By Amy Silverman
By Olivia LaVecchia
By Monica Alonzo and Stephen Lemons
By Chris Parker
By Michael Lacey
By Weston Phippen
I like theater. I go less and less, but I hate the fact that people like "Robrt" are the only voice I have to listen to! I am offended by the glib presumptuousness and catty claptrap he has spewed out trying to be jaded and vicious, and that doesn't even begin to touch the disgust he evokes.
Is it something we learn in higher education to always sit on a higher pedestal? I wonder if there is any responsibility on the part of a publication to serve a community. Could you have a critic who enjoys theater? One who could impart even the attempt of the production, so that its potential audience could find it? Might he spend a little time actually watching the play instead of the hardness of his nipples and let us know that there was a very relevant message being presented in an entertaining, devastating and even humorous package? Could he stop thinking about his little attitude long enough to be present at the event? I am tired of critics being compelled to criticize. I hate it even more when they obviously have to work as hard as "Robrt" did to the point of totally overlooking any merit to anything besides his agenda. I saw the same freezing opening-night performance. It was moving, relevant, impassioned. It was a play of great impact for me as a female. (Yet another precinct heard from!) His disregard for the In Mixed Company agenda--to give a voice to the less-heard voices--is flippant and appalling.
If this critic can throw such extremes as, "I'll never see a show more sloppily mounted than this . . . ," I am convinced his experience with "seeing shows" is maybe a little limited, and he should see a few more before he sits in front of his word processor again, and you take his tripe to print!
In response to the letter titled "Teens, Screens" in New Times' June 3 edition, I'd like to share that what's described is not new. I am a 1962 graduate of Garden City High, Garden City, New York (Long Island), and, while the snappy cars, hip attire, the snooty/bratty attitudes, the vandalism and raids on parents' liquor cabinets were based on somewhat different models and influences, they were, indeed, very much in evidence, along with the permissiveness and the irresponsible indulge-the-child and latchkey-kid practices that the writer reports at contemporary "local high schools."
And, as a teacher for more than 30 years, I'd like to report that such has been the case, as well, from 1967 to present. I don't think matters have become all that much worse regarding violence, either. Same goes for sex. The letter writer also remarks, ". . . my fellow teachers and I have been trying to answer that one [reference, "Where did all the adults go?"] for the past two years." Well! My fellow teachers and I have been asking the same--for better than a quarter century! And I had occasion to visit with one of my dad's former teachers, and, yes, he and his colleagues asked the same (Dad was class of '31).
Is there a lesson here? Perhaps. Perhaps teachers will just have to acclimate. Same as always.