David Cote asks bloggers for "more arguments, more dirt," but can we deliver?

Time Out's David Cote has proposed Nine Wishes for NYC Theater, with a list that varies from a plea for better scores of Broadway musicals (amen!) to an entreaty to bloggers to "engage/enrage" with "more arguments, more dirt, more bloody knock-down-drag-out fights." Hmm.

The responses to Cote's wish list make an interesting read - one fairly well-known theater actor even weighs in in the comments with, "Eek! To want to give bloggers more power seems not only a frightening prospect, but a downright dangerous one. I am an actor who has admittedly scoured the internet for bloggers' "reviews" and "dirt" and have found them to be more often than not dangerous, cruel, irrational, and from an uneducated POV!" Eek, indeed - the old saying springs to mind, don't ask the question if you don't want to know the answer. Or in this case, don't google if you don't want to read the review, whether it's from All That Chat, a bitchy blog, or the New York Times.

Meanwhile, a lengthier discussion of theater blogging and the Engage/Enrage concept is raging here, stemming from David Cote's cyber-evisceration of blogger (and playwright) George Hunka. Many theater bloggers make appearances in the comments section, including Surplus's Jaime, who questions how realistic it is for us to be the provacateurs of the entertainment industry when we ourselves have careers within that industry to consider. I've had my fair share of uncomfortable professional moments due to stuff I’ve posted. Even as an anonymous blogger, I have to be pretty thoughtful about what I post and who it might engage/enrage, and while it would be cool to be the Nikki Finke of the NYC theater scene, not getting fired is nice, too.

So how to proceed in being my gossipmongering self? Well, let's start here: I can't post most of the insider dirt I learn at work, but I sure can post yours. Got a tip? Why not drop me a line at moxiethemaven@yahoo.com.

'lil blogging break

Hi folks, as you might have noticed, posting is going to be light this summer - I have some professional stuff going on that's exciting but time consuming, and also some vacation plans that will hopefully untether me from my laptop. I'll continue to check in, and bring you stuff like this trailer for The Invention of Lying, Ricky Gervais's comedy about a world in which nobody lies, ever. All truth, all the time, for better or for worse - until one man (Gervais) discovers fibbing and all the power therein. A million fun cameos, and one of the funniest scripts I've ever read.

...and this, Michael Jackson's performance from the 1995 MTV Awards. Just a great mashup of his greatest hits. Sure, the lipsyching is plain as day, but his live performances were always about the moves, right? My first real attempts at "dance" were in first grade, in my best friends bedroom, listening to Michael Jackson and attempting what were probably some unwittingly perverse moves for a seven-year-old.



[via kottke]

Just got my first-ever hate mail

Does this mean I've "made it" as a blogger? Reader Brian Cashman writes:

You are a snarky fucking idiot. Your blog is beyond annoying, and who ever told you that your opinion mattered or had any merit whatsoever. Your reviews, theatre especially, are so unintelligent as to be laughable.

Oh my goodness! Thank you for reading, Brian, and keep on spreading cheer throughout the internets!

SuckWatch: Guys & Dolls - Update

A few weeks ago, I got an invite to Guys & Dolls. Despite my having listed it on Suckwatch, the marketing team wanted to give this little blogger a chance to change her mind, and I thought it was a bold, cool move on their part to reach out after being dissed. So I accepted, and decided to lay off the gloating "I was right" posts (mostly, at least) until after I'd actually seen the show. I tried to attend during the last week of February, but was told that tickets were no longer available for the original dates offered. No problem, I would go during the first week of March - oops, no availability then either. Try again in two weeks, I was told.

Here's where things get a bit funny. Marketing is telling me they have no availability, but my spies at the theater tell me that the mezzanine has been virtually empty every night - so empty, in fact, that "they might as well close it down and only seat the orchestra."

So what's the deal? Is the show simply best viewed from the orchestra, or are the producers of Guys & Dolls trying to discourage further criticism from bloggers by pulling a ticket offer bait and switch?

New Favorite Blog

Style Rookie is stylish, hip, very funny, and written by Tavi, a 12-year-old! She describes herself as a "garden gnome with the brain of a wind-up monkey, posture of a crotchety old hag, stare-down skills of a zombie, haircut of a little boy, and tact of Larry David." She has great, funky, and unique style, which in my middle school would have meant ostracizm to the point of serious social trauma, but seems like it's working out well for her so far. I think she might be a better blogger than me, and I'm trying not to be jealous of the young one. Or as she would put it, "jeals."

