As noted above, Monica went back and saw the second act and re-filed a review based on the play in its entirety and we’ve posted it on the site. This is, of course, debatable itself, since the “conversation” here and elsewhere arguably may have rendered her incapable of a fair consideration. We weighed the pros and cons and decided that this was the best resolution, but expect that those who disagree will feel unimpeded in doing so, either here or on their own personal soapboxes.

Over the last couple of days, many have called for Monica’s dismissal from Newcity over this. That is not my plan, but I thought I should share my reasons lest you think it a reflection of low moral fiber at Newcity, which you may still think afterward, I am aware. That Monica exercised bad judgment that conflicts with Newcity’s and general critical standards is not up for debate. Monica has conceded such both here and in private correspondence.And that she failed to disclose it to me up front is no small matter, as many have pointed out. There was a time, back in my less-experienced days, where I was less forgiving. But I see a world of gray where I once saw all black and white, and I find myself asking the world for second chances far too often to not be willing to give one myself, as long as the situation warrants it. That the notion of third chances doesn’t exist is no accident, and it goes without saying that there isn’t one here either.
Newcity critics work for very little money paid very slowly. It’s just the reality, not something we’re proud of, but it means that they’re not working for money. Monica had no financial incentive to handle her review the way she did; she writes regularly for us so there was no “tryout” element to filing the review and obviously she wasn’t doing any favors for friends by writing a negative review. She could have, without recourse, just told me she wasn’t going to review it. Thus, while her judgment was flawed, I have no reason to suspect pernicious motives. Her actions in correcting the matter have been appropriate and duly remorseful. Newcity has always been a venue that develops young and new writers. In doing so, I’m inclined to treat mistakes on a case by case basis, rather than apply blanket policies. You can disagree with this philosophy, but the record shows that some mighty fine writers and artists have honed their skills here. Monica’s not only a good writer, but she has an appetite for covering shows that often skew into the experimental or fringe aspects of theater. I can tell you that she’s covered several dozen productions this fall, by choice, not assignment. In her absence, the shows would mostly have gone without coverage. I leave that up to the community at large to consider.

It was certainly not my intent to stifle “free speech” with the above response, only to highlight what I felt was an unfair take on a show. I’d rather see a ghastly review on a whole product that a good review on half of it. And, yes, the Tribune review was not positive; I had not seen it at the time (I have now) and retract my wording above. I was confused as to the negative take on the show in juxtaposition with the others I had then seen.

In any case, I am an avid reader of Newcity reviews and will continue to be so in the future, and the professional (and very mature) response above only re-enforces the fact that Newcity is worth the read.

So, Monica, here’s my apologies and I look forward to a good number of insightful reviews by you in the future. To any others reading: things happen, life goes on, and Newcity remains a great source for theater info, most expecially when penned by thoughtful critics such as the writer in question.

Let me end by saying: go see this show and decide for yourself; there is not better critic than the one in your head.

After consideration, my editor and I decided to leave the review up instead of not filing it altogether; this is the first time we’ve found ourselves in this position, and I will certainly make sure it does not happen again. I do not want to defend my having to leave the production or the decision I made, but I am of the opinion that in a country where speech is still free, the free market of critical thinking can benefit from a flawed opinion more than silence, especially when the flaw is explicitly stated. Shakespeare might agree.

Given the personal attack that this comment has taken, however, makes me realize how intensely this action can reverberate. Regardless of “woebetides” selective memory about the play’s “glowing reception” (The Trib, for example, had very little good to say), the writer seems to feel that it is his or her job to point out the unprofessional choice I have made in a very personal way. I think him or her for that, and certainly this level of antipathy has reinforced the regret I already feel.

I will return to see the second act this week; and I will certainly update my review to reflect that experience.

My biggest hope is that my mistake does not negatively affect the reception of the other theater critics at Newcity.

And, while we are on the subject, “entirety” is an important concept, especially with regard to reviewing a show. I’ve seen several reviews for this production, all of them glowing save for this one. I was, at first, curious as to why one reviewer out of the bunch was so displeased by features which seemed to titillate the others… most especially the lauding of the opening moments (which were very effective) with no mention of the closing moments (which were surpassingly effective for much the same reasons).

Needless to say, this was all explained away by the qualification pasted into the comments section by the reviewer herself – to say I am disappointed that a reviewer would feel comfortable reviewing a show without having seen it in its entirety (there’s that important word again) would be undercutting what has been done here. Chicago off-loop theater is not a booming enterprise – these small companies rely on press and word of mouth where the larger rely on repeat subscriptions. To know that their wellbeing is, in part, in the hands of critics unwilling to sit through the actual production is a major disappointment to those of us who wish to see this art form flourish rather than flounder.

I present two suggestions for the folks at Newcity; the first being that it is not only unprofessional to post a review of a show that has not actually been viewed, it is insulting to one’s own profession – if viewing the work is unnecessary, then the function of a critic is equally unnecessary.

The second suggestion revolves around the horrid wording in the beginning: it’s bad enough to leave a show before its ending, betraying one’s own function in being there – but this gaffe is FAR surpassed by being bold enough to try to encapsulate “The high point of the show…” in the opening paragraph, when one HAS NOT SEEN THE ENTIRE SHOW. And this doesn’t even touch on the critic relying on “friends” to feed her review talking points for the portions she missed … which was, by the way, an hour and a half of pure delight. Yes: an hour and a half. How does one review a show when one missed over an hour of it? The proper answer should be: “One does not.”

For those of you interested in an actual review, I suggest the Chicago Reader’s take on the show, which deals with it as a whole rather than tossing off summation based on a portion, or that of Timeout Chicago, another review which deals with the entire product. Saving that, I suggest simply taking it from me, an avid theater lover; if live staging tickles your fancy and the Bard is in your heart, this is the show for you. The director’s manner of dealing with the tomb scene alone makes the whole show worth watching – the rest is icing on an already delicious cake. The lighting is as stark as the protagonist’s pain, the set as layered as the dialogue, the staging as bold as one could wish for.
If there’s one thing this review has taught me, it is to seek my theater information from sources more able to deliver it in an accurate fashion. This review is deceptive and undercuts both the theatrical work as well as the function of theater critics in general.