I talked to Keely Enright, co-founder of the Village Playhouse, about the ersatz review of the company’s production of Defiance that ran in the Post and Courier on Feb. 28.
Her thinking was straight forward: In order to counteract the negative City Paper review, she bought advertising space in the P&C’s Preview section (page 19E) and filled it with a positive review published on Lowcountry Stages, a website maintained independently by the City Paper’s theater critic, William Bryan.
In my previous post, I note how this advertisement is deceptive: It looks like a review when it’s not. It also undermines Bryan’s credibility (and by extension, the City Paper’s credibility), because it appears that his opinion is for sale.
When I told Enright this, she said that this was not her intention. Her objective was to get people through the door, and to do that, she and her staff felt it was important to make people aware of Bryan’s positive Lowcountry Stages review.
There’s more: She was in route to Los Angeles when she arranged for the ad. So she did not see how it was going to be designed until she came back this past weekend. In other words, she didn’t see how it looked like an article, not an ad.
I believe her when she says she didn’t intend to deceive readers. I also think deception might be an unintended consequence. Her thinking was to solve a short-term problem: There’s a lot riding on this show, a major production for a small theater company of a intimate drama by a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright, so they needed to do what’s necessary to boost ticket sales.
But by buying an ad, making copies of the ad, and then putting on display around the theater is deceptive. And that has me concerned about the long term for the Village Playhouse.
I saw Defiance on March 1 and saw that they do quality work. I agreed with much of what Will Bryan said in his City Paper review, but that didn’t stop me from seeing the show. Why not let the play speak for itself? Why do something like buying a fake review and risk compromising one’s integrity?
Keely told me that they are serious about theater, that she felt forced to buy the ad. Again, I believe her. But I don’t think she’s taking it seriously enough. Readers aren’t stupid. They know when they are being sold something. And they know when someone’s speaking the truth and when someone’s not.
A serious theater company needs to keep that in mind. It’s not enough to say the Playhouse wanted to get the word out about a positive review. It needs to understand the consequences, too. In this case, Defiance raised too much doubt.
11 Comments
What in the world has agitated you to this level of unnecessary animosity?
You write that Mr. Bryan’s Lowcountry Stages site is “more or less a handbook, an audience field guide to theater in Charleston. Emphasis is put in information more than criticism.” [sic] Even a cursory visit to Lowcountry Stages, however, should have educated you to the fact that it is largely devoted to theatrical reviews. Blind to this truth, you wrongly contend that Charleston City Paper offers something ostensibly different - reviews by Mr. Bryan “with emphasis squarely on criticism. We want a strong voice to say what’s what in local theater. We provide information, of course, but we also privilege an authoritative view.” [sic] In a final attempt at distinguishing the indistinguishable, you contend that Mr. Bryan’s reviews at Lowcountry Stages are “written according to the standards of Lowcountry Stages, which are different from those of City Paper.”
Interestingly, at Mr. Bryan’s site, the reviewing standards are set forth quite clearly. Mr. Bryan unashamedly reports that, in offering his critiques, he does so in a forgiving and gentle manner – “in part because we are aware of how very hard the creators of the shows have worked, in part because we are in awe of their willingness to put their work out for public consideration and – well, because we love live theater.” Mr. Bryan acknowledges that, “[i]f we err, it is on the side of being positive.”
While I personally would prefer that Mr. Bryan (and any other reviewer assessing $20+ a ticket local theatre offerings) be willing to wield baseball bats and Molotov cocktails when required, I am cheered by the fact that his reviews are at least more substantive than the abbreviated press releases published by the local advertisement daily. Notably, Mr. Bryan’s comprehensive site has even managed to publish reviews of productions which have entirely escaped the attention of the City Paper. Under the circumstances, although I’m not sure what “standards” are in use at the City Paper, I find it ridiculous that you feel Mr. Bryan’s reviews in your publication are somehow more “authoritative” than any version he might offer on his own site.
