I agree. I read the piece as having a more political than aesthetic intention - more op-ed than theater criticism.
The fact that it's written by a 3d- (or is it 4th-?) string critic of the Times, someone whose reviews are undoubtedly assigned, not chosen, makes it unlikely to have any coercive effect. Inspirational, who knows?
Anyway, don't the critics of the Times weigh in regularly about what they're not seeing, and why the current scene is inadequate? I think of the movie critics in particular. It's practically Manola Dargis's raison d'etre...
For the record, I too felt a little queasy from Actually's murkiness, even as it made the dramatic experience compelling. |