Here's just one sample of her zingyness:

There's something sentimental about this time of year which I'm not ready to give up just to go back to condescending teachers, petty drama, ridiculous expectations, self-absorbed students, alarm clocks, B.O., disgusting and nausea-causing amounts of Axe, and really smelly Messy Josephs (BAM, totez just described middle school in one, huge, run-on sentence. I could take the easy way out and use one word-Hell, if you were wondering-but this is more fun.)

Sold!

Moxie's attempt to stick it to TONY

This week's issue of Time Out, combined with the recent free-tickets-for-bloggers controversy, has got me (and many, many others) really pissed off. It's their annual theater issue, and several of the articles seem dedicated to somehow upping the hipness quotient by airing dirty laundry and gossip rather than covering the more respectable elements of the industry. I was initally angered by the "beware the blogotainmercial" (what does that even mean, anyway?) section, but I quickly realized that us bloggers aren't the only ones being insulted by Time Out this week - calling chorus girls "sub-Vegas troupers whose hotness quotient ranges from 'meh' to 'gaaah!'" is just one of the many gems in the issue. I've written a letter to the editor, which I'm pretty sure won't be published because it's a tad on the long side. In fairness, some articles in the issue are just fine - it's cool that they include a list of notable blogs (if only online), and the "This is Why They're Hot" article gives credit to some great people who deserve recognition. I've posted my full letter below, and I hope that others will write letters of their own to rebutt the misinformation in the issue. Here's the letter:

Time Out’s annual theater issue has left me bewildered, disappointed, and angered. The issue seems to take aim at the theater community as much as celebrate it. In articles dedicated to New York’s theater community, you manage to put down chorus girls, Stephen Sondheim, and a lot of undeserving members of the community in between. Next year, why not title it “Theater’s Ugly Underbelly – Exposed!”

Your assertion that theater bloggers are not to be trusted (with the exception of three excellent blogs) defies logic, and has hit the blog community below the belt. Yes, we bloggers are offered occasional free tickets to shows, sometimes in exchange for a review. These bloggers are largely contributing members of the theater community, accustomed to receiving free tickets through friends, colleagues, actors in shows, etc. The idea that a free ticket would be enough to make us write a glowing review of a play we disliked is preposterous. We’re just not that easily led. How does our situation differ from your own staff of theater reviewers, who certainly don’t buy their own tickets? And most importantly, why would you go after the little guy? Bloggers are attempting to slowly reshape the geography of an industry where only ONE review matters. If you want to take issue with biased reviewers, why not go after the Times? Oh, because it’s been done, and wouldn’t be hip, which is clearly the intent of this issue - an intent that seems to supersede good judgment.

You recommend that theatergoers do their stargazing at celebrity gossip sites rather than the theater. So why the tacky list of blind items? The theater isn’t Hollywood, and airing this dirty laundry is embarrassing and lacks class.

Beyond issues of taste, plenty of your purported “dirty secrets” are factually misleading oversimplifications. Here are just a few examples: Stephen Sondheim does a lot more work than just “plunk out a tune and basic song structure at a piano”. Saying that orchestras are “faking it” gives no credit to the hundreds of musicians who went on strike in 2003 to prevent the use of canned music on Broadway. The idea that “Tonys mean nothing” is absurd – just take a look at the advertisements for current Broadway shows, and you’ll see “Tony Winner so and so” used whenever possible as a marketing tool. Tonys mean a great deal to actors and the people who employ them, not to mention the folks buying the tickets. And for the record, I’ve seen dozens of Broadway ensemble performers who are beautiful, sexy, and phenomenally talented, both close up and from afar.

I am disappointed to say the least by the amount of bitchy gossip and lack of substance in this issue devoted to New York’s quintessential cultural offering. The theater is brimming with interesting shows, writers, performers, companies, and trends. You might have used some of those ill-conceived pages for interviews with a few “Playbill Bunnies”, who instead got only a picture and a quick caption. “This Is Why They’re Hot” is a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough. Shame on you, Time Out.


Moxie the Maven
Theater Blogger and NYC Casting Assistant
www.moxiethemaven.com