Critic Missed Point of ‘Piece’

In the theater, one constantly hears after receiving a bad review, “Everyone has a right to their own opinion.” Yes, that’s true, but with theater critics one has the right to expect informed opinions. It is clear from Robert Koehler’s review of “The Chinese Chess Piece” (“ ‘Chinese Chess Piece’ a Banal Stick Game,” Sept. 10) that he is woefully uninformed.

As co-author (with May Sun) and director of “The Chinese Chess Piece,” it is very difficult for me to argue the merits of the production without appearing to sound like sour grapes. It would have been much easier to let others speak for

me. I wish I could have invited Koehler to talk to the majority of audience members, who made “Chinese Chess Piece” one of the most popular productions in the Los Angeles Festival, which is no small accomplishment for a so-called avant-garde performance piece created by local artists.

I was a little more than surprised at the wrong-headed perspective of the review. I can only gather that Koehler came to the performance space (a gymnasium) with preconceived notions of what he was going to see, and when he didn’t see what he wanted to see, he had no idea how to write about what he did see.

Much of the review is spent condemning the script as “banal,” “a stick game” and not much more than a history lesson. In fact, the form of the script is oral history . . . the characters tell their story simply and directly. What Koehler fails to add and, in fact, completely ignores, is what happens on stage. In performance art, what happens is as important as what is being said. They are inseparable. The oral history of the text is set against heightened physical action and almost surreal imagery, all taking place within the metaphoric backdrop of the Chinese chess game, which he so casually dismisses.

In fact, one of my favorite comments from the audience came from a Chinese man who happened to be a chess player. He complimented me on the chess moves in the piece and said that the precision of the moves within the context of the performance added enormous resonance and depth for him. However, one did not need to understand Chinese chess to appreciate the production. The Drama Review, one of America’s oldest and most distinguished theater journals, has approached us about publishing the script.

I must also address the insensitive comments about actress Beulah Quo. She not only gave an incandescent performance but also happens to be one of the most respected and admired Chinese-American actresses in the country. Her Anna May Wong certainly deserves better than snide remarks couched in off-handed parallels to the “Miss Saigon” controversy, which were so clumsily written that it took several readings to interpret what he meant. Quo’s career has been an inspiration to all Asian-American actors struggling against racism in the arts.

A recurring line in the section of “The Chinese Chess Piece” dealing with the life of Anna May Wong, the first Chinese-American movie star, is, “Nothing has changed.” How true.

I don’t expect everyone to like “The Chinese Chess Piece.” In fact, that would be a clear sign that May Sun and I failed to provoke thought and emotion. But I do expect critics to leave their baggage behind and to remain open to new theatrical journeys.