HomeMy WebLinkAboutZurich Citizens News, 1976-11-24, Page 5Citizens News; November 24, 1976 -Page 5
Playhouse responds to London critic
On October 26 of this year,
drama critic Doug Bale of the
London Free Press reviewed the
first performance of the Country
Playhouse Young Player's
production of The Hide -And -Seek
Odyssey Of Madeline Gimple.
More than simply an unkind
review of the production, Mr.
Bale's article was a scathing
attack on the Playhouse and its
five-year history.
The Playhouse Board of
Trustees responded with an
appeal to The Ontario Press
Council. Many of the area's
newspapers carried the
Board'sletter, as well as
editorials supporting the
Playhouse. The Free Press
"Letters to the Editor" section
carried one or two letters from
outraged readers almost every
day.
Dozens of messages of support
have been received by the Play-
house from teachers, students,
members and supporters, and
from people who have simply
enjoyed Playhouse productions
in past seasons.
On November 12, Playhouse
Board Chairman William
Cochrane, Q.C., and two of the
Playhouse Trustees met with
Mr. William Heine, Free Press
Editor, for a thorough review of
the situation. Public reaction
continued to mount. Recently,
Doug Bale invited Managing
Director James Murphy for a
meeting which Playhouse
officials -hoped would clear the
air.
When Mr. Bale's second
article appeared November 20,
Mr. Murphy felt it was a gross
misrepresentation and distortion
of Playhouse artistic policy, and
in many ways, more damaging
than the original article. Mr,
Murphy has responded in the
following manner:
A Plea For Critical Honesty
In the controversy raging
around Doug Bale's vicious
attack upon the Playhouse (Oct.
26/76) and his subsequent
eagerness to exonerate himself
by sweeping the whole mess
under the carpet (Nov, 20-76),
one has to go back to square one
and question the original motive.
It is fantastic to believe that
all this could spring from our
children's production first day
out on tour. The amplifier
system failed, the van was late,
and the scenery would not fit in
the hall we were playing.
An explanation of these
technical difficulties and the fact
that we did not charge for the
first two performances did not
interest Doug Bale at all. He
came there looking for
ammunition and he found it.
What a convenient way to try
and wipe out a successful five
year history. In my opinion, it
was calculated cleverness to
attempt this during our off-
season when our theatre is
closed and people can't come to
judge for themselves. Doug Bale
wouldn't have dared to launch
such an attack during our
regular season. People simply
wouldn't have accepted it.
Why has he done this? If I
could for one minute believe it
has to do with obiective
criticism, I would have "swal-
lowed
lowed my medicine" and gone
about my work planning our
new season.
taut t cannot accept the idea
that five year's achievement can
be written off on the basis of one
children's play, however badly
we may have presented it on one
day of a four-week tour.
I've taken issue with this
because I'm convinced Doug
Bale has an axe to &rind and it
has little to do with critical
integrity. It is hard to believe
that a man who has ignored al112
plays we have done in our
children's department in the past
five years suddenly develops a
burning desire to see this one.
The fact is he has seen
precious little of our work. He
has reviewed fewer than ten of
our 55 productions to date. Of
these, he phoned in his reviews
before the shows ended
sometimes as early as first act
intermission.
With what authority then, does
Doug Bale evaluate our five year
achievement?
Quite to the contrary, I think
Doug Bale is less successful at
his job than we creat ours. For
one thing, it is impossible to
learn from Doug Bale's reviews.
Unlike the majority•of critics, he
only tells us we are bad or wrong
without telling us how to correct
or improve,
He confuses his role as drama
critic with that of ombudsman,
watching over the public purse.
He also oversteps his role as
critic by offering a gratuitous
service telling a random phone
(continued on page 7)
SCARED? NOT ME—Leo Masse of Zurich isn't going to watch the needle as he received his swine
flu vaccination at a clinic in the Grand Bend public school last week. The clinic was part of a pro-
gram to vaccinate residents in the Grand Bend area. Photo by McKinley
MR. AND MRS. RALPH GEIGER
The marriage -of Jill Elizabeth Drysdale and Ralph John Geiger was
solemnized by candlelight on November!, 1976 at the home of the
bride's parents, London Road, Hensall. Rev. D. R. Beck officiated. The
bride wore a floor length gown of egg shell chiffon and carried a
single yellow rose. Mary Margret attended her sister as junior
bridesmaid. Mr. Douglas Ford, Dashwood was groomsman. Mrs.
Geiger, Reg. N. is a recent graduate of Victoria campus, Fanshawe
College, London. The couple reside at RR 2 Zurich.
III
Friday,
Nov. 26
2:00 to 5:00
7:00 to 10:00
MR. AND MRS. BILL DEGROOT
Brenda Patricia Masse and William Joseph Degroot were married in
St. Boniface Roman Catholic Church, Zurich November 6, 1976. The
bride is the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Clare Masse, RR 3, Zurich and
Mr. and Mrs. Cornelius Degroot, RR 2, Zurich are parents of the
groom, Father A. Durand officiated. The Matron of Honour was Janet
Durand and bridesmaids were Elaine Beauchamp and Patsy
Denomme. Lori Masse was junior bridesmaid. Peter Degroot was the
best man and Ricky Masse and Philip Masse were groomsmen. The
junior groomsman was Richard Bedard and Danny and Kevin Masse
were ring bearers. Guests were ushered by Walter Vermont and
Michael Masse. After a wedding trip to Montreal and Niagara Falls,
the couple is residing at RR 2, Zurich. Photo by Haugh
A display of p1•tiery
and macrame
ops n
2:00 to 5:00
You are in
to E�
OPE
HOUSE
d
Kaaren Batten
64 Sanders St., W.
Exeter