A blog post from the magazine Chatelaine, a publication/site heretofore unknown to me, has set Twitter abuzz with the assertion that a recent study (albeit highly unscientific) shows that people are happiest when having sex, exercising and going to the theatre.

The immediate impulse to cheer for the home team (theatre, of course; get out of the gutter and the gym) rapidly gives way to amusement about the company we keep in this investigation, and creative minds are no doubt at work pondering how to unite these diverse interests into a single happiness-generating activity to supersede all others.  It has already been suggested by others that chocolate might be added to the mix. Needless to say, I would be happy to tackle the research and development on this challenging artistic and social issue (if you know what I mean).

But I foresee a significant problem already, based on a business which has previously tried to merge several of life’s basic pleasures.

Once, perhaps 20 years ago, I dined at a Connecticut outpost of the Hooters restaurant chain, which has successfully combined pulchritude and food to the delight of many and the ire of probably just as many more. Without going into detail, I can attest to the fact that the chain’s signature attractions were in ample supply – but that the food was rather dire, and the accompanying sightseeing did not make up for it. Indeed, I have never again crossed the threshold of any of said establishments, for fear that I would develop a Pavlovian response that correlated attractive women with stomach-churning revulsion.

So even if we manage to address the not insignificant challenges of melding the top three pleasure-givers, as first identified by the respected sociological journal Marie Claire and popularized by Chateleine, I worry that we might well give rise to an entirely new set of psychosexual responses that would be our undoing. Imagine if a particularly successful coupling of sex and exercise took place, say, at a performance of a play the not-entirely-inappropriate Strindberg? The fear of a rise in Strindberg fetishists should be enough to give anyone pause (except, of course, psychanalysts, who would be jumping on their couches for joy). What if this multifaceted entertainment took on, say, O’Neill’s Strange Interlude? As the TV commercials warn us, after four hours, you should call your doctor, and that would result in a series of concurrent and perhaps amusing calls to EMTs for exhaustion and muscle cramps. Even if the theatre of choice were comedy, imagine the dysfunctions that would arise if one required activity at the farcical level of Noises Off to achieve fulfillment.

I will be setting up a think-tank/laboratory to explore this in greater detail, since success in combining these elements would surely sustain the fabulous invalid ad infinitum. But if science fiction has taught us nothing else, perhaps some elements of nature are best left untampered with, and maybe we’ll just have to stick with putting on great shows. Dammit.

Once upon a time, perhaps 15 or 20 years ago, I read a really fascinating article which posited that the arts would get more coverage in the media if they opened themselves up and provided greater access to the media. It suggested that the arts were working too hard to “control the story” at every possible turn and that as a result, we received only perfunctory coverage. Why, asked the article, which I believe had been presented as a speech at a conference of arts journalists, couldn’t the arts be more like sports, which gave the press access to practice sessions, to the locker rooms, in addition to the game itself?

Now I’m remembering this article (how I wish I still had it) at a temporal remove, so it would do no good to try to refute many of the points that made up its argument, which was perhaps hyperbolic, or even tongue in cheek, in the first place. But the issue of access remains with me, as someone who used to be one of the guardians who sought media coverage yet attempted to control every interaction between the artists at work in my theatre and those who would write about them.

I’m singing a somewhat different tune these days, although I’m no longer a publicist. While I never placed theatre in an ivory tower, I did respect that the artistic process shouldn’t be constantly opened up to scrutiny at every turn, and that to do so might well be detrimental. But I was doing my job in the very earliest days of the internet, and certainly before blogs, Facebook, Twitter and the like transformed every individual in a given production, and on the staff, into a broadcaster of news, gossip and personal opinion, readily accessible to not just the press, but to audiences as well. Consequently, the issue of access has fundamentally changed, in both positive and negative ways.

Several weeks ago, my Twitter sparring partner Peter Marks took exception to the fact that Arena Stage was holding a summit of some three dozen industry leaders to explore the issue of new play production in America. Prompted by a press release announcing the event, which listed the theatre notables expected to attend, Peter sought to report on the two day “convening” but was rebuffed. After protracted discussions, he did not attend; he subsequently set down his thoughts about access in a piece for The Washington Post.

When first made aware of the situation, I stood squarely (but silently) with Peter, assuming that the November event mirrored Arena’s January convening, where the participants numbered over 100, the public was invited and panels were streamed live. But the recent event was by invitation only and, had it not been announced by press release, might have actually taken place unnoticed.

The January meeting, for which a summary report was just issued, became infamous for remarks about supply and demand in the theatre industry as voiced by NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman. News of those comments came fast and furious onto my Twitter stream as he spoke and, I confess, I called the theatre desk at The New York Times to suggest they might want to read what I was seeing (of which they were unaware), fueling what became an industry furor. To the best of my knowledge, no such news came out of the more intimate November convening, perhaps because of a shared commitment to privacy among the participants, but more likely due to the lack of tweeters and bloggers amongst our artistic and management leaders

While trying to keep any conversation in this day and age from reaching the public is difficult, I do believe that there are some conversations which can be most productive when people can speak in complete candor, which public or press presence can immediately mitigate. No one should interpret every closed-door meeting to be nefarious, nor should they cease because of pressure for unfettered inclusion (I should note that I know of several in the non-profit community who resent not having been invited as well). I’m not advocating exclusion, but privacy has its merits. TDF new play study, Outrageous Fortune, was not discounted upon its publication because it emerged from private conversations and used unsourced quotes, after all.

On the other hand…

Recently, a theatre in New York held a public panel on the arts, an event to which the public was invited to attend for a moderate price. Although I am not a journalist, I inquired about whether I might attend and “live-blog” the discussion, in the interest of sharing the conversation with a wider audience. I was rebuffed by the press office, being told that the theatre wanted to keep its event intimate and quiet. Because I have many personal relationships at the organization and because I am not a journalist, I did not pursue this further.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have asked. After all, this was a public event and anyone there could have tweeted or written about what took place. If I hadn’t wanted to bring my laptop and access a wi-fi connection for contemporaneous reportage, surely nothing would have stopped me from reporting via iPhone tweets (save for an eagle-eyed usher, perhaps). If I did not consider myself part of the theatre community, if I didn’t have friends I might offend, I might well have barreled ahead and, having seen no reports of the event, maybe I should have. I do consider it disingenuous to label something as a public forum and then suggest that only those physically present should have any access to what occurs. A very different case than what transpired at Arena.

All of this brings me around to the buzzword “transparency.” In both of the examples cited, the events were not fully transparent; I agree with one company’s position, while I’m mildly resentful of the other’s. I think transparency is, overall, positive, but it isn’t necessarily an all-access pass. Indeed, some may question why in my latter example, I’m not naming names — in the interest of transparency. I do so because I know the company in question will see this, may well be prompted to consider their future approach and I don’t wish to embarrass them or reveal private communications; I name Arena because the incident is already part of the public discourse.

Let me share a third example, in which the media plays no role. At Hartford Stage in the late 80s, a benefit for donors of a certain level, which proved quite popular, was the opportunity to observe tech rehearsals. With as many as 75 donors at the back of the theatre, the rehearsals proceeded, but a flaw in the plan was quickly discovered: the attendees were bothered that they couldn’t clearly hear the director’s instructions to the actors, the designers and the crew. As a result, the director was fitted with a body mic, to be turned on and off at will, which would allow everyone to hear directives more clearly. While it may have saved on vocal strain, and was perhaps incidental, it did have the effect of transforming that rehearsal into a sort of performance, where with every booming pronouncement, the show’s production team and company were reminded of the patrons at the back, whose presence had impacted upon process, whether imperceptibly or fundamentally we’ll never know.