Your hostility has seemingly been ignited by your perception that the advertisement at issue “wasn’t a review, but it looked like one,” and an the possibility that theatre-goers might be misled or confused. Are you genuinely pretending that you are unfamiliar with the commonplace practice of liberally quoting from positive reviews in advertising for movies, theatre, etc.? Have you never before encountered an advertisement which reprinted a review in its entirety? I fail to understand how you could have obtained your current position if you are indeed so little informed regarding modern arts marketing.
In any case, your implied accusation of some kind of deception on the part of the Village Playhouse is muddleheaded and belligerent. Any reasonably literate person would have immediately understood that the “review” in question was an advertisement (given the headline “Paid Advertisement”), which block-quoted a local review (i.e., “Local reviewer raves about defiance”) which was clearly attributed to Mr. Bryan and his site (i.e, “William Bryan – lowcountrystages.com). I suppose one might complain that the “appropriation” of all (or most of) Mr. Bryan’s words without payment or permission constituted a copyright violation of some kind, but on legal (i.e, fair use), ethical and journalistic grounds, I think such an argument would be rickety at best. Further, as a matter of standard industry practice, Mr. Bryan should well have understood that his comments might appear in advertising copy at some point and arguably impliedly authorized such use when he publicly unveiled his opinions.
You go on to excoriate the Village Playhouse for excluding “the fact that Will Bryan gave Defiance three out of five stars.” “If he had raved about the play,” you say, “he’d have given it four or five out of five.” While folks might indeed quibble with the characterization of Mr. Bryan’s website review as a “rave”, such an argument is as purposeless as a debate over the physical merits of the ladies who appear in the back page advertisements of your publication. The bottom line is that, in both of his reviews, Mr. Bryan impliedly pronounced the local production to be superior to that which was professionally produced in NYC.
Again, although you disingenuously pretend ignorance of the practice, advertising for the professional theatre typically includes only quotes which laud the production being sold. Do I really need to bother telling you, therefore, how ludicrous it is for you to stand tall on your high horse and lecture the Village Playhouse for failing to include Mr. Bryan’s “star rating” in their marketing material? In this instance, the Village Playhouse included the full text of Mr. Byran’s review, including those portions in which he expressed some light criticism of the production. This seems to me a model of integrity. In any case, sophisticated readers do not bother which star ratings. Why? Because they are simply code for people who don’t want to read.
(BTW, did Mr. Bryan write the headline for the City Paper review – “Defiance suffers from lack of authenticity - The Corps of the Matter”? If not, couldn’t some sort of ethical issue be raised concerning the imposition of this decidedly negative headline at the outset of what was, for the most part, a generally favorable review? I ask this because you contend that Mr. Bryan’s City Paper review was “rather negative” while I would characterize it as, at worst, favorable to “mixed”, with the negative aspect(s) of the review directed at a lead actor, rather than the overall production. Perhaps this unsavory difference of opinion can be the subject of a third article concerning this matter…)
You close by asserting that the “worst” of this weightless, worthless pretend scandal is that patrons at the theatre were somehow misled by the exclusion of the words “Paid Advertisement” on flyers which the theatre was distributing when you attended the play on March 1st. On such a handbill, the words, “Paid Advertisement” are both unnecessary and inaccurate. Horrifyingly, you heard a woman ask, “Is this the review?” As you have shown an inability to credibly address this query, let me assist you: Yes. It is a review, written by a local reviewer, Mr. Bryan, and published for public consumption as a “review” on his internet review site, lowcountrystages.com. As the City Paper Arts Editor you might want to do further research this concept as it is bound to come up again, perhaps even on a weekly basis.
No one was deceived by the Village Playhouse advertisement. There was no “fake review” and no compromise of integrity of any kind. Ultimately, there is little disparity between the opinions which may be found in the review Mr. Bryan published in the City Paper and the one he published on his site which was reprinted in the ad in question.. Any perceived challenge to the “credibility” of the City Paper and Mr. Bryan based on this appropriate and boringly normal marketing approach is entirely a product of your o’er-fevered imagination.
I personally prefer reviews to be savage, heartless and unrestrained. But criticism should be directed at productions, rather than the romantics who labor at great cost and enormous personal sacrifice to plant their creative seed in the rocky ground of this prattling city.
