To the writer:
I can't comment on the main body of this review since I haven't seen this show, but I am uniquely qualified to comment on the last paragraph. I'm the communications director at our town's largest performing arts organization. The administrative folks at TheatreWorks are probably too polite to respond, so I'll attempt to offer a thought here.
The entire business of theatre, and indeed, performing arts in general, is based on a public-private partnership, wherein sponsors provide support in order to make the cost of tickets more accessible and make the art produced on the stage possible. Disparaging TheatreWorks' method of recognizing that sponsorship (and possibly causing the sponsor to feel alienated) demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the performance arts industry and the sources of funding for our efforts. Like it or not, both corporate and individual sponsors play a vital role in the quality, frequency, and accessibility of arts throughout the United States. This is particularly true in Colorado Springs, where public funding is extremely limited. Using this public forum as an artistic reviewer to complain about that system is highly questionable since administrative decisions don't usually fall within the scope of a critic's responsibility.
There is a point at which sponsor recognition can be overbearing and obtrusive, but it's difficult to imagine a scenario in which TheatreWorks, with their artistic sensibilities, would be prone to that level of promotion for the sponsor.
Finally, I'll just mention that it's especially odd to have that final paragraph, given that this very publication, the Independent, is a primary supporter of arts throughout our region, including TheatreWorks. I can imagine that the Indy genuinely appreciates the recognition that it receives for its support of the performing arts, and it's perplexing that you would disparage TheatreWorks' efforts in this regard.
Just about all of the big movies of the 40s were also performed on the radio by the starring actors, often introduced by the movies' directors. If a movie turned into a hit it was performed again using other actors in the lead roles. The radio plays never ran more than an hour, so material was always cut. There was more than one version of The Maltese Falcon broadcast over the airwaves, including a version that runs only 30 minutes long.
The production isn't trying to rival the movie. What theatrical production could?? A radio production of this was performed the year the movie came out; Stewart and Reed both reprised their roles in said broadcast. Do you think THAT production rivaled the movie? That's not the purpose. It's to use the radio genre to give a different twist to the story. Both can be enjoyed without detracting from either's merits. Different isn't bad, it's just different.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation