First off, thank, Enci, for being the host and allowing me the opportunity to blog on this – what might be – a very interesting sight.

As an inaugural kickoff – I think it’s best to talk about the “quality of theatre”. The endless discussion: is there such a thing as “good” or “bad” art? I would say yes, especially when it comes to theatre. Which is what I’ll focus on. Or, rather, what WE should focus on.

What is quality theater? The best definition is: you know it when you see it. But I believe it’s possible to break it down into categories: acting, writing, directing, production design and finally purpose. I’m not going to go into too much of a scholarly diatribe, and would rather leave it to anyone reading this to add their two cents, but if you look at all of these categories closely you will see that there are aspects within each that can be broken down.

For acting, as an example: diction, presence, believability, emotional honesty, inventive characterization, creative choices, or for writing: believability, strong dialogue, plot, character arcs, dimensionality, proper tone, premise, conflict…and on and on. We don’t want to concentrate on these things when we’re sitting in the audience and enjoying a show, but when one of them fails, we feel it, we know it, and it begins to detract from the quality of a production.

Do most Los Angeles critics understand these things, or are they just failed writers and directors, sound-byte addicts, MTV generated two-dimensional neophytes who have a different agenda than furthering the quality theatre that DOES exist in our town?

Love to hear from you.