Late last month a reviewer gave a local theatre company what I thought to be a fair review of
Measure for Measure: overall a mediocre production with a few shining performances but one huge flaw - the lead wasn't off-book for a good portion of the performance and read his lines from a notebook. The reviewer posted his review online and on Facebook, which included his opinion on how the lead's performance hindered the perception of the production as a whole, the director, the artistic director, and the company. Here's the link to the original article:
http://clclt.com/theclog/archives/2012/04/26/theater-review-measure-for-measure#more.
The following morning the comment section under the review blew up. Everyone had an opinion: regular theatre goers, directors, other actors, members of the cast, volunteers, teachers, seasoned professionals, students - it was clear the theatre community was divided. Generally, one camp believed the performance should have been canceled, postponed, or an announcement made prior to the curtain going up stating the situation - the other camp believed the actor and/or company was brave and being risk-takers by going on as planned, in spite of the major problem. I've never seen such a lively or divided discussion among a theatre community - you don't see this kind of debate often played out in real-life, and it's one that I'm thankful to hear local drama and theatre teachers are using as a discussion point with their students.
My poor husband was witness to my exasperation to a few of the comments that, in my opinion, were juvenile and (hate to use this word but it fits) ignorant. One comment stated that people pay to go to performances to support an actor or company, not necessarily to see 'art' or an amazing performance (only if my kid is in it, sorry); another said that the criticism was because the reviewer hates the company (it's called 'critique' for good reason); the artistic director finally came out and said no one who hadn't seen the show had a right to an opinion, that they were viciously attacking the company, and that those who had voiced negative opinions were just waiting for something like this to happen so they could "stick the knife in and twist it." A few other comments included a teacher saying he hoped none of his students saw the performance because it would wipe out everything he had taught them Shakespeare should be. Some even used the situation as a plug to go support only good performances at other theatre companies in town (unfortunately from someone I respected...bad form).
So what do you think - did the company have a right to charge full ticket price without letting the audience in on the actor with script in hand? Should the community have been more supportive of the choice, rather than criticize the outcome? Does criticism raise the bar for theatre companies to do better? What would you have done in that situation?
(BTW, tried posting a link to the page of comments, which were unfortunately all under the Facebook link and not the article link, which didn't seem to work. I wouldn't dream of pasting 51 comments on here, many of which were lengthy.)