POSTED 2005

The Internet has, in many respects, become The Great Leveler. These days, professional analysts, journalists, philosophers and critics have to vie for attention with anyone with an Internet connection. Sometimes this is a good thing. After all, who among us hasn't tired of the intellectual elite or the perpetually biased? But as one sage individual wrote: "Bloggers are the cyber equivalent of the drunk sitting at the end of the bar."

But there is an even more obnoxious entity out there. The "online critic" who attempts to pass himself/herself off as a legitimate source of information despite having no legitimate credentials. These people can actually effect others' work and it's vital we see them for who they are.

One such individual is Steven LaVigne. As theater reviewers go, LaVigne seems to be living proof that anyone can call themselves a reviewer. His writing resume is largely a collection of now-defunct free publications, neighborhood newspapers and obscure theater and GLBT web sites. According to my research, he is a smalltime writer whose day job is teaching third grade. His reviews seem to pop up whereever people can vent their opinions for free. (Amazon features no less than 3 pages!) His credentials are unimpressive and vague.

If you can get past his pretentious use of the word "one" (as in: "One can only assume that the director felt...) you'll notice that LaVigne can take seemingly great pleasure in attacking other writers' skills, yet his own offerings consist of such gems as: "The big apple is crowded. The city never sleeps because it’s noisy…."

It looks like in 2004, he got a gig at On The Purple Circuit, a site that purports to promote GLBT Theater around the country. Here is how LaVigne promotes local theater:

"Clearly, the blame must be placed on the production’s director, the hopelessly inept Randy Winkler....."

"Winkler, who passes himself off as professional, hasn’t done his homework....."

" a badly placed table in the Patio scene, keeps Winkler’s production on an amateur level."

"obviously, Randy Winkler is an overpaid amateur...."

A quick Google of Mr. Winkler's credentials reveals that he has "directed and choreographed over 400 shows at the Minnesota Opera, North Star Opera, Chanhassen Dinner Theatre, Theatre in the Round, Troupe America, Fargo Moorhead Civic Opera, Park Square, as well as at numerous community and university theatres. He has received awards for both his acting and his choreography, including the Twin Cities Drama Critics Kudo Award for Outstanding Choreography. Along with his stage work, Mr. Winkler has directed and choreographed live and televised industrial shows with such performers as Rita Moreno, Bob Newhart, Shari Lewis, and Amy Grant."

Calling someone "hopelessly inept" and saying that they "pass themselves off as a professional" when their credentials so clearly discredit you is the mark of an incompetant reviewer, in my book. (In other reviews, LaVigne goes on to attack world-class playwrights in a similar fashion, despite the fact that far more respected judges of quality have lauded the works.) If Mr. LaVigne does not personally care for Mr. Winkler's work, that's one thing. But the facts clearly indicate that many learned theater people in the area do value Mr. Winkler's work and not to acknowledge that costs LaVigne his credibility. Lavigne is not writing a review here, he is writing a personal vendetta and a rather childish one at that.

And how about those pesky tables, messing up those patio scenes and single-handedly dragging an entire operetta into the mire? Actually, if you read enough of LaVigne's reviews, you'll discover that blocking and scenery-placement play an enormous role in his enjoyment of a play or musical. They really seem to make or break it for him. He can be reviewing a complex drama that is jam-packed with metaphor, rich imagery, compelling themes and vital civic commentary and he will rarely say anything about it. Rather, he prefers to talk about sight lines or props. Not compelling reading for someone deciding which play to attend.

Despite the fact that his column is called "The Minneapolis Scene," LaVigne spends a lot of time gassing on about shows he's seen in London and New York. An example of these reviews (concerning A Streetcar Named Desire,) reads the following way:

"It’s evident, almost from the start that Hall understands neither the play nor the poetic rhythms Williams brought to his writing. Far too many questions are raised in the audiences’ minds which are unanswered because Hall hasn’t done his homework. This paces [sic] far too great a burden on the actors."

LaVigne speaks on behalf of the entire audience a lot. This strikes me as very arrogent. (I actually attended many of the plays LaVigne reviewed. I can tell you he's simply wrong in thinking that we all agree with him.) In this instance, we are being asked to believe that an entire group of people is being plagued by numerous unanswered questions. However, LaVigne conveniently fails to specify even one of them.

He says "Hall understands neither the play nor the poetic rhythms Williams brought to his writing" yet never once does he manage a single concrete example of his claim. Oh, and there's that not-doing-the-homework thing again ---- a meaningless phrase as LaVigne has no way of knowing what the director did to prepare.

At another point, LaVigne proclaims that "Richardson’s been so poorly directed, [she] comes nowhere near the tragic heroine Williams wrote." I'll buy that only if Mr. LaVigne can prove he observed the rehearsals and knows how Ms. Richardson was directed. LaVigne's claim is badly written criticism because it is based on an utterly false issue.

LaVigne seems to like actors but his derision for directors can become boring and predictable. After reading five or six times that someone or other "hasn't done their homework" or how "badly directed" an actor was, you start to wonder if LaVigne is just a bitter, failed director himself.

