The whistle blower

No one in Boston writes a more thoughtful rave, or a more stinging pan, than theater critic Thomas Garvey. Considering his reputation for expressing his opinions forcefully, ("I'm tough but fair," he demurs) some members of the Boston theater community may be sharpening their own poison pens now that Garvey is returning to directing. Zeitgeist Theater has found the perfect match for Garvey: The acidic satire Blowing Whistles, Matthew Todd's up-to-the-nanosecond comedy of gay manners. Garvey chats about the state of Boston theater, going up against two other gay plays, and importance of blowing whistles.

Q: I've read your stuff for years but I don't much about your background.
A: I came to Boston to go to M.I.T. about 25 years ago. My degree is in architecture. I was always interested in the arts, and I became very interested in theater when I joined the MIT Shakespeare Ensemble, which really shaped my MIT experience. While I was there I began directing, and I've directed probably 15 shows over the years. I ran my own company, New Boston Theatre, for a while in the late 80s, but that didn't work out very well. This was back in the bad old days. The whole theater scene here has completely transformed since then. I was always interested in classic texts, so this is the first contemporary gay play I've directed.

Q: You were the dramaturge on Zeitgeist's production of 'Valhalla'. How did you get involved with them?
A: Well, that's funny. As you know I used to be a critic at Bay Windows, and then I freelanced at the Globe for a while, and now I have my blog, The Hub Review. But I wanted to get back into theater, and since I'm not an "official" critic anymore I just approached David Miller. So he came to see that I knew what I was talking about - and some critics don't! - and after Valhalla was successful David asked me to direct something for 365 Plays, and then something for the Boston Theater Marathon. And then he asked me to direct Blowing Whistles.

Q: And obviously, you said yes. What drew you to the play?
A: It struck me immediately as very intense, funny and challenging to the gay community. It speaks to universal things about gay relationships and identity. It really doesn't pull punches. It's shocking. It might anger some people. I joked to David that it's almost a brief from the Romney administration on what's wrong with gay people. It's about a couple that's been together for 10 years, and they're struggling over the terms of their open relationship. I think the play is very realistic about where a lot of gay men end up in their committed relationships. The premise is that the founding principle of gay identity is our sexual freedom, and how that intersects with having committed relationships. This couple has found what they think is a compromise that works for them, but it begins to fray and fall apart when they connect with a young man - a boy, almost, he's 17 - who throws a lot of light on the contradictions of gay life today. So it's both very open about, and very critical of, gay sexual practices.

Q: It's a British play. Is there anything that doesn't translate well to the American gay experience?
A: Well, there's a Boston analog to everything they fight over. In London there's the Heath, here we have the Fens. We have Manhunt, they have Gaydar. People can relate to it very directly. But more importantly, I think this is part of the next wave of gay plays. Matthew Todd completely assumes that we have our rights and we don't have to justify ourselves. That's a new attitude in gay theater. This is way past the coming out stories. Now I'm not trying to diss Angels in America, because that's one of the great American plays. But plays like that and Little Dog Laughed are about our relationship with straight America, and this is about our relationship with ourselves, and how we define ourselves.

Q: So the straights and the gays will be equally offended.
A: [Laughs.] The second act is this long dark night of the soul, and a lot of political ideas are shredded. And I do think that will make people angry. But I also think that people will appreciate the honesty. But oddly enough, I don't think I've seen any gay play where I believed in the love of the central characters as much as I do of these two characters. That's a very interesting emotional angle. What the play is really advocating for is trust and honesty. I think Matthew Todd is moving towards a definition of gay pride that's based not just on sexual freedom, but on our trustworthy behavior. That should be the source of our pride.

Q: Sounds like you're not worried about opening opposite Speakeasy's production of 'Little Dog Laughed' and Boston Theatre Works's 'Angels in America'.
A: We're hella worried. Those are great plays and great companies. But we have the newer play and the hotter naked guys. But seriously, we hope people see all three shows.

Q: It's indicative of how healthy the Boston theater scene is, that we have three gay plays opening on one weekend.
A: Exactly. And Speakeasy is moving into the biggest space at the BCA. They used to be in the place that we're in now. Jason [Southerland, of Boston Theater Works] used to be in the Plaza theater, now he's in the Roberts Theater. Gay culture keeps moving up to larger venues in this city.

Q: It's funny that you mention hot naked guys, which is a clich? of gay theater.
A: The nudity is artistically justified, but of course it's a good thing to have. But it's also a very direct comment. I feel a little bad about objectifying the actor, but that is a very important part of the play, commenting on that aspect of gay culture. And that's what great about Zeitgeist, that they do want to push the envelope. Usually when a gay character takes off his clothes it's supposed to be a liberation, a moment of triumph. Here it's not so clear.

