Events involving theatre, the blogosphere, the Twitter-verse and some inexplicably bad behaviour have coalesced to create perfect ranting conditions!
A woman I don’t know named Sharon, writes a personal blog called Only Here for the Food: Epicurious in Edmonton. As the title suggests, the blog’s main focus is food/cooking. Occasionally Sharon deviates from that theme to write about other interests (not unlike my meanderings away from theatre-related topics). One of her interests is theatre. She has been a regular patron of Teatro La Quindicina. She’s reviewed several of their productions.
Sharon’s partner Mack is also a blogger. Yesterday, Mack’s entry outlined a baffling response by Teatro’s artistic director, Jeff Haslam to a recent review Sharon had written and an ensuing conflict. Sharon’s review of The Ambassador’s Wives is, by my account overwhelmingly positive. Mr. Haslam’s response is overwhelmingly not:
You come across as snotty and arrogant. I absolutely despise your pretension that you are “a reviewer” in any professional way. In fact every time I read one of your posts I think “I am not smitten with this weird women like her icky friends seem to be. I wish she’d stop subscribing to my theatre company, because she seems like such a pretentious doof. I wonder if she knows that her endlessly stuck-up self-important little reviews are deeply offensive to those of us who bust our buts for next to nothing to bring a little entertainment to this distant northern city? I wonder if she knows that her crappy 19 bucks goes to less than 40% of what it costs to pay all the artists she isn’t always smitten by? Do us all a favour lady. Write about food and take your entertainment dollar elsewhere.
Sincerely
Jeff Haslam
Uh…WHAT?!!!
This spewing of vitrol and the complimentary post that prompted it are so incongruous that I even after reading it half a dozen times my gut reaction is,
Uh…WHAT?!!!
Word of Mr. Haslam’s angry outburst spread and continues to spread. Like wildfire. Mack and Sharon’s posts have garnered many comments. Many people feel as I do, that it’s an incomprehensible reaction to a favourable critique. Some feel; however, that because Sharon made a public post, anyone, including Jeff Haslam, is entitled to counter her opinions with a public dressing down. In fact, in an interview with iNews 880, Haslam himself said the following:
“What I certainly don’t believe in is censoring anybody. But I also think that I ought not to be censored when I have something to say about what was written – if I’m allowed that – and I was on the blog, then I think I shouldn’t be censored either. I think it should be completely allowed, blog away. But if you allow me to comment, then that’s my right too. And I did.”
If public commenting is enabled, then yes, one has the right to comment. What I don’t understand is why the damn hell an artistic director would tell a subscribed patron, one who’s written nice things about him no less, to take a flying leap? Because Haslam’s reasoning doesn’t make sense to me:
“And I think that if you re-read what I wrote, what I objected to was glibness and meanness, and personal remarks. Not liking a show, definitely. I think that, believe me, if you wrote ‘It’s just not my thing’, I’ve been doing this for 25 years, I’ve heard that before. That’s completely a legitimate thing to say. But, if you say something really personal about my age, or my weight, or size – something like that – we get into other territory. My feelings are hurt, and I get to say my feelings are hurt”
But Jeff Haslam, didn’t say “my feelings are hurt”. I have gone back and read the comment. Again. And again. All I get is the sense of a glib, mean pot calling the kettle black and making other unsubstantiated personal remarks. Because I’ve read half a dozen of Sharon’s Teatro-related blog posts. There is nary a personal attack to be found. She has qualified every negative observation with a caveat of personal taste/preference. I did not see a single mention of anyone’s weight, age or size. She was a FAN OF THE COMPANY! Seriously, Jeff Haslam – what is your deal? How have you survived 25 years as a theatre professional if you can be so deeply wounded by a less than fawning blog post from long-time supporter?
In my opinion Sharon is exactly the type of audience member theatre artists should value most. This is a woman who discovered a company and was so engaged, she bought multiple season subsrciptions, recommended productions to others and took the time to write publicly of their endeavours and now Jeff Haslam doesn’t want her? If this is indicative of the level of respect he has for his patrons, it might explain why he has to work for “next to nothing”. Move to Ottawa, Sharon! We’ll have you in our theatres in a heartbeat.
Yep. People can leave any hot-headed comment they like in the blogosphere. It is, after all, public space. Sharon left herself open to your tirade, Jeff Haslam. And you in turn left yourself open to the scrutiny of Tweeters, who are spreading word of your bad behaviour far and wide in 140 characters or less. Bloggers, like yours truly, are repeating your words. Words have power, Jeff Haslam. So does social media. You may just find that what goes around, comes around…though the audience might stay away.
Adorkable Undies 
Thank you for putting into words what I couldn’t. I’m baffled by the whole thing. What’s especially shocking to me is that he is an Artistic Director, the creative head of an organisation. You’d think that after many years in the business, he would be better equipped to choose his words wisely when addressing all forms of media. This is precisely why I’m careful when making comments about other Fringe festivals, or Fringe shows in general. As Executive Producer of the Ottawa Fringe, I have a responsibility to the organisation and the people it serves: the patrons and the artists. Why anyone in a position of power like that would take the risk of publicly (and quite viciously) offending someone, especially a patron, is beyond me.