Even when he is praising a show, he offers little by way of practical assistance to the reader. He gushes about the area premiere of BatBoy and yet never really offers any concrete examples of why it's great:

"Director Steven J. Meerdink, whose past work has often left audiences baffled and wanting something else, has surpassed himself. This time he’s done his homework, so there’s not a false moment, and he’s proven he can, indeed, stage a decent production"

[Interesting sidenote: LaVigne's dig at Meerdink's past productions could actually be seen as a violation of the Code of Ethics for the CTC Critics Association.]

What does "not a false moment" mean? It's vague, ultimately meaningless phrases like that that litter LaVigne's reviews. He keeps falling back on phrases like: "the actors turn in fine performances" or "the actor shines." I don't find this helpful at all. Compare that, for example, to what Dominic Papatola says about The Jungle's Entertaining Mr. Sloane:

"Sally Wingert offers an effective, truly disturbing performance as Sloane's landlady, Kath. I almost called the character "amorous," but Kath's needs are so deep-seated and gnarled that her sexual needs are only the tip of the psychological iceberg. Kath is a grotesque caricature of humanity, but Wingert finds the humor and vulnerability within to make her not just watchable, but fascinating."

Now that made me want to see the show! (I did and I have to say I agree 100% with Mr. Papatola.) Something tells me Mr. LaVigne would simply have said that Wingert "did a fine job" and then would go on to complain about the furniture placement.

It's not that LaVigne is incapable of making legitmate observations. He can and does acknowledge staging and/or interpretation misfires and triumphs that are plausible and clearly stated. But sadly, these moments are few and far between. His agenda (to attack an artist, to bash a script, to laud a favorite or to appear erudite) far outshines any quality, professional assessment.

So, in summary:

Steve LaVigne's reviews are littered with claims that are untrue and inaccurate. He frequently implies that he knows things he couldn't possibly know, like what a director did or didn't do in rehearsals, the director's comprehension of the script or an artist's motivation for doing a play.

His writing can often be irresponsible. He takes cheap shots at artists he clearly does not like, attacking things that have nothing to do with the work being reviewed.

He fills his criticism with vague, sweeping comments which he rarely attempts to back-up with concrete examples. Anyone can claim that a director didn't understand the script or that the material needed to be rewritten. However, specific examples allow the reader to determine if the problem lies with the artist or with the reviewer!

He rarely speaks of plays' deeper themes, metaphors, structure and social impact. The more complex the play, the more LaVigne starts talking about the blocking and the costumes. (It makes me wonder if he even understands the complex plays.)

His likes and dislikes become predictable. He basically has written one review and then recycles it endlessly: The script needed to be rewritten; the director didn't do his/her homework; the actors were fine; the set needed adjustment; the entire audience thinks the way LaVigne does..... He tends to love almost every musical (especially if it's camp.) He also seems to fancy himself an expert of opera. Additionally, he seems to hate most dramas, other writers and successful directors.

His tone is frequently unprofessional. His "pans" often take on an angry quality. (This man has waaay too many axes to grind... Check out his MN Fringe Festival reviews for examples.) His essays sound more gossipy than learned. (Is an essay on standing ovation étiquette really the best The Ivey Awards Web site can offer their readers?)

He all too frequency speaks as if his personal opinion was shared by the entire audience.

He posts his reviews for On The Purple Circuit several weeks after the plays have closed. These reviews therefore do not assist the theater-going public in making informed choices about which plays to attend, nor they do not promote the theaters' work, nor do they offer informed commentary about GLBT theater in Minneapolis today. In fact, despite the fact that it's the whole mission of The Purple Circuit, Lavigne never seems to say anything of substance about the GLBT aspect of Minneapolis theater. Why are the reviews even being posted?

* * * *

I find Steven LaVigne's writing to be quite amateurish. It frequently lacks the basic components of good writing that we were taught in high school and college: be clear and back up you claims with specific examples that can be defended. He strikes me as being someone who is in love with his own opinions and who is obsessed with sharing them as often as he possibly can.

This is a concern, in my opinion, because LaVigne seems to be the one trying to pass himself off as a professional. In my view, the artists who work so hard to share their visions deserve well-balanced and well-written assessments of their work. Theater-goers deserve insightful, intelligent commentary to inform their choices. LaVigne provides little to none of this.

The good news is that, after a "quarter century" of writing about theater, Mr. LaVigne seems to have failed to make it beyond small-time publications and amateur web postings. I hope Mr. Lavigne improves his skills. If not, at least I hope the publications that do utilize his efforts decide to raise their standards.

On The Purple Circuit: The Minneapolis Scene

All reviews

HOME

Steven LaVigne: of The Ameriprise Financial Ivey Awards and On The Purple Circuit

Dominic Papatola: A pro. A flawed pro, but a pro.

Derek Miller: Good reviewers found in unlikely places.

Matthew A. Everett: The Humble Reviewer

Graydon Royce: The Snide Critic

Reviewers Reviewed: When Critics Don't Agree

Reviewers Reviewed: Odds and Ends

How Reviews Can Cut Through The Hype

Unfair Arts Coverage

Why Directors Get A Raw Deal