Tl; dr.

Another aggrieved post from Frizzelle about his readership... Aren't people who read the Stranger and have opinions just the worst?

Review theater however you want. This isn't exactly "concern-trolling" though -- that's more like, when people fill up your mentions to be condescending under the false pretenses of being "worried" about you. Happens often re: microhousing, body autonomy, mental illness, etc.

SMACK DOWN. Great job, Christopher! Spot on.

@3 - correct. Concern trolling would be: "Based on this precedent, I'm worried someone might leave a Cherdonna performance early and write about it! Isn't he thinking about the effect this might have on Cherdonna?"

@4 - agreed! Keep it up, Frizzy!

If I couldn't walk out on plays I've already formed an opinion on in the first half, I would stop going to plays in Seattle. I'm somewhere around a 90% intermission walkout rate in this city.

The issue is less about leaving at intermission (all but the most devoted local theater nerds have done it or at least thought really hard about doing it) and more the lazy tone of the review. You didn't like the narrative style of the adaptation (despite the fact that nearly all of Book It's shows are the same way), and it was so offensive that you couldn't be bothered to attempt to analyze anything else - valiant acting efforts, the set, the direction, etc. You think Kiley's been doing this for a decade and didn't have to sit through some piles of shit? The only difference is that he made an attempt to engage with it - give credit where it was due, explain where it went wrong and place the performance in context of Seattle theater. He didn't lead with clickbaity (you want a definition, Frizzelle? Leading a theater review with "I WALKED OUT AT INTERMISSION" is about as good as you can get) headlines before flippantly panning something.

Ever notice Frizzelle spends a great deal of time lecturing readers?

Goddammit, Stranger.

*I* was the first Stranger critic to walk out of a show and then write about it--albeit under my real name--long before the turn of the century.

It was a Jacobean drama--I forget which one--at Pilgrim Center for the Arts.

And I can't believe you've forgotten already.

I think it's a miracle more people don't get up and walk out during plays. Why wait for intermission?

I think N.W. Barcus was first, Matt.

Oh, wait. I guess this is my real name, isn't it?

Getting confused with my Facebook account.

Damn it.

I never do anything first.

This is bizarrely juvenile. No one takes issue with your "telling it like it is" honesty (because you're just that real, man); whether we agree with you or not, trust that anyone in the arts world could throw a rock in any direction and hit some chest-pounder singing the praises of his/her authenticity. I don't imagine anyone who's been doing this for any time even takes much exception to a negative review; not only have many of us gotten a number of them over the years, but most of us have gotten both good and bad reviews from different publications for the same shows, and while some may chalk that up to "dishonesty" on someone's part, it may be that, once all that's measurably is measured, there's still some piece of "good/bad" that can't be objectively quantified.

I think, for your purposes, you might consider not to using the words "reviewer" and "critic" interchangeably. If a reviewer's job is solely to tell the audience how to spend their money via a basic (and fundamentally false) "thumbs up/thumbs down" dichotomy, then, if we want arts criticism to have any worth, then we have to have another category of arts writers/writing.

I think the estimable Omar Willey makes a better case for what a critic is actually for here than I could in an amount of space that would actually be read here.

As defined - correctly, I think - in that article, a critic's job can't really be done with only half the available information (give or take) at hand. A reviewer ... well, sure, if your goal is to give yourself an easy job. That is the American dream, I guess.

I'm a theatre artist and I leave at intermission if the show doesn't hold me. To be honest, you didn't even review the first half of the play. You panned a style in relationship to its source literature. Like so many before you, the review was more about you than the production. Your excuse for not reviewing the acting or direction or anything else falls flimsy and flat. Lazy, really lazy. Over time, previous reviewers: Brendan, Charles, figured out that it's possible to write a negative review without being insulting. Grow up a little bit.

I once had an editor who took me to task for leaving at the intermission of a "comedy" sketch show, and writing about it in my review.

My review went something like this, as bad as the earlier sketches were, they were nothing to compare with tthe horror of "The child-molesting Santa Claus bit [which] had two theater reviewers looking longingly at the back doors, hoping they weren't locked."

And on to say that when the doors were thrown open, we bolted to the nearest bar to throw down a number of stiff drinks, vowing never to return.

