Simon Fraser (IV)

Critical thought in the arts demands critics who can see the story beyond the plot, not script readers who comment only on the obvious surface movements.

Script readers are writers, usually struggling, who are engaged by talent agencies and production companies to evaluate scripts before they are passed on to be read by an actual employee. They draw up their own evaluation on scripts, of the story, the characters, box office potential, and the possibility of the script luring any A-list talent to the negotiating table. Included in a script report is also a brief overview of the script’s plot and some briefs on the main characters.

——

I directed a play recently – LASCIVIA: Life, Love, Laughter – at the Toronto Fringe Festival.

Lascivia is a coming-of-age story that centers on a Mexican pop diva, her troubled relationship with her domineering mother, and her relationships with the 3 men central to her life – her boring ex-husband Juan, her charming 2nd husband and her keyboardist/arranger who pines for her.

Here’s the review that appeared in NOW Magazine (ostensibly “the” arts magazine for Canada’s largest population center):

LASCIVIA: Life, Love, Laughter
Angèle Morgan’s absolutely terrible singing makes this embarrassing and mind-numbing attempt at comedy unbearable from the start. Morgan plays Lascivia, a chatty and vain Mexican diva who sings misinterpreted song lyrics karaoke-style over famous ballads by Celine Dion and the like but always horribly off-key, and for way too long. As her partner, Pavel, Bryan Paccagnella fake-plays keyboards and contributes mindless, go-nowhere banter. Epic fail.
N
Jordan Bimm
from http://www.nowtoronto.com/stage/listings/listing.cfm?listingid=36067

I’m a bit confused by the one N the reviewer gave the play. I can find no evidence in the review to attribute any N’s whatsoever to this play.

Ignoring that fact for a moment that the reviewer seems to believe that cruelty is the cornerstone of criticism, this review has all the structure of the plot section of a Hollywood reader’s report; but it’s missing the key element of any critique – an evaluation of the actual story being told.

A plot is a chart of the events that occur – the obvious surface layer – action and movement. But a story is what is actually being told; it is underneath or behind the plot.

For instance, the plot of the first Star Wars trilogy involved two guys slapping their laser swords against each other, while the story was actually about a son’s reconciliation with his father.

Now I have no bone to pick with the reviewer. He is completely entitled to express his opinions whatever they may be. However, whoever contracts Fringe theatre critics at “arts-friendly” NOW Magazine ought to have their head examined for hiring someone who either can’t discern between plot and story or perhaps can’t even detect story at all. Theatrical plays have a narrative at their core; they are not meant to titillate like a music video.

Don’t send a young artist to do the work of an old critic. Otherwise, ya, right, epic fail.

I love the Internet for the opportunities it presents. An email I received:

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Arkadiy Tumaykin wrote:

My reply:

Hello Arkadiy,

Thank you for your email and thank you for giving me the opportunity to help you.

I can provide you with a Canadian perspective to your question; some of these points might not apply in all parts of the world.

There are two ways to take part in theater, TV or movies – the hard way, and the harder way.

The hard way is that of what is usually called an “insider”. It relies primarily on the structure of the entertainment industry that is already in place.

The hard way involves many of the following :

- going to film or theater school for 1 to 4 years,
- working on other people’s poorly executed artistic productions for free,
- working at a job that has little to do with your artistic passion but at least it puts food on your plate,
- struggling to find an agent who can provide access to employment opportunities,
- competing with other artists for the very few opportunities that are available,
- networking with other artists to create opportunities for expressing your passion,
- dealing with personal insecurities when you are faced with 100 rejections for every 1 acceptance,
- endorsing products that you yourself would not purchase,
- trusting other artists,
- eventually, working on artistic productions only because they pay well, not necessarily because they create an artistic playground
- being hired by someone else for the same kind of role or performance over and over and over and over again
- possibly making your artistic expression your sole means of income
- being boxed, packaged and labeled by someone else as a brand and commodity

The harder way is that of what is usually called an “outsider”. It relies primarily on the structure that the artist creates for themselves.

The harder way involved many of the following :

- reading as much as you can about the history of any kind of art or form of media
- listening to as many DVD director’s commentary tracks as you can – I recommend Robert Rodriguez and Steven Soderbergh
- practicing everything that you learn,
- creating your own poorly executed artistic productions,
- learning from your errors, recreating the circumstances that led to those errors and making a different choice before the same error reappears
- working at a job that has little to do with your artistic passion but at least it puts food on your plate,
- networking with other artists to create opportunities for expressing your passion,
- building or joining a community of others with similar artistic intentions,
- dealing with personal insecurities when the community you’ve built or joined begins to outgrow you,
- trusting other artists,
- eventually, working on artistic productions that create a playground for those artists involved, though these productions might pay little, if at all
- feeling the joy of hiring, engaging or inviting another artist to express their own passions
- being able to make your choices before anyone else makes their choices
- possibly making your artistic expression your sole means of income
- boxing, packaging and labeled yourself as a brand and commodity

Either way is valuable and legitimate and both provide opportunities for you to express yourself.

Personally, having tasted both ways, I prefer the harder way. And I am a fan of any who follow it. Following the harder way is what creates the opportunities for other artists to follow the hard way.

Ultimately, the choice is yours.

One more thing : nobody tries to be an artist. If you create art – any kind of art – you are an artist. The audience that experiences the art you create decides for themselves what value to take from it.

spasiba,
sf

To the Editor of NOW Magazine,

re: review of “LASCIVIA: Life, Love, Laughter”

Given that NOW Magazine has both the reputation and track record of a well-crafted publication that celebrates artistic expression, I invite you to rethink your hiring policies in regards to temporary theatre reviewers.

In the aforementioned review, among others, the reviewer seems only to have witnessed a plot without any awareness of the characters, how they relate to each other and what story is being told. (Personally, I would rather a play I directed be panned by someone who can actually deliver competent criticism rather than thesaurus-driven pap, hence this letter.)

While he is fully entitled to publicly express his opinions, the reviewer hardly seems qualified to criticize theatre for NOW, given his apparent ignorance of such common theatrical conventions as characters and a story. I believe his journalistic style might find more accurate context on a World of Warcraft discussion board.

It is reviews such as this that diminish the quality of critical thought associated with both your publication and your audience.

Yours truly,
Simon Fraser
director, “LASCIVIA: Life, Love, Laughter”,
and an avid NOW reader since Moe Berg first appeared on the cover

Dear G20 Protest Organizers, a piece of advice: next time don’t show up, don’t protest.

Because inaction as action would have acutely demonstrated to everybody how wasteful and counter-productive the top 20 economies of the world actually are.

Had there been no protests or protesters, no visible action, no civil disobedience for the mainstream media to twist into hyperbole, then there would have been a billion dollars spent on security, solely to arrest one confused homeless guy with a crossbow.

And then you’d have had millions – literally, MILLIONS – more voices closer to your side of the socio-economic debate in which you’re entangled.

Fires are extinguished with water, not with gasoline. If G20 security forces had had nothing and nobody from which to protect the G20 leaders, their presence would have been so obviously unwarranted.

As it is, the protests and riots and vandalism completely justified the presence of ridiculously over-reaching security measures.

You blew it.

Doesn’t anybody understand how even more overpopulated the world would be without homosexuals in it!?

The more homosexuals there are on this planet, the lower our global birth rates will be. The lower our birth rates will be, the more likely we will all be to survive our impending collapse as a species.

I’d prefer to see quality of life than quantity of life.