Dutchman Review Amateurish

I understand that it is unconventional for a director to write a response to a review, but nothing about Dutchman has ever been conventional, from our "controversial" ad campaign, to our staging of the play. I am aware of the nature of the Crimson's reviews; these are reviews of amateur theater by amateur reporters. Despite this obvious amateurism on the part of the Crimson staff, there is no excuse for the distinctly unprofessional tone of recent reviews.

Leland criticizes Jesse Cohen for not conforming to her idea, as well as Baraka's description, of what Lula (not Lulu, as appears in the review) should be. This is indeed a valid criticism, and I, as director, made a conscious decision in casting Cohen, precisely because I believed she best fit the Lula of my vision of the play I wanted to put on. But Leland doesn't criticize me for a casting error, if she believes it to be such, but instead, launches into a fairly vicious personal attack on Cohen for not being a thirty year old "tall, slender, beautiful woman with long red hair hanging straight down her back..." as if Cohen had any control over her personal appearance and also as if her physical appearance had any direct correlation to her acting ability. Leland's "virginal 17 year-old" line is just unwarranted, and, in my opinion, is nothing but personal.

It is odd that Leland attributes to me many of the artistic decisions of the play--the choice of Michael McNeal as Clay, my additions to the Conductor's part, etc., and yet, she doesn't credit me with the casting of Cohen as Lula. I wanted a younger Lula, and the decision to make the character more hysterical from the outset was mine as well. I have studied this play for four years now, and I firmly believe that Dutchman is anything but a subtle play, and Lula is anything but a realistic, "normal" character. She is most certainly not "bitter" as Leland asserts, because bitterness connotes a certain victimization, and Lula is a victimizer, not a victim.

My main criticism of the review is that Leland has what is basically a philosophical difference with my interpretation of the play, which really had little to do with Jessie Cohen's acting. In fact, Cohen's acting ability is largely ignored in this article. If she believes that my vision of the play was not effective in exploring the power of this play, which she doesn't even understand, then that is what she should criticize, and I would welcome it. Charles Geurrero '93