In the letter addressed to the Times’ theatre editor Scott Heller, Viertel termed the review “beyond embarrassing—shameful” because of what he termed, “myopic notions about Mark Twain, Big River itself and the place of racial and gender diversity.”
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
NY Times Responds to Producer’s Complaint About Big River Review
In the letter addressed to the Times’ theatre editor Scott Heller, Viertel termed the review “beyond embarrassing—shameful” because of what he termed, “myopic notions about Mark Twain, Big River itself and the place of racial and gender diversity.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This article is such an interesting example of the strange relationships that critics and producers have in Broadway, a kind of easy familiarity in tone and address that is reminiscent of the kind of "old boys club" attitude of congressmen and Capitol journalists. While I see the points made by both the producer and the critic, I am disinterested. Having read Tom Sawyer, and the adventures of huckleberry Finn as a kid, I'm not sure where this producer gets this idea that they are the most important American books of the last century. Seminal? Iconic? Yes. Most important? I'm going to say no, simply because of its lack of relevance to the modern world. How many kids have you seen recently reading Tom Sawyer, or Huck Finn. They're horribly outdated, and while they may have important messages, I don't think they should be revered so. Although that part in Tom Sawyer when they hold the priests head is pretty damn funny.
Post a Comment