Why The Crimson Reviews Productions in the Loeb Ex

WE ON The Crimson arts staff believe we should explain the rationale behind our recent and controversial policy to review shows staged in the Loeb Experimental Theater (Ex). After careful thought, we have come to the conviction that reviewing Ex shows is in the best interests of our readership and of the University arts community.

For the duration of this semester, however, out of consideration for the difficult position in which we placed Harvard Radcliffe Dramatic Club (HRDC), we will not review Ex shows. Previews of the works will probably be printed in their stead. We plan to resume reviewing Ex shows in the fall.

The HRDC was under the mistaken impression that The Crimson was bound by its decision six years ago not to review Ex shows. Crimson policy, however, is the responsibility of each year's Crimson executives. As a result of the confusion, HRDC promised its directors that their shows would not be reviewed. After the first Ex review was printed on March 2, many of those directors felt HRDC had violated a contractual agreement. But HRDC--like The Crimson--did not violate any binding contractual agreement, because none existed.

Next semester, however, The Crimson will review Ex shows. The arts staff is committed to reviewing all theatrical productions--including one-weekend shows--in the coming year. We believe art criticism plays an important role in the development of campus arts. Actors and directors in campus shows take themselves and their craft seriously, and we think it only fair that we do the same. [See "The Role of the Critic in Harvard Theater," below.]

The plays staged at the Ex may be experimental, but they are not just experiments. They are dramatic productions with open admission to the public. It is irrelevant whether or not the public is a paying one; The Crimson is a forum for discussion of all campus events, and innovative plays are certainly events.

The arts staff, as part of the Editorial Board, believes in analytical coverage. Just giving the facts is an empty gesture. Although arts coverage is more subjective than news coverage, the artistic endeavors themselves have never been exact sciences.

Poetry critic and Kenan Professor of English and American Literature Helen H. Vendler said that good criticism does not have to be right, but it does have to be interesting, thoughtful and well-written. We at The Crimson aspire to good criticism.

WE DO not mainly aspire, as James J. Marino '91 wrote in his letter on March 14, to "the honorable trade of college reviewers: helping readers decide how to spend their weekend." It would be shame if readers take our reviews as consumer guides, or as anything other than our careful observations of a certain production.

We do not assume a commercial view of Harvard productions. We do not establish the dichotomy that some do between the Ex shows and "commercial productions in the houses, or at the Mainstage or Agassiz." Few, if any, Harvard undergraduate productions are business ventures. We treat all theater as art that could profit from intelligent criticism.

Marino argued that 18 inches of news copy is not enough space to explain the ambitious goals of experimental theater, which he suggests "an undergraduate reviewer" cannot understand. But college reviewers--with adequate background--can grasp the elements of theater as well as any director.

Marino also contended that plot summary in a review is useless, and discussing the themes and intentions of a play is gratuitous. But describing the content of a play makes a review coherent, and what is sometimes viewed as "plot summary" are often important illustrative details.

Although a review is not a suitable substitute for seeing a production, we do not believe it is a waste of space to tell people "what a Beckett production is like to watch." There are some Crimson reader who, in fact, do not know what a Beckett play is "like to watch," and context within a review helps inform them.

It has also been argued that reviews spoil the joy of theatrical discovery. But undergraduates speak amongst themselves about productions, and preconceptions surround almost every show staged. The experimental quality of a work does not protect it from this inevitability. Nor does it exempt it from scrutiny, printed or spoken.

JEREMY Druker '91 and Kimberly Scearce '91 wrote in their defense of The Harvard Independent's policy not to review Ex shows that the Ex would be well-attended, whether or not its productions were reviewed. We hope that this is true. We also hope that actors and directors do not forswear experimentation--as some suggest-- because their work could possibly be evaluated negatively in print. Is Harvard's commitment to experimental theater really so tenuous that exploring it and exposing it to more of the public would destroy it?

Reviews are not intended to inhibit the creativity of undergraduate thespians, but to recognize it. Ex productions comprise a bulk of the dramatic activity on campus. There is a new Ex show nearly every weekend. And some in the HRDC say they would like to have their work analyzed by someone who will take the time and care to structure a critique and write it down.

Positive reviews of Ex shows should celebrate successful dramatic innovations, while negative reviews (experiments in all disciplines sometimes fail) should note their flaws and recognize what was attempted.

Our decision not to review Ex plays this semester reflects our desire to keep political concerns from interfering with theatrical experimentation. It is with the same respect for experimentation that we will review the Ex in the fall.