Smart phones, ever-smaller computers, social networks, the rise of the citizen reporter and critic, the persistence of the mainstream media all promise to insure that we are living in an ever more transparent world. We have seen the impact upon politics and governing (not always the same thing) and every day we see society evolving to address the new openness, whether cultivated or abhorred. While our dressing rooms may remain off limits, we may well be reaching a point where little else in the creative process can be protected, and where surely the field will benefit from broader, open conversation in so many instances.

Perhaps rehearsal rooms will be fitted with the one-way mirrors employed by police dramas (and presumably the actual police), so that rehearsals can be observed, but with those rehearsing none the wiser. Perhaps every pre-show and post-show discussion, every panel and forum, will be streamed or recorded for public consumption. Perhaps the inspiration of first rehearsals and the very first table read of a script will be opened up either live or through technology. Perhaps we can demystify the process of theatre so that more people can appreciate its magic (and no, that’s not an oxymoron).

Let’s face it: we’re heading in a direction where transparency is unavoidable. Would we do better to hold on to the shutters from the inside, waiting in fear for outside forces to rip them from our hands, or to open them (and the doors) as often as we can, perhaps supporting the argument for those times when a little privacy may be of value? The way may not be completely clear, but only with unobscured vision will we succeed in managing this transformation.

On Monday evening, I posted the first transcript of a Twitter conversation between Peter Marks (@petermarksdrama) of The Washington Post and me and, as the title indicated with “Part 1,” there would be a “Part 2.” This conversation took place 10 days after the one shared in my previous post, on November 11. It began with Peter throwing some snark in my direction, by merging Hugh Jackman’s Broadway show, which had officially opened the night before, and my blog post of last week, on showing our emotions when we attend the theatre.

In prepping this transcript for posting, I have to say I found it even more rewarding a read than the first, because so many more voices joined the conversation, and because we didn’t focus so much on the role of the critic, but rather on everyone’s shared reaction to theatre, which transcends boundaries such as professional and amateur.

As before, the transcript is in reverse chronological order, so you must go to the bottom of this post and scroll upwards to track the conversation as it happened. I have taken the liberty of cleaning up a few typos and replacing some Twitter shorthand with complete words, for ease of reading.

Peter and I will finally meet face to face in four days at Arena Stage; I’m eager to see how our conversation flows, freed from the strictures of Twitter. It will irrevocably alter our Twitter conversation thereafter, since we will have met corporeally; maybe it’ll lead to yet more conversations for us all, both online and off.

With that: go to the bottom of this post and start scrolling. Enjoy.

*   *   *

reduced  12:36pm   @petermarksdrama @HESherman Also (again, IMHO) critics should use 1st person more in reviews. You ARE the story – it’s your opinion.

reduced  12:36pm   @petermarksdrama @HESherman IMHO, critics in an audience ARE part of the community. Leaving early during bows, screams ‘Look at me!’

petermarksdrama  12:13pm   @GwydionS @HESherman Agreed

GwydionS  12:12pm   @petermarksdrama @HESherman I think a critic needs to be both “of” and “outside” the audience.

MariselaTOrta  12:11pm   @dloehr @HESherman at my last reading the girlfriend of the actors couldn’t stop crying. Not quite my aim, but I want aud. to feel

petermarksdrama  12:11pm   @HESherman Since I only know you by tweets and tv guest starring roles, looking forward to meeting you next week, Howard.

petermarksdrama  12:09pm   YABBA DABBA DO @MT @HESherman You are not Fred Flintstone

MariselaTOrta  12:09pm   @petermarksdrama Thank you. I mainly write, well tragedies, I think there’s something to the crucible of pain, reveals our humanity

HESherman  12:07pm   @petermarksdrama You are not Fred Flintstone sliding down the back of the dino when the whistle blows. You’re part of audience.

HESherman12:07pm   @petermarksdrama That’s often apparent. But respect for those on stage? They see people running for the doors.

petermarksdrama  12:06pm  @HESherman You leave with that swipe about critics running out? We can’t even be the first out at quittin’ time?????

HESherman  12:06pm   @petermarksdrama I wonder what kind of crowd they thought was right specifically for you and that show. Very amused

Theatreontario  12:06pm   @petermarksdrama I guess it seems to me to be an effective journalist, you would have to be a member of the community

petermarksdrama  12:05pm   Howard–we r not there to send back waves of love. MT @HESherman I watched major critics rush out during applause for Hugh. Rude

HESherman  12:05pm   I’ve gotta sign off. Have a lunch in the wilds of Park Slope. If u don’t know, @petermarksdrama meet live next Sat @arenastage

Theatreontario  12:05pm   @petermarksdrama Not a member of the community? That idea surprises me – a different obligation doesn’t negate “membership”

petermarksdrama  12:04pm   @HESherman (They’d bussed in a group and comped them, clearly were expected to LOVE it for me.)

monicabyrne13  12:04pm   @ATPvporteous I disagree. I don’t write to get emotional reactions out of people. I write my truth; how they react is up to them.

petermarksdrama  12:03pm    @HESherman Another time, I left Promenade Theater during ovation. Guy w/head mike stopped me at door & said, “Get back up there and applaud”!

ATPvporteous  12:02pm   … & all we do is try 2 elicit specific emots/reacts from receivers. RT @monicabyrne13: …whether it gets an emotional reaction, up 2 receiver.

BrookeM1109  12:01pm    @HESherman hah I know! But I wouldn’t whisper anything into critics ears as @petermarksdrama said!

HESherman  12:01pm   @petermarksdrama SOUPY SALES!! Really? How subtle. Presumably for an O’Neill play.

petermarksdrama  12:01pm    @HESherman It was a Johnny Mercer revue, called DREAM. It was pretty awful.

HESherman  12:00pm   @brookem1109 Now you’ve blown it. You’re going to have to go to @woollymammothtc press nights in disguise! 😉

petermarksdrama  12:00pm   Most enthralling theater I’ve ever experienced was just watching her. MT @HESherman So your theatre was watching your child.

Sueyellen  11:59am    @HESherman @petermarksdrama @HughOnBroadway was 1 of the best theater experiences my 8 yr old has had in her short B’way life. Gr8 memory!!

monicabyrne13  11:59am   @HESherman Tell me about it. My emotions startle people. I try to warn them!

MrSamuelFrench  11:59am     Magic of the Theatre RT @petermarksdrama: Took my 6 year old daughter to Cathy Rigby’s PETER PAN & cried, just watching her watch the show

petermarksdrama  11:59am    @BrookeM1109 @HESherman On Bway, occasionally planted people next 2 me. Soupy Sales, once. Kept whispering 2 me isn’t this great?

HESherman  11:59am   @petermarksdrama So your theatre was watching your child. Cathy Rigby didn’t enter into your experience, except thru daughter.

sophieGG  11:58am  @petermarksdrama @HESherman I cried so hard in Ruined I couldn’t speak to my husband for an hour. That’s theater.

