POSTED 2005

Dominic Papatola is getting better.

That sounds pretty arrogant but what I mean is that he doesn't seem quite so obsessed with blowing everyone away with his literary acumen anymore.

I don't know that much about him but I do know that he worked in Duluth for a few years. Maybe he wanted to set the "big city" on its ears or something but for a long time, his reviews seemed to be about Dominic's writing -- not about the plays being reviewed.

Now, his writing seems more interested in painting a vivid picture of the play being performed. For example:

"The Guthrie Theater's production of "The Constant Wife" is a cagey and cunning production, one that tickles you with one hand while it smacks you around with the other......To call this a comedy of manners — a designation that suggests a triumph of style over substance — really doesn't give the play its due. Maugham has a distinct perspective: Marriage is essentially a form of prostitution.

Through his leading lady, he makes the point with a cold-eyed cynicism that borders on misanthropy. But he leavens what must have been a shocking precept in the 1920s with a smorgasbord of witty rejoinders and wry observation."

Unlike other reviewers this blog has covered, writing like this gives the audience a definite (and intriguing) idea of what the play is about. He spends the majority of the time discussing the play's themes and political observations, (important things to consider when you're choosing a play.) The company's effectiveness in conveying theses elements is included but it's not the how-I-would-have-directed-this-so-much-better-myself approach this blog discusses elsewhere.

A comment like: "There's a lot of talk about the integrity of marriage these days. With its comical and caustic observations, The Constant Wife shows us that this conversation has, one way or another, been going on for a very long time" is a tempting invitation to attend a play with socially relevant themes. In fact, I'll admit right now that Mr. Papatola's assessment of the production makes me feel a little guilty for not having enjoyed the play more than I did. I think I missed a lot! (wink.)

But I'll confess that I have not always been such a fan of Mr. Papatola. I have given him more credit than a retired theater-director acquaintance of mine, who flies into a foaming-rage at the very mention of the name but I have long thought that Dominic has one major flaw as a reviewer:

He's a snob.

A few years ago, I attended the much-hyped Fringe show: Bring Me The Head of Dominic Papatola. I confess, the play itself didn't do that much for me but the SET was brilliant. I'm not kidding --- it was the first time in decades of theater-going that the set taught me more about the subject matter than the script did.....

As I walked into the small black box theater, my eyes were immediately drawn to the dozens --- literally dozens --- of damning quotes that had been taken from Papatola's reviews. They had been painted all over the set. The sheer number of them and the gleeful, smirking tone they had made me think: "This man is far more in love with his own writing then he is with theater."

In a recent radio commentary, Papatola claimed otherwise. I still disagree. I don't think Dominic truly loves theater. I think he loves a very narrowly-defined type of theatrical performance and that everything else is dismissed as irrelevant.

I feel this way because of how he treats community theater and the major double-standard that exists in his paper regarding what he deems worthy of covering.

But what really did it for me was the single most offensive review I have ever read in my life: the time Papatola felt it necessary to cast a snobbish eye on a community theater audience.

The production was Hello Dolly, the theater was Bloomington Community Theater and the star was Sally Struthers. Yes, the whole thing had a sort of embarrassing has-it-come-to-this? quality to it but Papatola really didn't need to include the description of why he was shame-facedly deigning to spend an evening at (gasp!) community theater.

But what I found inexcusable was the totally unnecessary description of the audience at intermission. (Believe me, I tried to find a copy of this review online but decency has apparently won out and they have taken it down.) It was nothing more than a completely condescending swipe at how totally incapable community theater (suburban?) audiences are at discerning the good from the bad.

Elitism --- pure and simple, in my opinion. And unethical. The audience was not there to be reviewed, the artists were.

A letter-writer to an abortive question-and-answer column of Papatola's asked why the Pioneer Press covered no community theaters other than Theater in the Round. Papatola answered back that TRP was higher quality. That's interesting. I have seen about three shows at Lakeshore Players in White Bear Lake. According to their bios, almost everyone in the cast had acted at TRP at some point.... So why are these people talented when they act in Minneapolis and untalented when they are out in the suburbs?

In my opinion, Dominic likes edgy, trendy theaters in the heart of the two downtowns and tolerates high-profile institutions like The Guthrie and Childrens' Theatre because that's his job. Sadly, smaller theaters that don't have urban chic just don't make it onto his radar. He is still in love with his own writing .... but happily, that's getting better.

Read Papatola's reviews

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