You owe the Village Playhouse, Mr. Bryan, and your readers and apology.
John,
I was going to leave this alone, but need to make one thing VERY clear. I did not BUY a review. I bought space in our large daily paper so that a very real and published review by William Bryan would be seen by a large percentage of the Charleston community. I had nothing to do with Mr Bryan’s comments, I only provided space in the Post and Courier so that others might see what he wrote. It was not my intention to deceive anyone. His website, lowcountrystages, is not widely known yet,and it seemed a pity to let his review languish online when so many people might enjoy reading it in print. You mislead your readers by stating that his review is somehow fake. I invite everyone to take a look at lowcountrystages, and see the many very real reviews listed there.
I think I should at least personally speak to this issue, just to clarify my position on something that is probably getting blown a little out of proportion…
First, I did not authorize VP to use the full copy of my review. I have zero problems with companies using pull quotes (which unlike the full review can be misleading, but is an industry practice) nor do I have a problem with them linking to my reviews. However, as a professional critic and the only ATCA member in town, I can tell you to use the full text of the review without permission is an infringment on my copyrights.
That being said, I had spoken with Keely about the issue and consider it resolved unless such a thing occurs again. I like the VP, and the work they do, and admire their guts and determination.
Regarding the headline “…Corps of the matter” in the CCP review. Those are created by the CCP and are the editors choice. I provide the reviews for CCP.
Regarding my review standards. When I write for Lowcountry Stages, I am carrying on a tradition started by my mentor, Brad Hathaway, of Potomacstages.com in DC. While there I learned the ropes of the trade and was reviewing more shows in three months than I will all season here, including on Broadway, professional, community, and educational level productions.
I write to the standard he established. Once you have read a couple of my reviews on LCS and seen the associated play, you learn to “read between the lines” to see what I really think about the show, that is intentional. The 1 to 5 “mask” rating I give I do consider an itegral part of the review as they provide a synopsis of my overall feeling of the show. No-one in town has gotten a 5 yet (though a couple have been close) and noone has gotten a 1.
When I am asked to write a review for the CCP, I write it to a different format and different style than for LCS. I am unaware of any agenda or guidance for CCP other than that provided by Ms Barna upon my first assignment with them, which leads to more critical comments appearing in the CCP review than might appear in the LCS review.
In the case of Defiance, they are basically the same review, as all of the reviews are when I write one for CCP, just in the LCS review I did not mention the lead at all save by name one time where in the CCP review I had two paragraphs about his performance. The lack of discussion of the lead role in the LCS review, to me, speaks as loudly as the inclusion in the CCP review. And to be fair to the Playhouse, when they did run the LCS review, they ran all of it.
So that’s my background and position on this issue. I love theatre. I was an acting major at college on scholarship before joining the Navy for 20 years, and this is my way to return to what I love. I would not have wanted to try the lead role in Defiance even with my experience in acting and the military, it is a challegning role.
I look forward to continuing to provide reviews for theater patrons of the Lowcountry that are written with consistant standards and provide an insight into a show so that theatre goers know if it is worth their money.
William Bryan
I saw the show. Unfortunately it was lacking in direction and 2 dimensional . The actors did their best with the bad blocking and unfortunate blackouts during long set changes.
In all honesty Charleston’s theater scene is… well, boring. The Footlight Players bringing back dinosaurs, Charleston Stage has a total lack of passion, the Village Playhouse has done the best with unfortunate conditions they work under; namely the huge rent they have to pony up to the Beach Company every month - somewhere in the range of 7 grand! <—- I would think the Beach Company could give them a little break.
I’m glad to see a bit more honesty in local reviews but the bottom line is that the VP needs to fill seats and Mount Pleasant needs live theatre.
I do have an issue with “carpetbagger” directors coming to town, expecting “Broadway” like conditions to work under - and producing crap as well as treating local actors like sh!t. Yes I know some of the actors in Defiance.
In my humble opinion Ms. Enright did no wrong in advertising a review of a show she produced.
