Production Was No 'Quick Assembly'

Author: Ben Fainstein

I feel compelled to write a few words regarding the review printed in the March 6 issue of The Campus about the Musical Players' production of "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying!" I directed the show, and therefore I believe myself to be something of an authority regarding the facts surrounding the production.

First of all, I would like to ask a question to the staff of the newspaper, particularly Richard Lawless '05, the writer of the article: Are interviews a primary and necessary step towards maintaining journalistic integrity? I feel that the mistakes and blatant fabrications in the article could have been corrected, preserving its reliability, by simple interviews.

However, since not a single interview was conducted, I will take it upon myself to correct the errors printed in the article. The article states that the character Finch works for "an unnamed company," but that strikes me as silly, since the company's name, The World Wide Wicket Company, is stated throughout the musical multiple times. Furthermore, even if the name of the company went unnoticed by Mr. Lawless, it is a small detail that could have been cleared up quite easily in an interview.

Another detail that irks me is that in discussing the sexism of the roles, Mr. Lawless seems not to understand that they are not sexist as "a product of the era in which the play was written," but instead, a bitingly sarcastic farce on sexist doctrine; this is where much of the show's humor lies.

A major misunderstanding on Mr. Lawless' part seems to be the reasoning behind his negative take on "Coffee Break." He says that the number became "as agonizing for the audience as it was for the workers [cast]." That is, in fact, the greatest compliment anyone could have given the Musical Players, or any actor for that matter, for it means they succeeded in accomplishing their goal of making the audience feel their emotions. Moreover, to quote our "sparse set" as a factor in making the production seem like it was "put together rather quickly" seems a ridiculous comment. Perhaps the set was made to be minimal intentionally.

I am not trying to scold Mr. Lawless for his opinion that the show appeared hastily produced; it is merely the fact that he refers to it as "a quick assembly," a statement which assumes that the Musical Players did, indeed, put the production together very quickly, which is inaccurate. A simple interview would have revealed that the show had its auditions in late November, with rehearsals beginning well before winter break.

I also cannot get a grasp on Mr. Lawless' true feelings about the show, for in one instance he praised the "fantastic" acting and the energy of the cast, and a moment later calls the performances "quasi-chaotic," referring additionally (I dare say) unfairly to the orchestra as "muddled and sour."

My last issue with the article lies in the paragraph saying "director Ben Fainstein's decision to focus on the individual performances of the actors rather than the overall smoothness of the production was an intelligent one." Since no interview ever took place, how does Mr. Lawless intend to claim that my directorial decision was in fact to focus on the individual performances? It is a complete fabrication of my thoughts and words, and I am offended that my input was so disregarded. His claim about my "decision" is, in the purest definition of the word, libel.

To conclude, I do not wish this letter to be simply a disgruntled response to a mixed review, although I am sure many will interpret it as such. The Campus, and anyone else for that matter, is more than within its rights to publish negative and/or "muddled" comments about a theatrical production. My aim is not in the least to limit the freedom of the press to sugar-coated comments. However, it does not seem right in my mind to publish an article in which facts have not been checked, in which paraphrased quotes have been implanted in people's mouths, and in which interviews have not taken place.

I implore Mr. Lawless and his editors to take more care in the future before they express under-researched opinions about something that was by no means "a quick assembly."