I don't read the SP as much as I would like...it is a great alternative to the other entertainment paper choices in town.

When I do get a chance to read it I notice that Mr. Osborne consistenlty spews vitriol-laced dreck about almost all local theatre productions. Is there no one else in town who wants to write about local theatre? It seems at some point he'd just stop going.

It is sometimes a fun exercise for me to read his blurbs AFTER I have already seen a show. I actually get a kick out of his writing...it is kind of the same jolt I get when I read another on-line favorite of mine, The Onion.

My concern is that people who know no better actually read his "reviews" and "commentary" and assume it is legitimate critism simply because much of the rest of the SP is even-handed.

Christian: If, by your own admission, you don't read the SP as much as you'd like, doesn't that make you one of those very people you mention who "know no better"?

Click on the theater archives link and see for yourself: In the last few months I've written as many favorable reviews ("Doubt," "In Darfur," "Some Kind of Wonderful," "Indulgences," "Pure Confidence," "Great Expectations," "In the Red and Brown Water," "A Song for Coretta") as I have "vitriol-laced dreck."

Speaking of which . . . are you any relation to the Christy Baggett who happens to be currently appearing in "Godspell"? If so, do you think that might be clouding your judgment?

I am acquainted with many talented and dedicated artists in Atlanta. This does not preclude me from being able to objectively evaluate their work or your reviews.

My experience of reading your work is the writing is overwhelmingly negative. This week alone I think four or five shows got dinked and the "positive" piece about the show at Art Station started off with a comment about Googie Uterhardt using his knickname in the playbill instead of Geoff.

As a supporter of live performance in general it is my opinion there are wasy to simultaneously critique and support the artform. If some of these shows are as bad as you say why would you even review as many of them as you do? Does SP require a quota?

My sense is no number of responses and exchanges in this space will impact your approach but I thank you and SP for the opportunity to air my grievance. I may actually be more inclined to make time to read next week but beyond that who knows?

I'm left wondering if you even saw the plays. "Don't Look at the Fat Lady" was one of the best original plays I've ever seen- I was completely riveted by the story of Gloria, and the story of how something so unthinkable could happen to a person. I felt very deeply for the character, and it's stayed with me since I saw it two weeks ago. The night I was there the audience gave her a tearful standing ovation and everyone spent all intermission talking about her. Above the Fold was also very thought-provoking and very funny.
What exactly made you feel like these were cardboard cutouts?

First of all, thanks for your comments! I’m new to this whole “blogging” concept – this IS “blogging,” right? – and it’s kind of fun! I was looking down the archive list of my theater columns the other week (with one “Comments: 0” right after another), thinking, “Does anybody even read my stuff?” So it’s just nice to know that at least a few people do!

Christian: Like it or not, a CRITIC has an inherent responsibility to be CRITICAL – or “negative,” if you prefer. Even when a show is good, part of my job is to CRITIQUE what’s keeping it from being better. If your definition of a “positive” review means some type of gushing, full-out rave, then, yes, those are very few and far between. But I don’t think it’s always quite so cut-and-dried. I can disapprove of something like this week’s “Godspell” and still appreciate the acting of Jahi Kearse, for example – just as I can otherwise praise a production while also citing a bad performance or a design flaw or a development in the script that doesn’t work for me.

I suppose one way to “support the artform” would be to take some sort of it’s-all-good/if-you-can’t-say-anything-nice-don’t-say-anything-at-all approach to the job – but who would that serve? Certainly not the readers of the Sunday Paper, many of whom might like a little idea of what’s in store for them before heading off to a show. And how would it benefit the theater artists themselves, really, beyond giving them the sense that their work is utter perfection, without the slightest room for any kind of improvement whatsoever?

I’d like to think I DO support the artform – by challenging it, by investing my time in anywhere from two to six shows a week, by devoting a half-page column to it in each and every issue of the paper. It may not mean more than a “dink” or a “blurb,” but I’ve always presumed that something was better than nothing, when most companies complain about how hard it is to get any press coverage at all. To my knowledge, none of my counterparts in town have even seen the Topher Payne plays, the ART Station show or “Godspell.” By your no-news-is-good-news logic, maybe that’s just as well – but how does it support the artform, exactly?

