News
Harvard Researchers Develop AI-Driven Framework To Study Social Interactions, A Step Forward for Autism Research
News
Harvard Innovation Labs Announces 25 President’s Innovation Challenge Finalists
News
Graduate Student Council To Vote on Meeting Attendance Policy
News
Pop Hits and Politics: At Yardfest, Students Dance to Bedingfield and a Student Band Condemns Trump
News
Billionaire Investor Gerald Chan Under Scrutiny for Neglect of Historic Harvard Square Theater
To the Editor:
I was, by and large, pleased with Katherine Ashton's article on Blaridge's Theatre (What Is To Be Done?, Sept. 18); after all, any publicity is good publicity. Nevertheless, I was mystified by a few assertions she presented as commonplace truths, and somewhat annoyed at her out-of-hand dismissal of the idea of a semi-repertory company, a dismissal based, I think, on flimsy reasoning.
First, Blaridge's Theatre will not be, as Ashton suggests, a coterie of chosen actors to which is added, as the occasion demands, the odd tap-dancer or novelty singer. Auditions for all shows will be completely open; the purpose of the repertory auditions is to establish a pool of known talent on which to draw, a group of actors of proven interest and ability.
Second, Ashton says that "A semi-repertory company is usually weak." This comes as a bit of a surprise; I don't know about Ashton, but until I helped start Blaridge's, I was quite sure such a thing did not exist. It is hard to say, therefore, whether such companies are "usually" weak or strong.
Finally, Ashton claims that "Aeschylus and Sheridan, Feydeau and Joe Orton are ill-assorted companions"; this is nonsense, as anyone familiar with theatrical repertory knows. The ART season will include Shakespeare and Feiffer, Beckett and Beaumarchais; the Blaridge productions are, I think, similarly well-chosen. To follow the course of specialization Ashton suggests would, over the length of a season, bore the actors almost as much as the audience, and destroy the whole purpose for which the company was started.
If I understand Ashton's reasoning correctly, we can neither have a repertory company, nor a semi-rep, nor can we produce individual shows, lest we fall into the pit of unpopularity occupied by the Ex and the Quad Houses. This position is unfair to us, to the Ex and to the house drama societies but, more importantly, it is unfair to Harvard audiences. The Crimson may think there is too much student drama; we at Blaridge's are convinced the best is yet to come. Michael Kaplan
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.