i'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do or trying to invalidate his experience. any experience is valid if it helps you grow and opens you up to new things. but if he liked it there, maybe he wasn't aware it was going on here as well. if the CRITICISM is that we're NOT doing that here...well, then, we need to get into more specifics.TexasImprovMassacre wrote:Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell wrote:"that comment seems to imply that you had to go to Chicago to see a genre narrative show that wasn't dependent on gimmicks when in fact there are proponents of that very notion in this town doing shows all the time!"
Please take this constructively, but I take issue with the second half of that.
I don't disagree that there are proponents of that in this town. However, I feel like you're basically telling him he shouldn't have experienced what he experienced...but that doesn't change the fact that his experience was that until he saw improvised Shakespeare in Chicago he generally thought that genre narrative was gimmicky.
I think its fair for any audience member to be entitled to their opinion, and I don't assume anyone would disagree with that. I do find it somewhat problematic though to basically say "well, you should have seen a show here that proved to you it didn't have to be gimmicky"...because this seems to dismiss the criticism instead of addressing the gap between how the audience is expected to perceive something, and how they actually perceive it.
but later comments led me to believe that wasn't what he was saying in this instance, just that he hadn't seen those shows here that would prove to him otherwise. but then, i am frequently mistaken.
sorry if my attempt to make some peace stirred the pot further...