Q: This is making me think of the book 'After the Ball', which really lambasted gay culture. Needless to say, it was not well received.
A: I haven't read it, but ... Blowing Whistles is definitely a critique that comes from within our tribe. That's tricky territory. The critique is balanced, I think, by the very convincing depiction of gay love, and that they realize they need to center their lives on trust. Because a community can't exist without trust. I hope I'm not making the play sound like King Lear. It's not all sturm und drang. The first half is very funny. You think it's going to be a bitchy comedy and then it starts getting deeper.

Q: Speaking of critiques, how did you get into criticism?
A: Simple, I was out of a job. And I just called up Loren King, who was the Arts Editor at Bay Windows at the time, and she gave me a chance. I was there for about two years, and then I did some freelancing for the Globe. I didn't like it there much. I was too edgy for them, too direct and confrontational. So I was out, but I missed the free tickets! So I started my blog, and people have been very nice about it. I'm still struggling with what the role of my blog is. I sort of think of blogs as being oppositional in some ways...as critiquing [print media] and being an alternative voice. I know I'm an elitist snob. I don't advocate for the average guy or try to seduce people into going to stuff. I just try to talk at as high a level as I can, and sometimes that draws fire. I think I have some enemies in the critical community, so I'm very interested to see the response to Blowing Whistles. I do wonder if I'm in my critical bubble. I could probably use some humbling. You can put that in there.

Q: Everyone will think I made that up. But I think when you boil it down, what you are really advocating for is more criticism, and more thoughtful criticism, so hopefully that's not too extreme a message.
A: I just want the best man to win. I want the talented people to get more opportunities and to keep making more culture. So I'm not worried about reviewing shows while mine is up. And I think I'm a good critic of my own shows. I think Blowing Whistles is a great show, don't get me wrong, but I know what I think the weaker spots are. Those two sides, director and critic, are complementary. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I might write a response to the reviews of Blowing Whistles, after it closes.

Q: I always find your comments on other critics very interesting.
A: I think that most of the critics could be better than they're allowed to be. They aren't given enough space, some groups are taken more seriously, and there's a relentless focus on how things will play to the suburbs. I feel the major press organs are resistant to the transformation of Boston into a major theater town. The whole model of Boston as a touring city for Broadway has fallen apart, and I think that model was closely connected to the power structures of the city's media.

Q: Sure, that was where the reliable ad dollars were.
A: Exactly. So the city's media aren't that hot about the theater district being in the South End now, and all these little companies moving forward. You don't feel the support that the MFA and the BSO or the ART get as a matter of course. And if Boston is going to make that transition into the next Chicago, we need that support. This is why I think the ART is over praised. Considering the money and resources they have, they just aren't doing enough. Meanwhile the Huntington Theatre has been a real leader in transforming the Boston theater scene, and they don't get enough credit for that.

Q: Do you think Boston critics are giving enough support?
A: Well, I once heard Bill Marx complaining about how critics have been getting less space and having less influence. The odd thing is that as that has happened, Boston theatre has been blossoming! The other strange thing is that a lot of critics in this town are journalists. They're not theatre people or arts people. And I can tell when I read the reviews. They're good at explaining why they liked something, but they're not good at analyzing what went wrong. I think I have insight into that from doing theatre. Imagine if I started writing about the Red Sox. People wouldn't stand for it because I wouldn't know what I was talking about.

Q: So who do you think is doing a good job?
A: Well Carolyn Clay is very smart and writes beautifully, but she's not really an advocate. Ed Siegel really transformed the critical community just by being nicer. Twenty years ago the critics were much nastier. And all the critics have contributed to that, and are smart and good writers, but I can't think of anyone who's doing everything right. But maybe that's impossible. I just wish we had more people acting as advocates for the serious and challenging. Of course, Brian Jewell at Bay Windows is fantastic.

Q: Too little too late, mister.
A: I actually have to read more of your stuff. I need to make more of an effort to pick up Bay Windows.

Q: That's okay, I'm a little afraid to have you read my stuff.
A: I'll be nice. Especially this week.

'Blowing Whistles' plays Thurs. and Fri. at 8 p.m., Sat. at 4 and 8 p.m., and Sun. at 3 p.m. through Feb. 9 at The Boston Center for the Arts, 539 Tremont St., Boston. Tickets $35. For reservations and info, visit www.bostontheatrescene.com or call 617.933.8600. Keep up with Thom's take on Boston culture at www. hubreview.blogspot.com.