My editor tried to chastise me, but I kept repeating, "Child. Molesting. Santa Claus," until he let it go.

This reads like Frizzelle is concern trolling about concern trolls. aka, the critic can't take criticism. Or maybe it's just solipsistic click bait.
Regardless, you seem to have pretty thin skin for someone who is extremely cavalier about printing snarky, haughty judgements of other people.

I think I've been convinced! I only had to read as far as "a bunch of people I've never heard of," before I knew I was done. I feel confident in stating, unequivocally, that you are an antagonistic, obnoxious, self-important tool. Now I'm off to eat an appetizer, skip out on the check, and then slam the restaurant on Yelp!

Please note that a great number of these 'concern trolls' that Frizzelle has 'never heard of' are actual active members of the Seattle theatre community, rightfully upset at the utter disrespect shown towards them and their work by Frizzelle's self-aggrandizing 'review' and again by this article completely dismissing their offense out of hand. People aren't upset because you walked out at intermission; people are upset because you walked out at intermission then wrote a one-person circle-jerk of a 'review' where you gave more space to your own clickbait-y opinion on walking out at intermission than the actual production in question. Instead of criticizing the adaptation, which is fully within your right as a reviewer, and also acknowledging the work of the cast, crew and director of the show, you tried to be edgy and, I don't know, daring or something by admitting that you skipped out on half of the show. Please just don't review theatre. Just stop.

One douche compliments another, Estey to Frizzelle. You know douches, those who can't do, review.

I only needed to read half of the previous review to determine it was crap. The title and byline were enough to convince me that this article was as well.

GETS PAID TO REVIEW THEATRE. DIDN'T LIKE THE FIRST ACT.

DID HIS JOB ANYWA - Oh. Wait.

Nevermind.

@23 lol, well put

So, Christopher Frizzelle, I'm your mechanic. You bring your car to m and hime to, say, have the transmission rebuilt.

I take your money.

Then, halfway through, I realize that your car is a piece of shit. It's ludicrous, how poorly you've maintained it. So I stop.

And I tell everyone how great I am for proclaiming to the world that your car is a piece of shit and I am too important to finish fixing it.

But hey, a whole bunch of mechanics who've worked at the same shop, through the years, have also stopped work on customers' cars halfway through! So it's okay!

I've left a theatre performance only one time, at ACT about 15 years ago when they had this one-woman act, and she was basically spouting bumper-stickers, and we were supposed to think they were profound, I suppose, because she was a woman, and a woman of color. It was a total put-on.

I have the same philosophical issue with books: I'm compelled to finish them in order to be allowed to dislike them, and I do this 99% of the time.

But that ACT thing was just unbearable. Thanks for having the courage to tell the truth.

We can't edit our comments???

"You bring your car to m and hime to, say, have the transmission rebuilt."

=

"You bring your car to me to, say, have the transmission rebuilt."

There's a fascinating post on this at the Facebook group Seattle Theater Artists. It's basically a giant circle jerk of theater people telling each other how great they are and how immature Frizzelle is.

Guess how well they've taken an opposing and civilly stated viewpoint? Just guess.

Frizzelle's review and this childish defense of it is typical Seattle asshattery and a big reason why Seattle is not taken seriously nationally in the arts. One asshat brags about acting like a dick in a so-called review and when called out on it resorts to insults and more asshattery. Then he publicly whines about it in blog form and all his asshat friends come out of the asshat woodwork to defend him. Fucking pathetic.

"AnActualArtist" -- ha ha ha ha ha! Oh god, LOVE it. How special.

There he is, Estey, the biggest asshat "writer" of all. You couldn't write your way out of a wet paper bag if you tried.

Wow, this is awesome! I've never been trolled before! Thank you!

@27

Small quibble: Frizzelle started this post off by characterizing everyone who disagrees with him as "a bunch of people I've never heard of," and implicitly irrelevant and unimportant. That comes off as just about the opposite of civil.

It's additionally a little troubling that Frizzellle seems very proud of all the people he doesn't know about and the theatrical productions he's never seen in their entirety. Typically, people who brag about their ignorance are viewed as provincial, narrow-minded, and dull--but I guess when you work for The Stranger, it's a mark of good taste.

Estey, you are a fucking thief.