MrSamuelFrench  11:58am   @hesherman & so we call it “Cheesy” to guard against our true reaction? (Also I think I know the coffee commercial of which you speak.)

monicabyrne13  11:58am    @petermarksdrama @HESherman Last time I cried in theater: last line in VIBRATOR PLAY, woman to man, “You’re so beautiful.”

MrSamuelFrench  11:58am     @HESherman & so we call it “Cheesy” to guard against our true reaction? (Also I think I know the coffee comm. of which you speak.)

HESherman  11:58am   @monicabyrne13 That’s what I was told in my unsuccessfully dating days. But too much emotion can startle people.

KirstinFranko  11:58am  @HESherman @petermarksdrama I have to throw in a play like RUINED. It so strongly sent me on a roller coaster of emotions. Up & down

BrookeM1109  11:57am    @HESherman @petermarksdrama I sit a few rows back from critics to watch responses & also 2 c what rest of audience vibe is on press night

ATPvporteous  11:56am   I think opposite: ’emotionality’ not primary characteristic RT @monicabyrne13: I think it’s designed to BE an emotional expression…

HESherman  11:56am   @petermarksdrama Leadership thought that was the case. I quickly learned that a smile could mean thinking of a nasty phrase.

petermarksdrama  11:56am  @monicabyrne13 @HESherman Took my 6 year old daughter to Cathy Rigby’s PETER PAN year ago and cried, just watching her watch the show.

HESherman  11:56am   @mrsamuelfrench Or are we simply afraid to admit to others that we can be so affected by “entertainment”?

Bflood28  11:56am    @petermarksdrama @HESherman I’m still against that. I was still shocked when Bway theatres started doing that. Nederlander yes?

monicabyrne13  11:55am  @petermarksdrama @HESherman I think showing vulnerability is always wonderful. 🙂 Be proud.

MrSamuelFrench  11:55am   @HESherman @petermarksdrama Maybe we perceive it “cheesy” because it’s familiar. Universality & ability 2 relate drives emotion, no?

HESherman  11:55am   @petermarksdrama I watched Frank Rich be very moved by FALSETTOS @hartfordstage. He later wrote what show meant to him him.

petermarksdrama  11:55am  @HESherman Wait–watch 4 laughing or crying crix? And what would u report back: “She’s doubled over–we’re home free!”? @pmdhes

ArtHennessey  11:54am    RT @petermarksdrama: @HESherman @monicabyrne13 Always odd as critic to be crying as lights come up. Sometimes embarrassed; sometimes proud.

KirstinFranko  11:54am  @HESherman @petermarksdrama I know exactly that coffee commercial! It gets me too! But I’m a real emotional giver, so no surprise

HESherman  11:54am   @petermarksdrama In my p.r. days, I was sometimes assigned to watch important critics for emotional reaction.

petermarksdrama  11:54am    @HESherman Jackman belong on Bway? You bet. He’s earned his solo act. wish he’d taken more risks w/ it. He’s got wattage 2 do that

HESherman  11:53am   @petermarksdrama Going back to your opening salvo, did you think Hugh doesn’t belong on Broadway?

petermarksdrama  11:52am  @HESherman @monicabyrne13 Always odd as critic to be crying as lights come up. Sometimes embarrassed; sometimes proud.

Bflood28  11:52am  @HESherman @Cirque isn’t that part of equation however? Successful Vegas shows must be flashy/sexy/relatively brief

monicabyrne13  11:51am   @petermarksdrama @HESherman @GratuitousV In my opinion, no, but response is highly variable among individual recipients. I.e. “taste.”

HESherman  11:51am   @bflood28 We were speaking more of classic 60s Vegas and current @Cirque shows, not Broadway going to Vegas.

petermarksdrama  11:51am  @Bflood28 @HESherman And used to be only in Vegas you brought your drinks to your seat! (Theaters even have cup holders!) Bway nxt?

ATPvporteous  11:50am   Could think v nothing else 4 months. Interesting: saw it on TV. @kanessie Wept at RSC’s NICHOLAS NICKLEBY. Smike. Still choke up.

HESherman  11:50am   @petermarksdrama I was thinking about Richard Maxwell’s work, but I’ve only read about, never seen (though I adore Jan).

Bflood28  11:50am  @HESherman @petermarksdrama true, but most broadway transfers to Vegas must be severely cut & shortened due to attention span deficit

petermarksdrama  11:49am    @monicabyrne13 @HESherman @GratuitousV Without emotional response, can piece be considered successful?

HESherman  11:49am   @petermarksdrama But if it hits something primal, why is it cheesy? There’s a coffee commercial every Xmas that gets to me.

petermarksdrama  11:49am   @HESherman Yes re draining emotion. And that can be effective, witty. See works of Richard Maxwell (brother of Jan)

iamJoePapp  11:48am   Boy, I hated the critics. I could have killed each and every one of them.

HESherman  11:48am   @petermarksdrama Aren’t there artists who drain emotion from work intentionally? Tho guess even that provokes emotion in auds

petermarksdrama  11:47am  @HESherman I write sparingly in first person. I think people think you’re making yourself the story.

monicabyrne13  11:47am  @HESherman @GratuitousV I think it’s designed to BE an emotional expression; whether it gets an emotional reaction is up to the receiver.

HESherman  11:46am   @petermarksdrama Do you ever speak of yourself in the first person when reviewing, and admit direct emotional impact?

petermarksdrama  11:46am  @HESherman One of hardest aspects of reviewing is examining own response: “Jeez, why am I crying? This scene is so cheesy!”

petermarksdrama  11:44am  @GratuitousV @dloehr @HESherman re all art manip. emotions. It’s not whole experience without.

petermarksdrama  11:44am   @HESherman @kanessie Wept at end of RSC’s NICHOLAS NICKLEBY. Smike. Still choke up.

HESherman  11:43am   @petermarksdrama I do wonder how show developed. Hugh spoke of how quickly it was put together for San Francisco.

Kanessie  11:42am   @petermarksdrama @HESherman Six Years by Shar White, wept openly and remembered why I love theatre.

HESherman  11:42am   @petermarksdrama I thought NEXT TO NORMAL grew enormously and I loved it when it returned to NYC, post @arenastage. But no tears.

Petermarksdrama  11:41am   @HESherman And I did see O. Fantastic.

HESherman  11:41am   @petermarksdrama When I 1st saw NEXT TO NORMAL in NY, thought about leaving at intermission. At that point, some was offensive

GratuitousV  11:41am   @petermarksdrama @dloehr @HESherman I think all art is manipulative, designed to provoke an emotional reaction. That’s the point, IMHO.

MrSamuelFrench  11:40am   @petermarksdrama But do you also enjoy those plays that aim to make you laugh and not wrench the old heart strings?

Petermarksdrama  11:40am   @HESherman Invoked Vegas cuz he resorts to such obvious material. “Over The Rainbow”? “Mack the Knife”? “Luck be a Lady” Come on!

HESherman  11:40am   @moorejohn Another critic joins us. John, can you convey to readers why they might value a difficult emotional experience?

Calindrome  11:40am   I am dead serious when I say @petermarksdrama and @HESherman should have their own show. They’re in fine form today. Follow

Petermarksdrama  11:39am   @HESherman sob every time I see NEXT TO NORMAL. Hits me in sensitive places. cry @ 110 IN SHADE ’cause I have daughter named Lizzie

HESherman  11:38am   @petermarksdrama Why did you invoke Vegas re Hugh Jackman. Even Vegas has great art now. Have u seen O or LOVE?

