is the fact that she formed her opinions of these shows without seeing even one of them in its entirety. In some cases she sat through an act. In most cases, clearly, far less. In one case, according to an observer, ten minutes.
How does a responsible theater critic pass judgment on a new show based on having seen only a fragment of it, a fragment which the critic understands to be in flux. The answer is a responsible theater critic doesn’t do this. A responsible critic knows the impact a review has. Did Ms. Weiss intend to stop these shows in their tracks? If that is what she intended, then what she published was more like a preemptive strike then a review.
As it happened, Ms. Weiss’s reviews were all negative. But her reviews would have been equally offensive had they all been positive. Had she attended the theater simply as another member of the audience, Ms. Weiss would have been entitled to form any opinion she wanted of these shows, positive or negative. Attending as the theater critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, however, she was not yet entitled to form any opinion at all—particularly one expressed in print, in one of the most influential newspapers in the country.
Art isn’t easy, as Stephen Sondheim wrote. It becomes close to impossible when the creative process is violated as casually and unprofessionally as it was in this case, eight times, by Ms. Weiss.
She owes each of the bookwriters, composers, and lyricists involved an apology, one as public as the premature review which appeared in your newspaper.
More important, however, is what happens next. What happens to the next writer whose work-in-progress play or musical is being workshopped in Chicago? What happens to the writer who is reluctant to have his new play or musical workshopped in Chicago at all because of what happened this year at Stages 2006? What happens to the writer who drops out of the workshop process altogether for fear that her work will be reviewed before it is ready?
In light of the debacle at Stages 2006, we hope that the Sun-Times will make it clear to its editors, feature writers, and reviewers, that henceforth, new work which is specifically identified as work in development, new work which a theater explicitly asks critics to leave alone until it is finished and ready to be evaluated, will be accorded this fundamental professional courtesy.
Your food critic would not judge a restaurant by bulling her way into the kitchen and tasting the dishes when they were half-cooked. Playwrights, composers, and lyricists deserve the same consideration.
Sincerely,
John Weidman, President
The Dramatists Guild of America