While thanking you for the positive press given to our show ‘Samurai’ (Sunday Observer Magazine, 13 April 2008: ‘The Word on the Samurai Sword’), I would like to place on record a few comments I feel compelled to make – not merely in the interest of the general public which reads your magazine – but also as a practitioner of English Theatre in Sri Lanka.
The writer of the article clearly intended no ill-will towards either me or the cast. It is also equally clear that she had not grasped many aspects of the play and chose to write about it regardless of whether she had full possession of the facts or not.
I do not call it a ‘review’ because it is purely descriptive and lacks any attempt at analysis. In fact, in her own words,
“I daresay, the ending was abrupt and I have no idea why Geoffrey Case had it this way. I mean in the end, the warriors anyway get the sword so what was the fuss with all the citizens and the villain fighting tooth and nail just to keep their sword?”
Why write about something you do not understand, only to say that you do not understand it? What will your readers gain from this?
This was a play for children, with themes of greed and corruption. Our publicity material clearly states this. All this information and more, was on our company’s blog (www.daytripper.wordpress.com), which she is aware of. Again, in her words,
“Some theatre-goers told me it was childish and somewhat just not what they expected.”
Had she bothered to do some research with a phone call, or email to me (I know she has my contact details), she would have been able to inform readers that it was supposed to be for kids. Instead of which she informed the public that she was “…a little confused…”
“Moreover, others thought of action and didn’t really sink in the comedy story properly.”
Please could you explain to me exactly what she means here? I must confess her poor grammar is what I find most saddening about this whole article. Here is another example:
“However, Tracy told that it was a time training these young drama actors and actresses
from scratch.”
I can confidently state that I ‘told’ no such thing. I was speaking to her about teaching the cast the basics of movement in traditional Japanese theatre, and adapting them for our own particular use.
She goes on to write,
“ In the end, it was all a dream and the last scene shows the citizens talking about their dreams and how they were bad and gasp at their state of being ‘uncivilised.”
It was not a dream – the magical Samurai sword in question had in fact taken the citizens into the future. Even children in the audience seem to have grasped this.
I have been a reader of your publication for several years, and find it shocking that you publish articles of such poor quality written by unmotivated, uninspired writers. I have no personal bone of contention with the young lady in question; in fact I’m sure she is full of good intentions. However, it is obvious she is utterly unqualified to be a journalist as her grasp of the English language is poor at best; she clearly had not researched the subject of her article; she did not take any notes when I spoke to her, nor did she have a Dictaphone.
Perhaps writers of her calibre should be trained, or apprenticed to more experienced writers so that she will learn what it is to be a journalist. There are very few trained journalists covering the arts, unlike in news, business or sports writing, and this is a real shame. As one of the leading English publications in the country, this sort of sub-standard writing does you no credit, and must surely be an irritant to the many subscribers who trust you to provide them with intelligent, accurate content.
Kind Regards,
Tracy Holsinger
(Aritstic Director – Mind Adventures Theatre Company)
Dear Tracy,
I am surprised that you are so taken aback by the Observer’s standard of English writing, or perhaps you were just being polite?
There is however one issue I want to clarify. That the play was aimed at children was evident quickly after the performance began, but it was a genuine surprise to me (and I can assure you to many others that night and on other nights). Mea culpa perhaps, given your assertion that publicity material clearly stated that the play was for children.
On the other hand, I was emailed the poster for the play by several persons and it had no mention whatsoever that it was aimed at children. I first read about the play on your blog. There was no mention there either of children as the intended audience of the play. You speak of your interest in involving more youth in your productions (which is fantastic), but that to me is very different to saying that Samurai was aimed at children.
In fact, a search on your blog for “children” brings up no results whatsoever for Samurai either.
Though I sat through the production and believe on the night I came for it that it worked far better inside the BC audi with its intimacy and lighting than outside, I was disappointed and felt cheated almost to come with the expectation of theatre qualitatively different to that which I saw.
Warmest,
Sanjana