Page One

Reviewer shouldn’t have trashed play 

Editor: 

This is in response to a March 17 review of “The Tempest,” by John A. Grant of “The Tempest.” 

The Daily Planet is providing a valuable service to the community by regularly covering and critiquing the local arts scene. And certainly, the necessity of objective and unbiased art reviews cannot be denied. Unfortunately, Mr. Grant’s article did not come across so much as a review, as it did as a hit piece. As for me, I am a simple theater buff and frequent patron of Sub Shakes. I enjoyed this version of “The Tempest” so much, that I have seen it twice. Obviously, that doesn’t mean it should be garnering rave reviews. But at the same time, I find it most curious that Mr. Grant did not so much as give a solitary mention to several outstanding performers. 

Christine Blake’s portrayal of Ariel is truly outstanding. The skills of the very talented and accomplished actors, Chetana Karel and Maureen Coyne, raise the play to a higher level. The comedy provided by David Lee Cameron, Diane Jackson and Geoff Pond is top notch. The entire cast is wonderful. It is a crime that the excellence and hard work of these dedicated performers was not so much as acknowledged  

However, it is apparent that Mr. Grant was not as interested in reviewing this play, as he was in crucifying the producer-director-actor, Stanley Spenger. Grant’s two-part review consists first, of his informing the reader of his own cleverness, and the correctness of his personal interpretation of Shakespeare. The second part consists of his diatribe against Spenger. “Spenger mugs and poses his way through a childish and mercurial portrayal.” And: “Spenger is neither a strong actor, nor a strong director.” 

That last remark is brutal. It is also general and nonspecific, and therefore crosses the line to becoming inappropriate. It is not the criticism, but rather the fact that Mr. Grant could not possibly have knowledge regarding the entire body of Spenger’s work and career. He does not have a foundation to base such statements upon. The reviewer also implies that Spenger took the lead role for himself out of vanity. The truth of the matter is that Spenger, due to circumstances, had no choice but to take over that part. Spenger is also accused of being a “theatrical autodidact,” when in fact, he is broadly studied in theater. No artist, regardless of the quality of his or her work, deserves to be smeared and damaged by an uninformed and biased review. I can only hope that in the future, The Daily Planet will take more care.  

Kevin R. Moore 

Berkeley