Moorejohn 11:38am   Makes me sad. RT @HESherman I think theaters are afraid of, and challenged by, deeply moving pieces. “Who wants to buy a ticket to be sad?”

HESherman  11:37am   @petermarksdrama It becomes a fine distinction. You must realize we’re try to “turn” you.

dloehr  11:37am   @HESherman Indeed. And pumped into the home, it can be revisited on demand. A life lived in the moment, in the room, not so much.

Petermarksdrama  11:36am   @HESherman re: presence on Twitter. No, don’t want to join community. Want to enjoy engaging with community.

HESherman  11:36am   @dloehr Emotion that comes into your living room free in very different than paying to go out in order to be shattered.

SMLois  11:36am   RT @petermarksdrama: God, they’re practically all that’s worth living for MT @HESherman I think theaters are afraid of deeply moving pieces.

Petermarksdrama  11:35am  God, they’re practically all that’s worth living for MT @HESherman I think theaters are afraid of deeply moving pieces.

HESherman  11:35am   @petermarksdrama Doesn’t your presence on Twitter suggest you want to be part of the theatre community? Isn’t isolation ending?

dloehr  11:34am   @HESherman There’s a quiet moment in the Twilight Zone episode, “In Praise of Pip,” where Jack Klugman rips my heart out.

HESherman  11:34am   @petermarksdrama I think theaters are afraid of, and challenged by, deeply moving pieces. “Who wants to buy a ticket to be sad?”

dloehr  11:33am   @HESherman Very much so. (Up till then, only Snoopy Came Home & Jim Henson’s memorial had such a powerful effect on me.)

HESherman  11:33am   @petermarksdrama You think the comedy and tragedy masks have currency today? Not vestigial?

Petermarksdrama  11:33am  @HESherman Ah because when the seams show, you feel compelled to point them out. We’re journalists, not members of theater community

dloehr  11:32am   @petermarksdrama @HESherman Plot involved the Joker kidnapping baby boys & threatening to kill them. Suddenly, that was high stakes for me.

HESherman  11:31am   @petermarksdrama Then why do critics focus on intellectual response or picking on “tribute to aboriginal culture” and just enjoy?

Petermarksdrama  11:31am    @HESherman “Play me didgeridoo, Lou…”

dloehr  11:31am   @petermarksdrama @HESherman Though, after my 1st son was born, I did start crying reading a Batman novel. I kid you not. (cont’d)

HESherman  11:30am   @dloehr I teared up writing my blog. The question is not what we evoke in ourselves, but in others.

dloehr  11:30am    @petermarksdrama @HESherman Absolutely. It’s rare for other media to affect me like that. I think it’s the shared moment in the room.

Petermarksdrama  11:30am    @HESherman But I was unclear what you were saying to theaters–that they don’t market the “emotion” in their productions?

HESherman  11:29am    @petermarksdrama You’ll laugh, but during that segment, I was hoping he’d cover “Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport.”

Petermarksdrama  11:28am   @dloehr @HESherman I think emotional content is whole point of theater–that’s why it’s represented by masks of laughter and grief

HESherman  11:28am   @petermarksdrama Yes I assess content, but I see my role in theatre ecosystem as evangelist, not critic

dloehr  11:27am   @petermarksdrama @HESherman There’s a scene in one of my scripts that always gets me, a story nearly verbatim from my grandfather.

Petermarksdrama  11:27am   @HESherman But don’t you assess the content? You bought the whole tribute to aboriginal culture?

HESherman  11:27am   @petermarksdrama I wasn’t writing advocacy piece for emotional epiphanies. But I do think profound emotion isn’t spoken of often

Petermarksdrama  11:26am    @HESherman Listen, I take your point–I cry more at theater than I do at weddings.

HESherman  11:25am   @petermarksdrama I’m not critic, so re @realhughjackman, I thought it was a terrif piece of entertainment, whatever the venue

HESherman  11:24am   @petermarksdrama I knew you would start in with me about the crying blog post, but isn’t cynicism where crix & auds diverge?

Petermarksdrama  11:23am  @HESherman So Howard — did you cry during Hugh Jackman’s show? The man’s irresistible, but wasn’t the whole thing a little bit Vegas?

Since you’re reading this blog post, you may be aware that over the past few months, Peter Marks of The Washington Post and I have struck up a series of impromptu, friendly debates on Twitter on a variety of theatrical topics, all in the limited forum that Twitter provides to explore any idea at length or in depth. I think these discussions take on a greater meaning in light of a Huffington Post blog from earlier today by Kennedy Center president Michael Kaiser, in which he bemoaned the fate of the professional critic and confessed to being scared of the cacophony of individual voices making their opinions known online.

I happen to think what has sprung up between Peter and me — and the various people who follow or join our conversation — is almost an ideal of what social media can achieve and proof that the barrier between critic and audience, amateur and professional need not be stringently maintained — as if it could be. Both sides benefit from the interaction, and I applaud not only @petermarksdrama, but also @terryteachout, @davidcote, @wendyrosenfield, @krisvire, @moorejohn, @jimhebert and other critics for their willingness to step off what once once a vigilantly guarded pedestal and enter the fray of theatrical discussion with working professionals and the general public alike.

While Peter and I will finally meet in person this weekend (at Arena Stage in Washington, and also online live at 5 pm eastern time via New Play TV), I thought more of the public — and with a little luck, Mr. Kaiser — might enjoy reading what has emerged on Twitter. I don’t suggest it’s an easy read, since there are frequent time lags between questions and answers, delays between thrusts and parries, but in this online improv, I think some worthwhile ideas emerge out of engagement, not Balkanization. This conversation, which revolved largely around the role of the critic, took place on November 1 (I will be posting a second transcript shortly).

Tips on reading this: the transcription is imperfect, so the occasional comment may have been lost; typos are endemic to this kind of typed rapid-fire conversation, and most importantly, you must start at the bottom of this post and scroll upward for the proper chronology. For those unused to Twitter, the convention is that the name in bold is the person “speaking”; names that follow are efforts to address specific people in the conversation. And in case you can’t guess, I am @hesherman. My thanks to those who joined the conversation and whose input is included here. Now go to the end and work backwards!

*   *   *

LMDAmericas  12:50pm    @Dramaturgs @HESherman @seanjbryan Agreed. Difference between work in a journal and work on Page Six.

HESherman  12:50pm    @Dramaturgs Has that role changed? is it same as classic European model? Lloyd Richards said he introduced dramaturgy to US in the 60s.

seanjbryan  12:48pm    @Dramaturgs @HESherman yes that’s very true too. Should ‘critics’ thus now be referred to simply as ‘reviewers’ unless it’s true criticism?

LMDAmericas  12:48pm    @Dramaturgs @HESherman @petermarksdrama Love the conversation! don’t know how to join in… crix as tastemakers or prof. audience members?

Dramaturgs  12:47pm    @HESherman @seanjbryan There can be a substantial divide between #dramaturgical criticism (essentially analysis) & the typical connotation.

seanjbryan  12:45pm   @HESherman If now the critics role is only for the public, what’s the point? Listings and editorials could probably sell as many tix.

seanjbryan  12:43pm    @HESherman Ahh I see. Shame really. All should be working together to create better art. We all have our parts to play.

