To Pre or Not to Pre

Via Tony on Thursday, I learned of a minor kerfuffle over New York blogger George Hunka's arguably unfair review of a show called 100 Saints You Should Know at Playwrights Horizons. As I understand it, Hunka and other theater bloggers were offered comp tickets by Playwrights Horizons to see the show and spread the word. Hunka chose to see the show in its first week of previews, and wrote it up immediately (press opening is September 18). What's more, Hunka, a playwright who's also written reviews for The New York Times, wrote it up not in a "bloggy fashion" such as PH might have been naively hoping for but as a formal review. Most important of all, perhaps, it was a scathing review, and in the last paragraph Hunka copped to leaving at intermission.

As Tony notes, this is all remarkably relevant to events in Chicago right now. 100 Saints was presented last summer as part of Steppenwolf's First Look series. Depending on who you talk to, that presentation was either a workshop of a play in development, or a full production and de facto premiere. The issue's come up again this month, when First Look presented When the Messenger is Hot, in a "workshop" production that will open in New York weeks from now with the cast and director intact. The Tribune's Chris Jones raised objections, and Steppenwolf allowed critics in. (Deanna Isaacs in last week's Reader has the rundown.) This month also saw the Theatre Building's Stages workshop festival; after last year's Stages, the Sun-Times's Hedy Weiss got national attention (I boiled it down at Gapers Block here and here) for printing negative reviews of several of the musicals, and particularly for admitting that she only saw parts of each show. This year's Stages pointedly featured a forum, including artists, critics, and John Weidman of the Dramatists' Guild, tackling the question of when reviewers should be allowed to review (see Kerry's account at PerformInk.)

There's a lot going on here—I wish I could say I'm firmly on one side or another, but it seems to me there are more than two sides. First things first: No matter how much Hunka may have hated the first act of 100 Saints, he shouldn't have posted what appeared to be a formal review of the show if he didn't stay for the whole thing. As a reviewer, I've often joked at shows I didn't enjoy that if I weren't there in an official capacity I wouldn't come back for the second act. But that's a joke. Hunka can argue that he wasn't being paid for this, and that it was just for his personal blog. If he was paying his own money to see the show and decided it wasn't worth his time, that would be one thing. He could even have chosen not to write about it all, and that would be fine. He could have told all his friends that he hated it. But because he has been a paid reviewer for the paper of record, he should know better. I won't call it unethical, as some others have done, since blog ethics are not exactly set in stone, but I do think it's irresponsible. Hunka could have said so in his header: "This is a review of the first act of 100 Saints..., right there where he listed all of the cast and crew.

On the other hand, I think the discussion has accidentally hit on an area where the theaters—Playwrights Horizons, Steppenwolf, and most of the other majors—are also in the wrong. Chris Jones has a decent point when he complains that Steppenwolf was being disingenuous by putting on a full production of When the Messenger is Hot and inviting the public to pay admission without inviting the press. If that same production is transferring intact to New York's 59E59 in a month's time, in a "Steppenwolf production," how exactly is the play still in development?

I have full respect for the theatrical tradition of workshops and previews, but my pet peeve for the last few years has been the way that theater companies try to have their cake and eat it too. Take the PH production of 100 Saints, since we're looking at it already. Leonard Jacobs, whom I highly respect, left a comment on Tony's blog yesterday crying infringement because Hunka posted his review so early in the preview process. Jacobs had noted that Playwrights Horizons's official press opening was September 18; Tony noted that PH's website called the run "August 24–September 30." So if we take Jacobs's word, this show has 2 1/2 weeks of previews, and a 1 1/2 week actual run?

This is what gets my goat. What happened to previews? Jacobs says it's common knowledge that the play's opening is September 18, that it's in every piece of press information. Well, Leonard, I believe you that it's in every piece of press information, since I now see every piece of press information that comes through the offices of Time Out Chicago. What you may not be seeing is the way theaters hide that information from the general, ticket-buying public. I have a vast database of fall theater openings in Chicago that lists the preview dates, the press opening dates, and the regular run dates, but if you looked at the ads that run in our magazine, or at the theater websites, all you'll see is "Show runs XDate–YDate!" Where XDate equals first preview, and often the commercial houses charge the same rate for the "previews" that they charge during the regular run. It makes me crazy when a show we won't be able to review for another two weeks runs an ad saying, "Now playing!" Is it in previews, or is it playing? Pick one, please.

So that's it, I guess. Hunka and any other semi-serious critic who chooses to review part of a show as if it were the whole is kind of a douchebag. But theaters who claim their shows aren't fully formed when they're charging full price admission are pretty douchey too.

Comments

[Kerry Reid]

I just don't get the whole "this show was such a waste of my precious time I couldn't possibly be bothered to stay for the whole thing" mindset -- from people who then expend a lot of precious time telling us what a waste of time the first act is. Either stay for the whole damn thing or don't write about it at all. Why is that so hard to figure out? I have never, in over a dozen years of reviewing theater, once worked for an editor who thought it would be fine for me to submit a review based on half a show.

Yes, I know George wasn't getting paid to see the Fodor piece, and the company did (foolishly) apparently offer him tickets with no strings attached. But you're absolutely right, Kris. As a working pro, he knows better. And I think perhaps his hiding that crucial bit of information about walking out near the bottom of the review shows that he knows he was operating in bad faith by posting a "review" based on a partial viewing.

Now, as to the preview issue: when I did the listings at the Reader, we wrassled with this all the time. Sometimes it's a question of theaters (smaller companies, mostly) just not knowing what they mean by a "preview." I've had companies tell me "oh, we just mean that's an invited dress," in which case it shouldn't be in the PR at all. And then I've heard of companies calling something a "press preview" and being upset when press shows up. Hello?

I usually think of the long preview/short run phenomenon as something limited to commercial producers doing out-of-town tryouts, or who know they're sitting on a dog and want to keep the press out as long as possible (as Weidman noted at the panel). It is definitely disheartening to see nonprofits playing that game, and they should probably be called on it more often. But the question is how to do it without looking like a bully, I guess.

[Kerry Reid]

I forgot to add in my already-lengthy screed that bloggers have a clear-cut choice whether or not to write about something. Not so freelancers for the "MSM" who are on assignment and are expected to turn in copy on a show, whether they liked it or not, because that space has been booked.