Friday, November 16, 2007

Theresa Rebeck's response to Jon Robin Baitz on the HuffPo

Several bloggers are discussing Jon Robin Baitz's excellent piece in The Huffington Post. The piece goes a long way in explaining why it's so hard for playwrights nowadays, why they go to television and film, and why nobody lets Chuck Isherwood sit at their lunch table. It's definitely a must-read, and you should certainly check it out.

BUT I'm interested in a response in the comments. A mysterious commenter named only "Rebeck" (who could it be?) responded:

HILARIOUS. your posting cheered me right up, Robbie. it has never been clear to me why they get so mad when we make a little money from the big old evil TV machine. would it be better for our craft if we jus sat around in crummy overpriced New York studios, worried about how we were going to pay the rent?

my experience has been it helps to have a little money in your pocket, when the New York Times whacks you on the head because of some utterly inane new rule they've come up with as an excuse to dismiss your play. Ben Brantley suddenly decides he likes David Mamet and uses his review of my play to express this fact? Oh brother. Maybe I should dip into my savings and go to Italy for a few days...
Theresa Rebeck's response is interesting, but also sadly unsurprising. She obviously has a point about how it helps to actually get paid, but her mention of the critical response to Mauritius is whiny and embarassing. It's one thing when Brantley and Isherwood carelessly eviscerate work that deserves at least a little respect, but Brantley's review of Mauritius didn't read as a discovery that he likes Mamet - more like an acknowledgement that Rebeck's play (as many, many others said) is just like American Buffalo - only less interesting.

Frankly, I find it difficult to place Rebeck in the same category as those playwrights who would really benefit from a bit more kindness from the critics. With a very few exceptions, her plays aren't really challenging the form. Don't get me wrong, she's written plays I've enjoyed, particularly Bad Dates. But Theresa Rebeck is not.. oh, Will Eno, Adam Rapp, Adam Bock, or the many other playwrights whose work sometimes gets trashed because they're taking risks, and that makes people uncomfortable. Nobody is calling Theresa Rebeck a hipster from Williamsburg in their reviews.

3 comments:

brookLyn gaL said...

It is sad that the Times reviewers have so much power. It's so upsetting how much people listen to them (and always have!)... I don't know why people can't make up their own minds. If I want a review to help me figure out whether or not I should see a show, I ask a friend who I know has similar tastes to me. I don't read the opinions of old, crabby men who think they can do it better than the pros.

Adam said...

I don't think Mauritius was much like American Buffalo. Or rather, only on a very superficial level.

Doesn't Isherwood love Will Eno?

Moxie said...

I thought it was enough like American Buffalo to warrant the comparison, and more importantly, I thought it was a boring, mediocre play.

Yup, Isherwood raved about Eno's Thom Pain. I just mention Eno as one of the playwrights whose style is very different than Theresa Rebeck.