Also, for those asking, the Washington Post review ran today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02831.html

Nice write-up by Peter Marks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....302_2.html

You’ll see that not only does his review contrast sharply with Mr. Treanor’s, Mr. Marks goes out of his way to recommend this Churchill premiere (as the * next to the title indicates).

Why not go and see the play and make an opinion of your own? For is that not what theatre is for – to provoke discussion?

Thank you to DC Theatre Scene for promoting this kind of open discussion.

I promise this isn’t a director/producer posting a complaint about a review—I’ve promised myself to never do that!

No, I just wanted to chime in on a few thoughts mostly because I find the debate interesting and a debate we should be having as a theatre company/audience community.

To answer the latest posts, we should be seeing other reviews pop up from the usual sources any time now.

About the effect of reviews on sales, etc: While we are a small-ish company and have only been around for our now 5th season, I can only relate our experience. Good reviews can obviously help. Stellar reviews make a huge difference. And not to sound our own trumpets, but we’ve been fortunate to avoid that many really scathing reviews. In all of that time, we’ve seen sales all over the place and many factors can come into play with that. Location, as we’ve moved around several times in our history, the pre-show “buzz,” the playwright/play title, etc. BUT—reviews do make a difference, as I’ve seen larger companies’ productions truly suffer because of negative press.

Should this effect the reviewer’s writing? I sure hope not. Obviously, I would have liked to see a more positive review above these comments, but that’s Tim’s opinion. I respect Tim a great deal and have always enjoyed his writing and lobby discussions. He sees enough theatre and has a solid perspective of our art, so his opinion is extremely valid. We as artistic companies open our doors and invite these publications in to critique our work. In part, it is due to the added, free marketing, but it is also an integral aspect of our work that promotes dialogue between audience and artist and we have to take the good with the bad.

What’s a company to do? Well, to begin with, we knew going in with tis production, that it would have its detractors. To be honest, that’s a pretty good reason to even do a show. The plays we select at Forum are never easy choices or tailored to box office success. We are a company founded on creating work that sparks discussion and sometimes debate. We want to tell stories that elicit a reaction and make our audiences think about the topics raised. This mission can lead to shows that will not be everyone’s “cup of tea,” but a reaction to the work is key. Especially when it comes to Churchill– there seems to be a “love it or hate it” response to her work. When we did her play THE SKRIKER, we heard from some of our audience members that they did not like the show one bit and some reviewers saw it as beyond our abilities and resources; some of the strongest negative response we had ever heard. On the other hand, however, it is the show that is most often mentioned to me as certain people’s favorite show we’ve ever produced. Also, for those who didn’t like the show, they have come to respect us for our risky choices and have stayed with us ever since.

DRUNK ENOUGH TO SAY I LOVE YOU? is not an easily packaged, easily consumed sort of show. Rarely, in its few productions, has it received an average review. We’ve already heard opinions from both sides, all strong reactions, after just 2 performances. I’m actually somewhat encouraged by the tone of this review above, as a strong reaction to the work is very much valid and ultimately what we want as a company. Would I like to have every reviewer fawn all over our shows, every time? Sure–you bet. But I’d start worrying when we received middling, lukewarm, reactions. We aren’t doing our job in that case. We want audiences to enjoy our work and we hope that we can challenge them and encourage them to think and discuss the play at the same time.

Lastly, this is a play with serious subject matter and is not merely a kitchen sink comedy. It is well acted and boldly staged and delivers a strong message that is not always easy to digest. Our nation and other nations around the world have done some truly “horrible” and “incomprehensible” (to borrow some words from Tim) things in this world’s short history. These are not easy issues to deal with, but we have to face them as realities and decide how we move forward. I encourage you all to come check out the show and give some real thought to these issues, then stay with us afterwards for our nightly post-show discussions. And hey—at $20, we are still one of the least expensive venues in town! If you love Churchill, you won’t want to miss an area premiere of her work when you have the opportunity. Especially one as politically charged as this, in DC of all places.

Apologies for the length of this posting, but I was encouraged by the debate and wanted to throw in my 2 cents. I know I jumped around a bit, but I suppose without a moderator in THIS debate, that’s OK! Thank you, DCTS for giving us the venue. All the best~

Michael

PS–we encourage the debate over on our own blog, at http://www.forumtheatreblog.com