Mark: As I mentioned in my review, what I found lacking in “Don’t Look at the Fat Lady” wasn’t the emotional involvement in the character – yes, I felt sorry for Gloria, too – it was an understanding of how and why she allows herself to get to this point. To me, it’s a story about “something so unthinkable” that, in the end, remains fairly unthinkable.

As for the characters in “Above the Fold,” between the small-town beauty-pageant runner-up, her auto-mechanic husband, the sassy gay hairdresser/make-up artist and a couple of trailer-park rednecks, gee, I don’t know, it just seems like I’ve seen them all before (in Payne’s other play or elsewhere). That’s why, if I’d had more space, I would’ve mentioned my favorite of the four scenes as the one about the interrogation of a sex-abuse victim, because two of its three characters WEREN’T in that same pedestrian mold.

In closing (finally!), since I’m not sure how long this “blog” might last, I’ll admit that’s probably the most frustrating part of this job: Not always having enough space to back-up everything I write about a show. A lot of times – especially in a week when I’m attempting to review three Topher Payne plays AND two other productions in one column – I just have to put my comments out there bluntly, without any sugar-coated elaboration, and then move on to the next topic.

The funniest line I’ve heard in a play all season came from the unlikeliest of places – Horizon’s super-serious “In Darfur.” The reporter is on the phone with her editor, who tells her to encapsulate the whole situation in 450 words, “600 tops!” Reviewing theater isn’t African genocide, of course, but if people knew how hard it was for me to take an 800-word first draft of a column in which I’m writing about five shows, whittle it down to 600 words (“650 tops!”) and STILL say all that I mean – well, I guess that’s what “blogging” is for, huh?

What a poorly written review. So poorly written I can't even give time to explain.

One page of criticism for four hours of performances. Wow buddy. Wow!

Thanks for the response, Bert. If more space in the SP will give you room to elaborate and that would enable to you to explain your case easier I am for it. Let me know how I can help.

For the record, I am NOT for a pollyanna approach to criticism...if a show is bad say so. Maybe the current theatre community is as bad as one might assume from many of your reviews. I will not disagree that some shows don't work for a myriad of reasons.

But I am completely for respect for the individual artists (e.g. not mentioning individuals by name unless they have truly derailed the work). I am against stacking actors against each other either within the context of a particluar cast or comparing them to persons who may have previously performed the role. Maybe I am looking for a more polite approach. Perhaps the neccesary brevity ends up causing your work to come across with more negativity than intended...and I like to think you and I want the same thing: a thriving theatre community in Atlanta.

I believe strongly that the community of artists and critics owe a lot to each other and their audiences. And a partnership does not necessarily mean corruption of either parties process.

Ha ha ha...in closing, try to be nore nice. Be the enlightened despot! If you want more space maybe we can write to the editor. I look forward to reading your next reviews.

Oh, now this is getting interesting. Bert, in your follow-up you basically said that you would write a thoughtful critique, but since you don't have the space you'll just make broad statements that reveal very little? I saw Above the Fold and my favorite scene was the makeup artist. Of course you've seen characters like that before- because they're like real people. But I'd never seen that situation before, and I thought it said some really interesting things about the news stories we follow and why we do it. Plus, I thought Greg Morris was outstanding in the range of characters he played. Why not talk about some of that instead of the bitchy comments about a few of the actors in one of the three plays, plus saying the playwright watches too much TV, which doesn't really tell me anything?

The whole play was about how and why it happened! She broke her leg and then rebroke it, and by that point she was so neglected and forgotten and she'd gained all the weight so she was afraid she'd get hurt again- if you've ever dealt with addiction you know it's a downward slope. She couldnt find her own way out of it and by the time the people from her church came it was too late!!
Sorry, this just really got me talking with the people I saw the show with, and if you just sat there feeling sorry for the character I feel like you weren't really paying attention. Pity is just another form of judgement, and the whole point of the play, I feel, was getting the past that to see her as a person.