Perhaps Emmit Robinson was right in his belief that community theater should not have to suffer the slings and arrows of local critics and editors.
One last thought: Every theatre company in town charges too much for what they offer. Having said that the VP gives the most bang for your bucks.
Funny how I saw this coming when Mr. Stoehr was hauled up from Savannah. God I miss Robert Jones.
Uncle Zoloft? Mark…Steve…that you?
As to the underlying issue here, I offer no opinion. I didn’t see the flyer up close. I didn’t see the performance.
But I have to take issue with Uncle Zoloft’s comment. While Steve Lepre and his merry band of Chopstickers were the one and only bright spot in local theatre in the late 80s and early 90s, and so he gets a fair amount of credibility in dismissing or approving local theatre in my book, he also has a nasty habit of dismissing everything that’s happened in Charleston’s theatre scene since Chopstick’s demise as flat and boring (see, e.g., Chas. City Paper’s 10 year anniversary issue). I see a lot of theatre around here. And a lot of it is crap with a capital C. But Village Playhouse doesn’t always play it safe. Pure Theatre certainly doesn’t. The occasional burst of creativity out of the Cabaret Kiki folks is anything but boring.
I have been wary of Mr. Stoehr since his arrival. And while I think there is a certain level of unnecessary fixation on the business of art, as opposed to the art of art, in his items, I think there is nothing wrong with saying to our quality arts organizations, “You’re good. Do better.” It would help if other arts professionals and supporters like “Uncle Zoloft” joined in that chorus, rather than complaining about ticket prices and critics.
Okay I admit it I’m Steve, Mark would never jump into this discussion. So who is “Reality Check?”
As to your comment “he also has a nasty habit of dismissing everything that’s happened in Charleston’s theatre scene since Chopstick’s demise as flat and boring.”
My quote from the 10th Anniversary Issue: “Steve Lepre thinks that the theatre scene’s changed a lot since the “exciting, heady years” of the late ’90s. “The talent pool was larger then. Now companies are smaller and tighter but there’s always a risk of mediocrity. Sometimes you have to take risks.”
Chopsitck died an untimely death in the early 90’s at the age of 10.
Some of the work done at the Midtown and Footlights, under the artistic direction of Sheri Grace Wenger was fantastic and would have never been produced here without her.
Actually there has been a major up swing in what is being performed in Charleston since that quote. I totally agree with the statement “The Village Playhouse doesn’t always play it safe. Pure Theatre certainly doesn’t. The occasional burst of creativity out of the Cabaret Kiki folks is anything but boring.”
So as to my nasty habit of dismissing every production doesn’t hold water.
What’s up with linking my name to a City Paper article on the GLBT community fighting Amendment #1 instead of something on topic?
Yes I have every right as a consumer to complain about ticket prices - the only place I can afford to buy a ticket is Theatre 99. As to critics, well what can you do? Each has their own tastes, as a reader you get to know their style and then decipher how you might enjoy a production.
“It would help if other arts professionals and supporters like “Uncle Zoloft” joined in that chorus, rather than complaining about ticket prices and critics.”
I am no longer an arts professional, I’m not in a financial bracket to be a supporter. I am a pariah. Ask just about everyone in the theater community. Hell even the City Paper couldn’t find someone to review Vampire Lesbians of Sodom when it was produced at Theater 99.
To Mr. Stoehr:
“One thing, though: Why shouldn’t theater producers suffer slings and arrows?”
I agree that crap should be called out for what it is - poorly produced, acted, written…. but every theater company in Charleston is local. Most live show to show, in many cases. If there is any way they can up their ticket sales they have no choice but to utilize them.
“And how do you define slings and arrows?”
Local theater is a rough business often stuck with producing what “the audience wants” to fill seats, how many times will Patsy Cline be produced in this town? (sorry Sheri.) Most theater companies in Charleston do not pay their actors and those that do do so under Equity minimum contracts or a small stipend that might cover gas to and from rehearsal. Actors tend to take the most heat from critics and most of them do shows because it is something that they enjoy not make a living from.
