I care about criticism: Reading criticism in my local public
library was the way I experienced in my mind's eye all the theatre
I wanted to experience but couldn't see, growing up in the Midwest.
One of my pet peeves is that there are not enough women working
as reviewers. I assume that the theatre audience, which is 67%
female, would be better served if the Voice of Criticism wasn't
so lopsidedly male. But I was shocked---shocked! at Anita Gates
review in Tuesday's NY Times.
Here's the letter I wrote to the Editor of The New York
Times:
Shouldn't Anita Gates' review of Michel Tremblay's "Les
Belles Soeurs" mention that the play is French Canadian,
written in a local patois and revolutionary at its 1966 premiere
for its use of contemporary "street language"? The
Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia describes Tremblay as "the
most-produced playwright in the nation and arguably the most
important playwright in the history of the country".
If Gates is going to criticize the play's idioms, shouldn't
she also mention the translation? Is it the standard English
one, by Von Bureh and Glassco? Or one specific to this current
"set in New England" production? Like many American
theatre lovers outside New York, I depend on the NY Times
to inform me about current productions in our cultural capital.
Gate's comparison of Tremblay's play to a Waters film doesn't
seem very helpful, either to people who have never heard of
"Les Belles Soeurs" or to someone like me who has
read it and seen productions. They need to know some basics--
such as that the "friends" Germaine invites over
are literal not metaphorical sisters, a huge resentful brood
born to a "belle" Catholic mother who believed that
birth control is sinful. What I need to know is what the Women
Speaking... theatre intended by this New England "take"
on a Canadian classic, and whether their vision puts new life
and relevance into an old play or removes the particulars
that make it worth seeing. (5/13/05)
by 
