re: Thoughts on Carole Rothman and the NYT piece?
Posted by: Thom915 09:51 pm EDT 09/02/24
In reply to: Thoughts on Carole Rothman and the NYT piece? - portenopete 05:27 pm EDT 09/02/24

My impression is that she is a straight shooter and doesn't mince word.she is even honest about how she rubbed people the wrong way in order to get things done. Many times it is likely she could have done it in a nicer way but she didn't and the same can be said of Papp, Prince and other producers. I am certain that many others of the people she worked with speak highly of her. She did not define the theater as "no Brits, no Chekov, no classics" but as a theater dedicated to taking a second look at current plays which needed more widespread attention then later expanded it to include new work. The elimination of British plays, Chekov and classics did not hurt the company. I hardly find her defense of haimes, Meadows and Bishop to be overly defensive and I am impressed she put the others first. It is an explanation in her view of why she and the others stayed and were allowed to stay in the positions for so long. They did good work (yes I am aware it is not only that simple.) She is quite correct that it was extremely difficult to be a woman director or producer back in 1979 and on well into this century. It is somewhat easier now but plenty of challenges still remain. This may account for some of her abruptness in dealing with people and issues at the theater though it is as likely that her personality lent itself to dealing successfully with these issues in the time period when being a woman head of a theater company was such a struggle. I have enjoyed Second Stage Theater'sproduction and that is why I am renewing my subscription for this season.
reply

Previous: re: Thoughts on Carole Rothman and the NYT piece? - portenopete 10:34 am EDT 09/04/24
Next: re: Thoughts on Carole Rothman and the NYT piece? - Amiens 09:43 pm EDT 09/02/24
Thread:


    Time to render: 0.095515 seconds.