I jumped into this post because as an ex-New Yorker, who worked in theater, I’ve seen producers pull two words from a negative review and make it sound like the production was gold. At least Keely ran the whole review as an ad instead of just picking out the good stuff and adding “…” before and after a positive note.
I’m into keeping this dialog going. It can only help the quality of what is produced and how it is reviewed.
I think it’s sad that most reviewers have their work sliced, diced and headlined because of there only being a small amount of space for theater in our local publications. Where as music, bands, traveling shows get much more print space - maybe because they can afford regular advertising.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Steve. Your points are well taken. I guess my only quibble with regard to the ticket prices would be to say that often they are not set higher than the value they offer; rather they are set too high to make art available to the masses. As you know, art (as distinct from entertainment) as a money making endeavor is almost always a losing proposition. I’d argue that for their _worth_, ticket prices at some shows should be higher. But because the market for art won’t bear that, it falls to the philanthropes to foot the bill. Unfortunately, there aren’t that many to go around, and most of them have committed to supporting institutional theatre a la Charleston Stage (and as an aside, though it sure isn’t my aesthetic, the impact of Charleston Stage on the potential of the Charleston theatre scene must not be denied). So theatres are left to charge the stiffest ticket prices that the market will bear.
And for the record, I didn’t link your name–someone from the City Paper staff did. If I could have linked you to a story it would have been to reviews of your fantastic productions of _Tartuffe_ or _Cyrano_. But unfortunately UpWith ain’t archived online (nor is its sine qua non, William van Hettinga’s Omnibus–a person, a paper, and an aesthetic I’m still pining for).
And I’m nobody. Just a long-time observer–a kid during those heady Chopstick heights.
Wow. Tartuffe and Cyrano, that’s going way back, as is William van Hettinga’s Omnibus. I had the pleasure of designing the last several issues of that publication, after Mr. van Hettinga’s untimely demise and it’s purchase by Pete Wyrick.
Mr. Stoehr,
Thank you for wanting to keep this discussion going.
I’ve been involved in Charleston theater since I left/fled NYC in 1983.
Yea, I’m a tad bitter that after Sheri Grace left the Footlight Players those of us who were involved with the company, under her Artistic Direction, were not asked back. I’m not one to pat myself on the back but Gross Indecency, which Keely Enright stage managed and Dave Rienwald performed in was one of the finest productions I had the chance to direct. I had the pleasure of directing six productions there and was crushed not to be given the chance of creating more.
I also enjoyed the 5 years of productions at the Windjammer - our ticket prices were $5 a pop and the place was filled on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings. When Pluff Mud closed up shop they were in the black.
Just a bit more background on myself, for Mr. Stoehr. I arrived in Charleston in 1983 to start a children’s theater touring company. My belief was, and still is, that young people can become live theater fans if they are exposed to the art at an early age.
My first acting here was in “Mass Appeal” produced by the Footlight Players back in ‘83 - talk about taking chances!
I have worked with/for Chopstick Theater, The Crabpot Players, Pluff Mud Productions, The Midtown Theater, The Village Playhouse, The Footlight Players and Theater 99. I love directing - but alas - being the Damn Yankee I am, with very strong opinions, my talents are no longer requested by local companies. Note I never had an opportunity to work with Charleston Stage, although Julian Wiles did ask me to play Satan in his play about Edgar Allen Poe (talking about casting!) Unfortunately I had a schedule conflict and had to pass.
Reality Check: you are not a nobody. I consider anyone who enjoys live theater to be a rare species these days.
I have just become aware that I have offend some folks by things I have posted here.
I apologize. I am not a critic, nor do I see enough theater to have anything to say about it.
Every local theater, production, ballet & dance company in this town works their collective hearts, and souls, out on the work they produce. Often for little to no pay - so my hope is that reviewers would keep that in the back of their minds.
I have read too many reviews that never acknowledge the fine stage craftsmanship Charleston has.
Zoloft -
You needn’t apologize. I’ve read far too many fawning reviews for lazy, slack, lacklustre productions.
Dear Irk D.
Thanks for having my back and clarifying my point.