Coverage of "Galileo" was simplistic
Beth Hoffmann
senior
I was very frustrated by both the review of the spring Film, Television and Theater (FTT) mainstage, "The Life of Galileo," as well as the accompanying editorial charging departmental shows with blandness and a "general lack of proper theatrical focus."
I personally believe that all the conceptual choices came together in a subtle but centrally cohesive way to stimulate our understanding of the beautifully complex and multi-layered text, though I don't have the space to explain why here. But while I don't propose a wholesale rejection of the criticism — whether or not the choices ultimately worked is a subjective judgment — critics have a responsibility to provide intelligent and, wherever possible, objective reports about what their experiences were like so that readers can make a well-founded choice about attendance. The articles were so fraught with over-simplification and self-contradiction that the campus community was done a great disservice in this respect.
The review, for example, discussed "alienation effect," a central element of the show's aesthetic, as though it was a negative thing. Alienation effect does not merely use "overly philosophic or exaggeratedly straightforward lines and stage settings that [don't] appeal aesthetically," associating it only with a didacticism that is by implication unappealing to the average Notre Dame audience member. Actually, alienation has more to do with a way of seeing, with an ability to be self-aware of one's responses to what one witnesses onstage. The techniques used to accomplish this can be highly varied and, believe it or not, very aesthetically stimulating. Its intended use in a show should thus not be used to frighten people away who perhaps aren't familiar with the term, as it appears to have been used (perhaps unintentionally) in the review.
In addition, the author appears to fundamentally misunderstand what it means to stage a text. He writes, "It is irrelevant if FTT agrees with the portrayal of Virginia [in the script] as weak, or not." Actually, as a theater artist, that is precisely the decision one must make. The text does not dictate its meaning clearly in black and white — it must be interpreted.
But the most frustrating element was the author's self-contradiction. While early in the article he claims that "the show is intelligently put together" and that "aesthetically, the show is a knockout," he goes on to claim that "the production has a number of dubious choices," with central elements that are "pointless," that the show is pulled "down into a bit of an incoherency," and ultimately that "while Brecht wanted his audiences to leave thinking, the audience of this production will leave wondering what the hell FTT was thinking." I can only wonder how the author hoped his readership could reconcile these polar statements.
The review and the editorial call for a more intelligent conceptualization of FTT mainstages. Perhaps that is a fair statement to make — but what is certain is that the campus community is in need of more intelligent criticism on behalf of The Observer.
Beth Hoffmann
senior
off-campus
April 25, 2002
All Viewpoint Stories for Friday, April 26, 2002
