by Carolyn Blais

Oscar Wilde once said “There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” For Wilde there were actually many things he considered to be the WORST things about life, but this quote in particular rings true in this town, in this day and age, in the entertainment industry specifically. I mean, with TMZ, the tabloids and paparazzi, not too mention The Emmy’s, The Golden Globes, and The Academy Awards—one thing is for certain—actors LOVE to be talked about and recognized. But with every good piece of press, there is that possibility that there can be bad press as well. Like anything in life, it’s just the way the cookie crumbles. So when a few weeks ago, I was instructed to pull a perfectly thoughtful and positive review of a play because the company practices “safe” theatre, I was and am bewildered.

The definition of safe theatre, according to the theatre banning my review is this: a place where actors can perform with the understanding that there will be no reviews whatsoever, therefore allowing them the comfort of knowing that nothing unpleasant or otherwise will be noted, documented or published about their performance. What’s more, advertising prior to the show is strictly prohibited in the world of safe theatre. Now hold on just a minute. If this was a workshop, rehearsal-type of performance no reviews or advertising would make sense. But this performance ran every weekend for about a month, not too mention there was a $15 strongly suggested donation at the door. This show had all the signs of being a normal performance, yet no one was to know about it and no one was to review it. Something fishy seemed to be going on.

I figured I’d ask a couple theatre folks from around town to see if they’ve ever heard of this kind of enforced censorship. First I ask Jane Whitty, an administrative intern at The Antaeus Company in North Hollywood Arts District. Whitty admits she has never heard of a theatre company making the choice to ban reviews, though she does know actors who have made personal decisions not to read the reviews of the shows they are in. I thought Whitty made a perfectly valid point by stating: “as with all art, you can’t improve without a great deal of (ideally constructive) criticism and critique. To deprive a performer of that, in the name of protecting them from negative feedback, seems misguided.” Rochelle Perry, a member of Write Act Repertory Theatre in Hollywood claims Write Act welcomes reviews for fully produced productions though understandably asks that the press not review workshops or staged readings. Meredith Lockwood, also of Write Act, agrees that reviews should be held for preview or tech nights, but beyond that, Freedom of Speech should reign.

Growing up, I remember a certain drama teacher who didn’t believe that the arts should be judged since there was no way to rank an actor like there is an athlete. Needless to say, it didn’t stop her from holding a drama competition at our school every year where there were awards and favorites, and yes, poor little hearts and dreams that were shattered and broken. Let’s face it, most of us can tell good acting from bad so why not recognize those who excel as actors? When I was young and foolish (oh wait, still am) and an aspiring thespian, I wanted to believe acting was a part of my soul, like I HAD to do it or else I would just waste away, completely unfilled. Now I realize that there could in fact be a slew of other occupations out there for me and maybe, just maybe, I only liked acting because of the pats on the back I’d receive after a show. Maybe there was a little something wrong with me like my parents didn’t praise me enough as a child or something and I needed to hear that I had done well onstage. I think maybe a lot of actors are this way—sensitive, fickle, creatures with low self esteem. So, I can almost understand the idea of “safe” theatre or at least see how it can be beneficial to ban reviews in hopes of keeping actors sane and focused. But what I really like to think is that actors perform because they are artists who revel in the idea of creating life onstage (or in front of a camera) and sharing it with the real world. Every good play should have a story, a message, and it’s an actor’s duty to communicate this message with humanity. At the same time, the audience plays a role by choosing whether to absorb the message or reject it—be delighted by it, or disgusted. Be touched or concerned or want to discuss it for hours with other theatre goers after the curtain drops. Or even write a reflective review! It doesn’t matter HOW the audience reacts. It only matters that the opportunity is there for the taking—for theatre to impact, touch, and affect the lives of all who encounter it, one way or another. When a theatre company takes money from the public but denies audience members the right to discuss the play’s merit in a written review, then the purpose of theatre is diminished, therefore rendering the play, the actors, director, and entire crew’s efforts seemingly useless.

What are your thoughts? My ears are open to any critiques.