Exactly.
His outburst represents a serious failing in his role as an Artistic Director. Despite his assertion that he speaks for the group that “bust their buts” in his company, he’s actually marred the public perception of his company and every performer, director, playwright and technician by association.
All I can do is gape.
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. Truly, the mind boggles!
If it was my theater company I would consider firing him over that.
Me too. I can only hope that Teatro La Quindicina’s board (which Jeff Haslam sits on) is considering some sort of disciplinary action.
Nicely put!
It was an effort to articulate my feelings beyond, “SNUH?”
I…I’m at a loss. Did he comment on the wrong review? Did he mis-read that review? Does he honestly object to people supporting him, or people having opinions about his productions?
There is a man that needs a muzzle.
I’ve been asking myself all the same questions? His perception is so far off base, I keep thinking there *must* be some other explanation that just hasn’t come to light yet.
I’ve read her and Mack’s entry a few times and my brain was like “Uh What?”. this Dude AD really is cuckoo bananas – does he not realize this would spread especially written is such a way? He will loose a lot of respect. I don’t even know the guy and don’t care how talented he is – he treats people like that from a positive review he would NEVER get my dollars. I am baffled like the rest of y’all
Even if reacted that way to a *negative* review, I would have said he was out of line. He’s an alleged professional. In theatre. People have opinions about the work and it isn’t always glowing. If you can’t address that in a civil manner, you have no right being at the helm of a theatre company.
Excellent and mad.
IS the ranter…
a: Under stress we don’t know about and has flipped.
b: About to lose his job.
c: Had his identity stolen by some faker trying to make him look awful. (Oh no, it can’t be this one. He stands by the remarks.)
I love it that he wails about censorship – to which he was evidently not subjected – because I wonder if in the future he’ll be wishing his comments WERE censored.
Thanks for the interesting post.
http://www.blackwatertown.wordpress.com
Thanks for commenting and sharing the link to your blog.
a) At least that would make some sort of sense
b) I hope so.
c) I wish! (his incoherent defence brings me back to “a”.)
She’s not a “professional” reviewer because she started her own blog? Geez, that’s like saying Jeff Haslam couldn’t make it as a “professional” actor in Hollywood so he started his own theatre troupe in Edmonton in order to legally beg for change at the Fringe. Oh, wait…
And whether she’s professional or not, as an audience member, her opinion is not only valid, but valuable.
Pingback: Day 231 – 4,950… really? « A Year of Joy
Was a *spectacular* hissy fit though. Hard to know for sure how it will break for him; notoriety can cut either way.
But I suspect it was a bit of a giveaway when he complained about bringing art to a “distant northern city”, by which he means the prosperous capital of the richest province in the country.
In his world view, he is still slumming it amongst the rubes; I don’t think they’ll let him forget that.
It’s true. The first time I read the comment, I assumed they were in an isolated Alberta community, rather than Edmonton.
As you say, you never know how these thing will play out. Personally, I’m hoping the rubes kick his ass.
That’s AWESOME!!!
I hope this guy does a show in Ottawa, so I can see it. My entire review will be ‘Jeff Haslam is FAT and OLD!!!’
…then we can all watch him cry. Genius. Thanks, Jeff.
An actual personal attack? Oh man. You’d probably shatter old Jeff and his dainty little feelings beyond recovery.
I came via Facebook, and read your article, and the article Mack wrote at the link you provided. (and not that I’d have to note it for those commenting here likely, but Facebook isn’t always the big, anonymous blur of the madding crowd… I have under 100 friends, and either know them in person, or have had longstanding online friendships with them. I’ve met Nadine at Slam events, and we know a few handfuls of people in common. I note this, because when everyone things ‘viral’ means it is anonymous hoards of people, it bothers me. I read the Facebook mention, because of my acquaintanceship with Nadine. People don’t seem to get that a lot of cyberverse is connected by ‘friend of a friend of a friend’ or by common interest (Most of my online only friends on Facebook are from the Lexulous game boards). I digress (well actually no, I started out not on topic at all). Why I’m commenting:
“Review/Critique” and “Opinion” are not the same thing, and to me, Sharon is a reviewer because she contextualizes her comments. She compares. To mention that she hasn’t seen ‘Dial M for Murder’ by Hitchcock; that she compares actors within the same play as to who adds, or detracts, from it; that she compares performances or direction from one play to another… THAT is what a reviewer does. If a reviewer mostly only complains or praises, and does so WITHOUT context, it is pretty meaningless. Great, you loved “Pulp Fiction”… compared to what? Other Tarantino works? Other movies Uma Thurman has been in? compared to another director’s, say maybe David Lynch?
