A reader says: Most of the major media decided that
for some reason, The Complete History of America - Abridged
was not worth their time. (Let me say that the smaller local
papers have raved about both shows.)
Alas, the majors weren't the only ones who ducked "History
of Am". I finked out on writing about it for AisleSay myself,
and in doing so probably deprived Spiral of reviews by Larry
Stark and Beverly Creasey, who usually assume that I will
volunteer to transport them by auto to Outer Suburbia. OTOH,
I did drive them to Cuckoo's Nest, and the resultant favorable
reviews are still available on the TheaterMirror.com site,
for all Net-able Newsies to peruse.
I'm sorry didn't come to "History" to appreciate the acting--
I don't doubt that you were all inventive and charming. I
enjoyed "Complete Shakespeare" in Edinburgh in the 80's, when
the creators were kids and tickets cost 2 bucks: but many
subsequent productions later, either I'm losing my sense of
humor or the "Abridged" guys' jokes have worn thin. I thought
it best to spare people the sight of me sitting there grim
as Queen Victoria when "not amused", and the even more depressing
sight of a review written by someone incabable of responding
to the show on its own terms. There are enough of those already!
The Globe and the Herald, however, are not taking what I
feel are their responsibilities to the public and the arts community
seriously.
I couldn't agree more.
Is there any way for us to work together to encourage them
to focus on local theater?
If people are moved to write letters, in this opportune moment
when a new Globe management team will be setting policy,
how about protesting the Globe's recent ploy of burying
theatre reviews in the back of sections other than "Arts"?
How about the "paper of record's" neglect of its function
as record? Nobody at the Globe seems to care that this
community has a history. For instance, a big Sunday Magazine
article on Commonwealth Shakespeare is written in apparent
ignorance of other and previous Shakespeare-producing institutions
in Boston. The article makes it sound as if this new growth
sprouted in a cultural desert. A few hours in the newspaper's
own morgue would provide much evidence to the contrary.
2) Today (Fri) the "Stages" column discusses the upcoming
production of "Spunk" at Barrington Stage with reference to
NYC and Chicago-- no mention that Boston's New Rep mounted
the show some seasons back. No reason that Barrington's self-promotion
should be aware of a Boston production: but the Globe's
journalism? I think it should. If enough readers agreed, the
paper would make an effort. (7/23/99)
by 