Dramaturgs  12:41pm    @LMDAmericas Doing quite well, thank you! There’s a lively discussion between @HESherman and @petermarksdrama you might want to check out.

seanjbryan  12:41pm    @HESherman or at least did, at some point in time.

HESherman  12:41pm    @seanjbryan Crix observe and do their own work based on what they see, but their writing is completely private from artists. Or was.

seanjbryan  12:39pm    @HESherman Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the O’Neill Centre bring in critics to assist the development process of new works?

petermarksdrama  12:39pm    @dloehr @HESherman It will ever be thus. I should start wearing an opera cape and a monocle.

dloehr  12:38pm    @petermarksdrama Great. @HESherman has me doubting my toys come to life when I’m not here. Thanks a lot.

petermarksdrama  12:38pm    @BurlingameT @HESherman Haha, I fell right into that one.

dloehr  12:37pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman I wonder if that caricature made it more effective or less? Or if it was ok, ala shorthand of Wicked Witch, etc.

petermarksdrama  12:37pm    @HESherman @dloehr What a cynic!

dloehr  12:35pm    @HESherman Next thing, you’re going to tell me Bambi’s mother was asking for it…

petermarksdrama  12:35pm    @dloehr @HESherman Me, too, even if the cartoon figure of critic was caricature everyone carries around. (But O’Toole’s voice made up 4 it)

HESherman  12:32pm    @dloehr Two words: Fiction. Cartoon. (Just being glib after 45 minutes of furious typing.)

dloehr  12:31pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman One thing I loved about “Ratatouille” was the end, w/ the critic’s rave, the joy & wonder in sharing like that.

BurlingameT  12:30pm    many of us do. 😉 “@petermarksdrama: @HESherman We should make this a regular gathering place.”

BurlingameT  12:30pm    Thank you @HESherman for engaging such an interesting convo and @petermarksdrama for such candor. #theatre

petermarksdrama  12:29pm    @HESherman  We should make this a regular gathering place.

HESherman  12:29pm   @petermarksdrama Yes, practice not blinking for 5-10 seconds at a time, so you don’t miss me. That’s going to be key. Thanks for the convo.

seanjbryan  12:29pm    Love opinionated theatrical discussion! (Like that with @HESherman and @petermarksdrama I just had) This is what the arts are all about!

petermarksdrama  12:28pm    @HESherman (And the good ones CAN be fun.)

TOFUCHITLINS  12:28pm    @Dramaturgs @HESherman Thanks! This was interesting.

corteseatwork  12:27pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman @dloehr I’ll admit to enjoying a well-written pan of a piece that isn’t stage-worthy…provided I’m not in it…

HESherman  12:27pm    @petermarksdrama It’s the idea that pans can be fun that always worries me. Why can’t the good ones be fun?

petermarksdrama  12:27pm    @HESherman We’ll discuss this further, HS. In meantime, I’ve got LAW ORDER SVU-watching preparations to make.

dloehr  12:26pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman @corteseatwork I can imagine.

HESherman  12:26pm    @petermarksdrama I think you can express displeasure without making it an attack. I’m not naive and I have my own strong opinions.

HESherman  12:25pm   @petermarksdrama Vile is in the eye of the beholder. Critical opinion and public opinion often wildly divergent.

petermarksdrama  12:25pm    @HESherman @corteseatwork @dloehr Just for record, some pans — Dance of the Vampires, e.g.–are fun to write. Others disturb your sleep.

HESherman  12:24pm    @petermarksdrama I’m going to have to wrap up. Didn’t mean to provoke dissection of critics. Wish more were open to this discussion like u.

T_Gibby  12:23pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama THAT I’d buy a ticket to.

petermarksdrama  12:23pm    @HESherman No, not attack when you can. But when something is vile, many–not you, apparently–want you to tell it like it is.

petermarksdrama  12:22pm    @HESherman re monolithic of outlet like WP. I think that’s absolutely true. No one remembers which critic at a paper wrote review.

corteseatwork  12:22pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama Believe me, I always give it a good “Yale stretch” before I open my mouth…

HESherman  12:22pm    @T_Gibby @petermarksdrama That’s another whole area. Want to save that for when Peter and I are face to face.

HESherman  12:22pm    @petermarksdrama Who demands? And so do you intentionally attack when you can? Is the writing more important than reasoned judgment?

petermarksdrama  12:21pm    @corteseatwork @HESherman Ahaha. In vino veritas!

petermarksdrama  12:20pm    @HESherman And you are a serious Kool Aid drinker if you think everyone doesn’t demand from you a delicious pan now and again

HESherman  12:20pm    @corteseatwork @petermarksdrama I take it you don’t observe the “three-block rule”? You never know who’ll overhear you

HESherman  12:20pm    @petermarksdrama But crix aren’t seen as “one person.” Seen more as “The Washington Post” for example, not a byline…

seanjbryan  12:19pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama when you create you’re in a bubble, sometimes for years, you grow attached to a piece, you don’t see it’s faults

T_Gibby  12:19pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman I agree but I think that moves into ticket price. “If Isherwood likes it……”

corteseatwork  12:18pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman I was always under the impression that what we say at the bar, post-show, was off-the-record!

petermarksdrama  12:18pm    @HESherman I’ve always said that if they let actors review plays, there’d be no theater left.

HESherman  12:18pm    @seanjbryan @petermarksdrama Criticism is part of creative process? Perhaps in classical dramaturg role, but why must artists accept crix?

dloehr  12:17pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama It’s not different from other audience, only in that their opinion will be broadcast more loudly.

petermarksdrama  12:17pm    @HESherman Oh, come on! Have you ever heard a playwright or actor discuss another’s work? Would make Simon blush!

petermarksdrama  12:16pm    @HESherman @T_Gibby re imo: isn’t that self evident? I’m ALWAYS amazed people make their theater choices on basis of what one person says

T_Gibby  12:16pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama exactly.

HESherman  12:16pm    @petermarksdrama Using a word like bullets, even as metaphor, is why many theatre artists so dislike critics.

HESherman  12:16pm    @T_Gibby @petermarksdrama Crix scoff at this, but most newspaper readers can’t distinguish between reportage and criticism.

HESherman  12:15pm    @T_Gibby @petermarksdrama I used to dream that all criticism would be legally required to begin, “In my opinion.”

seanjbryan  12:14pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman criticism should definitely be part of that creative process, that’s what I was taught in theatre school.

T_Gibby  12:14pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama I agree re. strong opinions if presented as opinion.

HESherman  12:14pm    @petermarksdrama Or use sufficiently short words. He is a many of many syllables.

petermarksdrama  12:13pm    @HESherman re tempering opinion. Times crop up when you want to, in Frank Rich’s great advice, save your bullets.

HESherman 12:13pm    @dloehr @petermarksdrama How is that different from any audience member. Notion of critical impartiality, dispassion is a myth.

petermarksdrama  12:12pm    @HESherman And Simon would no doubt be hoot on Twitter. If he could take the heat.

dloehr  12:12pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman …and it came out in her review. But I do see ways to improve that script that incidentally address it a bit.