I know, I’m preaching to the choir so to speak, but what just slays me, is that Sharon actually REVIEWED the play, and Haslan’s response wasn’t so much that he has the right to comment as well (of course he does), it is that he says nothing of substance about her reviews, and makes his comments personal to her, her blog followers, and to Edmonton itself (“distant northern city”… wtf?).
Why the long comment… I had to think of that. I feel defensive on behalf of my friends and acquaintances in the arts. Out of only 73 Facebook friends, 10 are either professional musicians with multiple album releases, musicians that play regular gigs in bars, poets that have had their work published and/or have won awards, painters that sell their work in galleries, and one that does all manner of crafting/material/fibre arts. None of them would take an honest review out of context, and all of them would love to have someone regularly covering their work, even if it meant they got some actual ‘bad’ reviews in the mix, so long as the review was relevant and honest.
I just needed to rant in praise of all those that are performing and reviewing. Not because Haslan posted his opinion, and it was a personal attack, but that he had such disdain for the very people that spend their money on the arts, and are involved by reviewing the arts, and by the cities that support the arts. Sharon reviewed a play, and did so to a professional standard (comparison, context, etc), Haslan’s response was a personal attack that did not address any of her reviews. I say unjustified because he had no substance, could not give a single example where anything she said was in any way deserving of his response, he didn’t argue any actual points of her reviews or reviewing abilities.
Okay, I’ve vented. I’ll go back to Farmville now.
Farmville!
I absolutely agree that Sharon writes substantiated reviews. I would also contend that even if she were merely posting opinions without supporting them, it still doesn’t justify Jeff Haslam’s response on any level. The man was just plain rude…frankly, there’s no justification for that.
Okay, so, um, uh…
Apparently I get some stupid wild cold and am ostensibly away from the computer for a couple weeks, and come back to find a crazy person is the AD of a major theatre company in Edmonton. Weird.
I think this man stands for everything I stand against in the theatre world. Which isn’t to say that I don’t think he should be able to practice his art, but for me, my dream is accessible theatre. Stuff where people don’t feel intimidated, stuff where they can go and enjoy it, as ‘out-there’ or ‘traditional’ as it is, but where everyone is welcome. Apparently Jeff thinks that theatre is only for a small group of people, and that he would never deign to allow ‘the unwashed masses’ into his theatre, because their money is worthless, and their enjoyment is offensive.
sigh.
In my opinion it’s a fool who believes that the future of theatre or arts in general lies in excluding the broader audience. The “I don’t need you or your crappy money,” attitude is, as you said, offensive. And stupid.
I second your sigh.
I am not the James who wrote this comment on Sharon’s blog, but I really wish I was:
http://www.onlyhereforthefood.ca/2010/08/17/cutting-ties-with-teatro-la-quindicina/#comment-14690
Hello audience. Look at that actor. Now back to me. Now back to your actor. Now back to me. Sadly, he isn’t me, but if he stopped accepting criticism and alienated audience members who weren’t extreme sycophants he could act like me.
Look down. Back up, where are you? In a distant northern city being publicly criticized by the actor your actor could act like. What’s in your hand, back at me. I have it, it’s an oyster with season tickets to the privilege of not sharing your opinions. Look again, the season tickets are now revoked. Anything is possible when your actor berates his fans and isn’t apologetic.
I’m cleaning a toilet.
Awesome, thanks for sharing that.
Seriously. A playwright couldn’t script that kind of crazy!
I saw that comment! It’s a testament to creators of the Old Spice commercial that *anything* can be made awesome simply by referencing it.
For the record, I am glad that Sharon writes about theatre and not just about food. Her reviews of Edmonton’s Catalyst Theatre were incredibly useful to me in my academic work, and I quote her several times in my thesis. Please, Sharon, keep writing!
Interesting post, thanks for sharing!!
(I wonder if you have any comment on this comment – http://www.onlyhereforthefood.ca/2010/08/17/cutting-ties-with-teatro-la-quindicina/#comment-14709 – about what a reviewer is…)
S.
I do agree that the review written by the professional journalist and the review written by the blogger may be informed by different information. A person who understands the “inner workings” of a production, will almost certainly have different insights as compared to a more casual fan of theatre.
As a artist, professional reviews can be helpful. An educated analysis of my performance or writing, may help me identify both flaws and strengths in my work. It may alert other professionals to my presence in the theatre community and indirectly lead to work down the road.
That having been said, I think reviews like Sharon’s are invaluable. Because at the end of the day, theatre simply doesn’t exist without an audience. And the majority of audiences aren’t going to talk with creators about the minutia of the production and the process. They won’t see the work behind the production. And they shouldn’t have to. In fact, I’d argue that the work behind most successful productions is invisible. Feedback from the Sharons out there is fantastic, because frankly, Sharon is probably a more accurate indicator of how most audiences member will receive the show, than the professional reviewers with the insider knowledge.
Pingback: Statistical Analysis. «