‘Nightingale’ Actor Questions Critic’s Barbs

Ah, that old cliche is true. They do build you up in order to knock you down.

Now no one has ever said show business is fair, and, after a near-lifetime in the profession, no one knows this better than I. But I must admit I was wounded, then angry, at Robert Koehler’s recent attack on my one-man portrait of Tennessee Williams in “Confessions of a Nightingale.”

I’m well aware that we can’t please all the critics all the time--not even most of the time--but I can’t accept Koehler’s complete negativity, nor do the facts support his opinion. If I may be immodest for a moment--this is a show that has been praised by many Los Angeles critics and has won innumerable awards, including a best actor citation from the Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle. “Confessions” has also been beautifully received across the country, as well as in Edinburgh and Jerusalem. During the past six years it has garnered more than 150 reviews--and I can count the negative ones on two hands. Now that’s a pretty good percentage. Of the 12 reviews I’ve thus far seen on the recent Balcony production, 10 of those were favorable. That’s not a bad percentage either. Of course Koehler is entitled to his minority opinion, but it does make one question his validity.

However, my main confusion is why did The Times feel it necessary to review it again? This marks the fifth notice that has appeared in Calendar’s pages (three of them raves, I might add). Wouldn’t it have been more constructive to use that precious space for other shows in town? In 1985, for one solid year, “Confessions” was on The Times’ “Critics’ Choice” list. Why decide to start knocking it now? You’d hope to see support of a local production that has had such a long and successful life. This negative reporting certainly doesn’t help theater in general nor, in particular, the Pasadena Playhouse, which is undergoing a difficult enough transitional period.

When Susan Dietz, a superb producer, first approached me about bringing the play back to the Playhouse (it had played on the Mainstage in 1987, and The Times then hailed it as “a sublime achievement”), I was delighted. But I told her I didn’t want to be re-reviewed. Therefore, we hadn’t planned to invite the critics to our opening night.

An inkling of foreboding came when I was told Koehler wanted to see “Tru” before reviewing my play--so he could make comparisons. I felt I was being “set up.” An actor’s paranoia? Perhaps.

Now you’d have to be living in Outer Mongolia not to know that “Tru” is the new kid on the block--and deservedly so. Robert Morse’s performance is dazzling. He is also a friend. But I’m sure Bobby would agree that making comparisons is a foolhardy business. OK, so Koehler preferred “Tru” to “Confessions,” and L.A. Weekly’s critic, Steven Mikulan, preferred “Confessions” to “Tru.” But what does either prove? In reality, we’re both good actors who have earned a bit of good fortune. Or, perhaps The Times editorial policy encourages comparisons? There’s been some of that, I’ve noticed.

And, finally, even sadder, I look upon Koehler’s notice as yet another attack on Tennessee Williams himself. Let’s not forget it was the brutal critical barbs that helped destroy Williams’ brilliant creative talents. Koehler didn’t like the material used in “Confessions.” Well, since it was all adapted from Williams’ own words, he’s really assailing him because, in effect, Williams wrote the piece himself.

I realize that any review is just the opinion of one person but, like Tennessee, I remember every damning word. And, as the playwright once said, “It does no good to criticize the critics.” Probably not. But sometimes I feel it’s my responsibility to explain something to one of them.