Oh boy. I think I mentioned that I'd been called by the Times because they'd gotten a disgruntled e-mail from someone about the LA Festival calling certain shows "new musicals" when a few of them have been around for fifteen years. I spent a long time on the phone with this woman, saying nothing but lovely things about the Festival, but ranting with my usual rant about the way musicals are done these days - with the endless readings, and workshops, and more readings, and more workshops, and productions and more readings (see elmore's post about Busker Alley - can you call THAT a new musical?) - my point being that there really aren't any new musicals in the sense that there used to be. I said you can't really call The Times a new musical when it's fifteen years old and then said "Truth in advertising." But the latter comment was in regards to the person who'd written the complaining e-mail and I basically meant that that was HER point, not mine. However, the article, which appears in tomorrow's paper, quotes one line from me, and it's right at the top of the article, and it makes it "seem" like I'm somehow criticizing the Festival - and I'm FURIOUS about it. The Festival people have already written me and are really angry with me, even though I've explained every step of the way what I said to this woman. As soon as she called me, I called the head of the Festival to alert her, and I told the reporter to call the head of the Festival. Everyone else comes off okay, but it's the placement of my quote and the fact that it's completely out of context from what I was talking about. I've already written a letter to the editor of the Times, but I'm afraid the damage has been done re me doing anything further with the Festival. I think the e-mail the head of the Festival sent me was disgusting - she should know better, because if I wanted to be critical of the Festival believe me I would not be shy. I have a hugely popular blog here.