HESherman  12:12pm    @petermarksdrama That’s one of the more unique positions about downside of awards I’ve ever heard – that they draw too much attention

dloehr  12:11pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman Full story when I’m in town, but I’d overheard the critic pre-show, knew she was in the wrong mood/mindset…

HESherman  12:11pm    @petermarksdrama I took course in criticism from late Philly critic, C. Lee. He said critics 1st responsibility was 2 b interesting read.

petermarksdrama  12:11pm    @corteseatwork @HESherman Don’t get me wrong. I don’t blame writers for earning decent living. Just sayin’ awards don’t keep ’em in theater

petermarksdrama  12:09pm    @HESherman But the issue was arrogance, a sense that the critic held some secret, special knowledge. Usually best crix just write well.

HESherman  12:09pm    @petermarksdrama Most people didn’t like John’s harshest words, for good reason, but his praise sent them running to buy tix

HESherman  12:09pm    @petermarksdrama Per my earlier comment, you could read John and decide whether or not his opinion was worthy of your attention.

HESherman  12:08pm    @petermarksdrama I know many critics who temper their personal opinions, because public might not find them palatable.

HESherman  12:08pm    @petermarksdrama I’ll put in a word on John Simon’s behalf. Say what you will, but what he writes is exactly what he thinks.

corteseatwork  12:08pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama on one level, it’s simple math…I have classmates that make more $ for 1 episode of TV than I make in a year…

petermarksdrama  12:07pm    @dloehr @HESherman I’ve heard that before, that really harsh reviews do get metabolized in a diff way.

HESherman  12:07pm    @T_Gibby @petermarksdrama Arrogance a very strong word. I’ve worked with many crix & like most. Strong opinions necessary, not superiority.

petermarksdrama  12:06pm   @HESherman The recognition that awards confer is not only noted in theater world. The renown gets leveraged, esp for TV.

petermarksdrama  12:05pm    @T_Gibby @HESherman re arrogance: You’d think, but it really ain’t so. In past gens, the Simonses might fit template, but no more.

HESherman  12:05pm   @petermarksdrama You really think cash awards to artists causes them to shift to other media? Isn’t whole point to keep them in theatre?

petermarksdrama  12:04pm    @HESherman Great questions, Mr. S! As a rule, I don’t read reviews be4. Afraid someone else’s thought will stick in my head inadvertently

T_Gibby  12:04pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama Critics who make themselves available are by nature more open, but arrogance seems like a job requirement.

dloehr  12:03pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman That said, I’ll admit, I did get something out of the worst, most scathing, most dismissable review I’ve gotten.

petermarksdrama  12:03pm    @HESherman re prizes. The more money given to playwrights, the better! Downside: Inevitably tho award winners migrate to other forms.

petermarksdrama  12:02pm    @seanjbryan @HESherman That’s heartening observation, Sean. I guess my perspective is hope I’m not breaking down someone’s creative process

HESherman  12:02pm    @petermarksdrama Do you read reviews from other cities, esp. if play is coming to DC?

HESherman  12:01pm    @petermarksdrama Whats your opinion of theatrical prizes (vs. awards), say the Steinberg Awards for playwriting?

petermarksdrama  12:00pm    @T_Gibby @HESherman I do think crix are often too defensive. U get a lot of nasty sent ur way Twitter has helped me greatly in this regard.

HESherman  12:00pm    @petermarksdrama But he was careful to praise value of critics in helping art. Maybe you have a fan.

seanjbryan  12:00pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama critics have a place in the art world. I think if you have the ego to not listen to criticism you’re a fool.

dloehr  12:00pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama I’m only talking about critics in relation to my own work. In general, I do have voices I trust.

_plainKate_  12:00pm    @dloehr @petermarksdrama @HESherman I love that it is becoming more of a dialogue.

dloehr  11:59am    @petermarksdrama @HESherman Exactly. It’s more of an “even playing field” in a sense. You know where I’m coming from & vice-versa.

HESherman  11:59am    @T_Gibby @petermarksdrama Broad statement, but not necessarily to pervading truth. Do you feel differently with folks online like Peter?

petermarksdrama  11:59am    @_plainKate_ @HESherman & that is y crix in place like Chi and SF ARE influential–they’re canaries in the mines.

_plainKate_  11:59am    @petermarksdrama @HESherman I would concur that praise is more impactful, unless it is a pan in the Times, for instance.

_plainKate_  11:58am    @HESherman Because Artistic Directors cannot always see work first-hand, they may look to reviews to be surrogate. / @petermarksdrama

HESherman  11:58am    @dloehr @petermarksdrama Most people never meet or communicate with crix. But for film, I’ve grown to appreciate certain critical voices.

petermarksdrama  11:58am    @dloehr @HESherman That makes a lot of sense from artist’s pov. Someone whose voice you trust enuf to let it affect your work in some way

dloehr  11:58am    @petermarksdrama @HESherman Have. Have interacted with.

T_Gibby  11:57am    @HESherman @petermarksdrama Except critics don’t like their opinions challenged and dismiss as uninformed any dissent.

dloehr  11:57am    @HESherman @petermarksdrama I will say, the only critics I pay attention to with my own work are the ones I know & interacted with.

HESherman  11:56am    @petermarksdrama Could influence be restored by more critics entering into dialogue and not handing down judgments? It couldn’t hurt.

petermarksdrama  11:56am    @HESherman @_plainKate_ I think the praise by critics has more impact on a director’s career, e.g. than does negative assessment.

petermarksdrama  11:55am    @HESherman @seanjbryan Maybe sean is being ironic.

HESherman  11:55am    @seanjbryan “instant perfection” from @petermarksdrama? You genuinely feel that way?

HESherman  11:54am    @petermarksdrama I share your distrust of praise, and extremism in all forms ticks me off, but constructive criticism…

seanjbryan  11:53am    @HESherman I only wish I could achieve the instant perfection in my work that @petermarksdrama must have. Criticism helps art grow.

HESherman  11:53am    @_plainKate_ @petermarksdrama So here we have an example of how reviews directly impact artists livelihoods.

petermarksdrama  11:53am    @HESherman And at the same time, “influence” of crix is waning. Is there a connection?

_plainKate_  11:52am    @petermarksdrama @HESherman (And yet, as a director, I am dependent upon those reviews to open doors to future gigs.)

HESherman  11:52am    @petermarksdrama Or should I say…accountable?

HESherman  11:52am    @petermarksdrama Conversation ”with” is fairly new. Used to be one-way street. And many critics are still not accessible to artists, public

HESherman  11:51am    I ask about “top lists” because journos create them, yet are quick to bash awards processes. Have been on receiving end of this.

petermarksdrama  11:51am    @HESherman Do you like reading about yourself? I sure don’t. Harsh words depress me and praise makes me suspicious!

petermarksdrama  11:50am    @HESherman There are a few things crix can help with — too long, e.g. By and large, we are writing for conversation with everyone else

HESherman  11:49am    @petermarksdrama So are you writing solely for audience? So many crix seem to want to speak directly to artists, esp. when they don’t enjoy

HESherman  11:48am    You heard it here 1st, folks! RT @petermarksdrama: Artists are well advised to ignore crix. Reviews are for everyone else. #2amt

petermarksdrama  11:48am    @HESherman Artists are well advised to ignore crix. Reviews are for everyone else.

HESherman  11:47am    @petermarksdrama What’s the internal rationale, not that’s it’s in any way unique to @awshingtonpost. Is this just “same old, same old”?

HESherman  11:47am    @petermarksdrama But the question is who is influenced. Public, perhaps? But do we know that artists are influenced most by major outlets?

petermarksdrama  11:46am    @HESherman Yup, we do the top 10 DC productions or whatever. I loathe list-making.

HESherman  11:46am    @petermarksdrama What is the journalistic fascination with lists? Everything is the top 10 this, the top 25 that. Do u do this at year end?

petermarksdrama  11:46am    @HESherman People read that as something to be congratulated for. I thought list was pretty self evident w/ one or two omissions

petermarksdrama  11:45am    @HESherman Haha. I think actually @DavidCote was id’ing most influential crix in the entire solar system. It was vehicle for making list

HESherman  11:44am    @petermarksdrama However, if you’d like to be set upon by fighting dogs, I’m sure it could be arranged (if it weren’t illegal)

HESherman  11:44am    @petermarksdrama I didn’t say baiting, I was merely speaking of rousing you from critical torpor, since Mondays are usually dark nights

HESherman  11:42am    @petermarksdrama So now that you’ve been named one of the country’s most influential critics, should we all be more impressed by you?

HESherman  11:10am    If you’ve never read @petermarksdrama & me debating on twitter, I’m planning to “poke the bear with a stick” soon. Follow him as well to see

Anyone recall the phrase “on hiatus”?

It was a very popular euphemism in the television industry for shows that were taken off the air shortly after their debuts (in most cases), and likely never to be seen again (in all but a few instances). I haven’t heard the “on hiatus” spin in a while in regards to television; now shows are merely “yanked” off the schedule and everyone quickly admits they’re cancelled (except, oddly enough, for Rules of Engagement, which keeps getting resuscitated). It’s harsh, perhaps, but it’s accurate, and doesn’t leave the folks associated with the series tied up contractually and anxious or unduly hopeful about their fate.

I was pondering “on hiatus” because theatre seems to have developed its own euphemism: “indefinitely postponed.” In the past week or so, it has appeared in connection with two productions that were announced, then yanked. I’m speaking of the new Edward Albee play Laying An Egg at Signature Theatre Company and the revival of Funny Girl. Now I bear none of the artists or producers involved with these shows any ill will. There are any number of factors which may have derailed these shows, all valid. Producer Bob Boyett spoke openly with The New York Times about the Funny Girl decision, and perhaps Edward Albee was simply at work on a play that he decided wasn’t ready for prime time. Theatre requires both artistic and business decisions and, difficult as they are to make, the better part of valor is to pull the plug rather than waste people’s time and money.

But what of “indefinitely postponed”? “Postponed” on its own means delayed, and usually carries the implication that whatever has been put off will eventually occur. This can be reinforced with “postponed until” which can be date specific, season specific, or an amorphous “the future.” But “indefinitely postponed” seems a cop out, especially when there’s no language associated with it to give hope.

Now it may well be that Mr. Albee will continue to work on Laying An Egg and will sustain his lengthy relationship with Signature by insuring it premieres there. It’s likely that Bob Boyett retains the first-class production rights to Funny Girl for some period of time and that if there’s to be a production, it will be under his auspices.  But the funny thing is, no rhetoric suggesting those scenarios was employed, and none has leaked out.

That the press is adopting the spin of “indefinitely postponed” is rather startling to me, since this language has inspired a more than healthy skepticism in anyone with whom I’ve discussed it. The sad truth is that these shows are off, likely not to be seen in any time period that we would accept as part of a postponement. Might they eventually reach the stage? Well surely someone will revive Funny Girl at some point and, if Mr. Albee completes a play entitled Laying An Egg, it will surely be produced. But for now, who’s buying this phrasing?

But having written just yesterday about the value of emotional truth on our stages and in our marketing, I can only recommend the same in our public relations. We are not dissembling politicians, whose actions are often derisively labeled as theatre. The creation of art, under commercial or not-for-profit auspices, requires risk, and there really is no shame if things don’t come off – especially when people are smart enough to put on the brakes before things go too far.  For smaller companies, for younger artists, for students – it’s not such a bad thing to learn that theatre is unpredictable and at times goes awry. So perhaps it’s time to put “indefinitely postponed” on hiatus.

Marketing. Advertising. Community Outreach. Audience engagement. Audience Development. Social Networking. Targeted Pitches. And so on.

This litany of phrases are among the buzzwords common to anyone who spends their time focused on attracting audiences to the theatre. They appear in the fire hose spray of blogs and tweets that consume my days and those of other like-minded individuals, as everyone tries to build a better mousetrap to lure theatregoers, and then generously or boastfully (or both) shares their experience and perspective with others.

Allow me a second short list.

Thrilling. Moving. Provocative. Hilarious. Insightful. Affecting. Witty. Stimulating. Shocking. Definitive. Wonderful. Imaginative. Spectacular. Thought-provoking. Intimate. Sensuous.

These are, of course, adjectives, a handful of examples of the language employed by theatres in the efforts listed above, as well as by critics to describe work which meets their favor. These are the words that course through subscription brochures, direct mail pitches and quote ads, perhaps so often that they are robbed of their meaning. They are meant to be motivational, but from overuse, they are rendered impotent.

I have undertaken this exercise because for all of the valuable advice and worthy dialogue that are part of my daily conversation about theatre, there’s one thing I never hear discussed:  tears. Not the verb, but the noun.

Certain films are often described as “tear-jerkers,” a phrase of condescension or disdain. In a continued show of sexism, modern tear-jerkers are usually thought of as being for women, save for the rare male “weepie,” such as Brian’s Song or Field of Dreams (and note how those both are counter-balanced by being set in the masculine world of sports). But we never speak of tears in the theatre, as if admitting to that level of emotional connection is somehow beneath the form’s intellectual and cultural aspirations. Yet three of the most personally important experiences I’ve had at the theatre in recent years have been at shows which provoked me to tears.  Indulge me as I identify each.

My first significant bout with tears at the theatre came during Signature Theater Company’s production of Horton Foote’s The Trip to Bountiful featuring Lois Smith in the central role. In contrast to motion picture tears, which are usually evoked at the climax of the film (Elliot saying goodbye to E.T. perhaps) or at a key plot point (the death of Bambi’s mother), my tears at Bountiful came somewhere in the middle of Act II, as Carrie Watts spoke so plaintively of her desire to return to her longtime home, and plunged into the journey which gives the play its name. She was seeking a past to which she could never return, the comfort of loved ones and surroundings gone or decaying. In her despair, I thought of my widowed father, living in an “independent living facility,” without the wife with whom, among other endearments, he had shared a single beverage glass at meals throughout their decades together. I could keep in touch with him frequently, as could my siblings,  but we could not bring back my mother or restore my father’s true independence ever again, and tears streamed down my face as I recognized in Miss Watts what the word “bereft” must mean, and that this may well be my father’s perpetual state too. The tears – no sobs, not cries, just salty streaks – flowed for a good ten minutes.

I next came to tears at the long-running revival of Thornton Wilder’s Our Town, directed by David Cromer. They began almost immediately at the start of the third act and continued unstaunched for the duration. I was bewildered by my reaction, because when this occurred, it was my second time seeing the production, and although I thought Cromer’s interpretation to be revelatory, I had not been moved as much the first time. Even as my eyes welled up and liquid dripped down my cheeks and off my chin, I was hyper-aware of the fact that the show’s Stage Manager, played by Michael McKean, who I knew casually, was sitting perhaps five feet from me; would he think me in distress, or perhaps be disturbed himself at this disproportionate display (when I saw him a couple of days later, he said he hadn’t noticed me at all, by the way). What had changed between my visits? I had lost a good friend, suddenly, and too soon, just a few weeks before the second viewing. Wilder’s graveyard of the departed, talking about those still alive, had acquired a new inhabitant, who sat on that stage as surely as did any of the actors.

You might wish to suggest that my tears were a result of plays from a different time, since Our Town and The Trip to Bountiful were both more than 50 years old, the product of an earlier era in theatrical writing. But they sprang forth yet again at a new play, Richard Nelson’s Sweet and Sad, during its all-too-brief run at The Public Theater. This slice of life in the Apple family, reuniting the characters and cast of the previous year’s That Hopey Changey Thing, was timed to and set on the day of the 10^th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy, though it carefully avoided confronting that horror and its aftermath head-on. My tears began late in this play, as the family uncle, an actor now struggling with what must surely be advancing Alzheimer’s, recited a Walt Whitman poem that he would later present at a local 9/11 memorial service. As it happened, thanks to the three-quarter thrust of the Anspacher, the uncle’s back was to me, but the other five actors in the show, playing his nieces, nephew and one spouse, were facing directly at me. I watched them as they watched him, their beloved uncle, fraying more each day, summon his powers of performance, remarkably, yet one more time. I was struck by the supreme beauty of the moment: the poem, the performance of it, the characters’ love for each other, the acting company’s bond built over two separate productions, the deep humanity on display so very close to me, and my tears came yet again, through the end of the play and the curtain call, and the emotion carried me throughout my subway ride home.

I do not regret these reactions, which is why I share them. I see now that their common bond was their exploration of mortality, something I understand in my late 40s far differently than I did when in my 20s. Were tears at these plays unique to me, because of what I brought to each play, because of what had occurred in my life and to those I love and loved? Perhaps. But these tears were cleansing, true and precious. These plays and productions had tapped something in me that arose too rarely, releasing emotions either repressed or until those moments, unformed.

At this point, you may not recall that I began this essay with marketing-speak and a litany of adjectives, but I call you back there because I think so many of those words and phrases, as I said, have been denatured, or used to intellectualize the theatrical experience. I am smart enough to know that few people will buy tickets for something that they are assured will make them cry, yet I think we fail to value and share theatre’s potential to evoke responses that delve into our individual essences, and are essential.

I go to the theatre for many reasons, and a good cry isn’t one of them, yet these evenings I have just described will stay with me for as long as I have memory. They have had the power to move me even through the act of describing them for you. As we analyze, market, raise money, program, produce, we must not abstract or disdain evoking deep emotion through our work, since I think it may be the finest marketing tool we have: truth.

And such a wall, as I would have you think,

That had in it a crannied hole or chink…

– A Midsummer Night’s Dream

 I would like to state unequivocally that I believe in a well-funded, independent press/media and that in order to insure it remains as a check against those in power who would like to control or alter the information we learn or receive, we must pay for it. The end.

Now I will proceed to, essentially, contradict my first paragraph. But as media evolves, it’s all very tricky.

I’ve been around long enough to remember the days when, if something was written in a local newspaper or broadcast on local media in a community in which you did not reside, you either had to get someone to send you a clipping or, beginning in the 1980s, send you a tape of a broadcast. That was, of course, the dark ages compared to today, when Google News, You Tube and online media outlets around the world make it possible to access the vast majority of what is said or written of note, no matter where you are. Indeed, using websites, companies can now create and disseminate their own media, freed from the arbiters of the mass media, although with something less than its reach.

The advent of social media only accelerated this process, since you could now send friends, followers, and the like a link that would give them immediate access to the same material you uncovered. Local material could quickly become amplified, with the most compelling, absurd, or amusing going viral in a matter of days or even hours.

This has altered the playing field for arts organizations considerably. Throughout my career, I have had conversations with peers at other arts groups who are seeking “national press,” specifically coverage which would be readily accessible to a readership or viewership across the country, far beyond the scope of local media. This was true of virtually every organization outside of New York, which as a media capital offered an access that wasn’t equaled elsewhere. Sure, if you were in Chicago you had Oprah dreams, and those in Washington DC had an easier time attraction NPR and CPB, but however powerful those outlets were, they stood relatively alone.

After a few years, I began to speak, emphatically, about what I called “the myth of national press.” I was referring to the fact that, as media outlets consolidated and arts reporting shrank, there were only a handful of outlets that were truly national, in either ambition or reach. Time and Newsweek weren’t traveling the country, USA Today was a national paper with east coast-centric arts coverage (not the case for film, sports, or music, of course), The New York Times seemed to travel less and onlyThe Wall Street Journal bucked the trend by expanding national arts coverage in recent years. I coached organizations to measure their expectations, since the opportunities were becoming ever rarer.

That’s why I’ve been such a proponent of social media: because it restores and even enhances a national conversation on the arts, often prompted by the established media but sustained on Facebook, Twitter and other sites and services. In fact, it allows for conversations far beyond what had occurred even when there was more of a national arts media, because everyone had a voice, but it is still based in the major media.

But now we’re hitting a wall. More precisely, a paywall.

More and more newspapers are making their content accessible only to those who pay a fee, be it monthly, weekly or per article. I have a hard time arguing against this strategy, for the very reasons stated in my first paragraph. Yet I regret it enormously, because it will have the effect of once again narrowing the national conversation about the arts if we can’t read what’s being written in other communities as fodder for our own conversations, tweets and blogs.  While I might not miss either of these particular conversations, imagine if paywalls had prevented us from reading Stephen Sondheim’s letter about the new production of Porgy and Bess back in August, or if the argument over Shakespeare’s authorship prompted by the film Anonymous hadn’t elicited so many different views? What if reviews couldn’t be aggregated and linked, so that we were truly restricted to a handful of opinions? Even as we mourn for the decline of newspapers, it’s impossible now to think of being blocked from access to any news outlet we like, whenever we like. For those of us who have become curators of coverage, the vistas we pass on to our readers and followers will become ever narrower.

Yes, there are chinks in the wall, as Shakespeare provided for his comic lovers Pyramus and Thisbe. The adept can clear histories, remove cookies and avail themselves of relatively easy workarounds, but many more will stop dead when told they need to enter their credit card number to read on.

I love engaging in conversation with both professionals and amateurs over issues in the arts and I applaud how the internet has democratized access to media, giving us all the possibility of becoming broadcasters. But I worry about losing the most powerful voices after having had them for less than a generation. Perhaps there could be an internet version of the sports blackout, where local games cannot be seen for free in local markets, in order not to undermine live attendance? Surely the technology exists. After all, the Minneapolis Star Tribune loses no business by letting me read it for free online, since I wouldn’t be buying it in the first place, even if it were available to me. Perhaps foundations dedicated to the arts could pay newspapers to keep those portions of their websites free? It’s a long shot, but not impossible. Maybe some papers, like The Washington Post, will master monetizing their websites without charging users for access.

Against all odds, there is still terrific arts writing, both critical and feature, in this country, and its has been a privilege for the past 15 years to read more of it than I ever had before. But we now have the quandary of our horizons shrinking in order to save the very media that we want to access, making conversation ever more local once again. I will read as much as I can for as long as I can, but every day, the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, the Star-Tribune and their brethren…they place another brick in the wall. And the walls are closing in.

This post originally appeared on the 2amtheatre website.