tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36864475.post6972860596592975595..comments2023-07-02T05:14:05.375-04:00Comments on The Clyde Fitch Report: Moxie the Maven Gets it Right and Wrong (and Right?)Leonard Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14736316792887920991noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36864475.post-24259692976370727372007-11-19T12:18:00.000-05:002007-11-19T12:18:00.000-05:00Hi Leonard!Though I dedfinitely indulge in grouchy...Hi Leonard!<BR/><BR/>Though I dedfinitely indulge in grouchyness and petulance pretty regularly on my blog, I didn't intend to decry the fact that Theresa Rebeck's plays aren't challenging the form. I did say, by the way, that there were exceptions to that rule, but that's not the point.<BR/><BR/>I don't think all theater has to challenge the form to be worthy, but I agree with Baitz that it would be nice if the Time would be a *bit* more supportive of plays that push the envelope. Obviously, Rebeck's style isn't that, which is fine. I mentioned in my post that I really liked Bad Dates, which was basically 90 minutes of Julie White gabbing about men who are jerks - not explosive, innovative theater, but great fun. I don't think everything has to innovate or radicalize, not at all, and my post doesn't say that.<BR/><BR/>What I took issue with was Theresa hopping on board the persecuted playwright train, when the truth is that she got a negative review because her play wasn't so hot (in my opinion). Thanks to Isaac for further articulating this in his comment above.Moxiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11643545507270140458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36864475.post-25139597082838249452007-11-17T21:45:00.000-05:002007-11-17T21:45:00.000-05:00I remember Walter Kerr rather well, and you, sir, ...I remember Walter Kerr rather well, and you, sir, are the prisoner of a verbal machine. I would have thought we were "on the same side", which actually, we are -- you just don't realize it. And you seem to have given a lot of thought to this, which perhaps is flattering, but reveals a slew of predjudices mingled with..oh never mind. But go ahead and talk about 13 year old profiles -<BR/>my point to Isherwood was simply that as smart as he is, there is a measure of venom which seems to me somewhat -- well - I shrug about it. Anyway, it was the timing of his piece also, and his apparent lack of understanding about the results of the WGA strike on many struggling writers. I know it's useless to respond to these things, but exactly what is it about reminding a critic from the paper of record to be mindful is offensive to you? It seems churlish . <BR/>And again -- I would ask you to identify exactly where I claim to be one of the Times "victims"????<BR/>I make no such claim. I am all for being slammed, but at least slam me for what I do write. As for Rich, he championed a lot of people, and he was cruel too. But I never had the sense that he was enduring a tenure as critic -- that's my point. Wow. JRBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36864475.post-75430589465529762222007-11-17T16:51:00.000-05:002007-11-17T16:51:00.000-05:00Thanks, Isaac. I guess I didn't really read it tha...Thanks, Isaac. I guess I didn't really read it that way -- nor do I think Rebeck's work is boring. If anything, I just think it's too facile, especially her endings. But that said, I can see what you're saying about Moxie's interpretation of, and attitude toward, what Rebeck posted.<BR/><BR/>All of which, of course, isn't the main subject here, Baitz is.<BR/><BR/>But I appreciate the alternative viewpoint, as always, sir. :-)Leonard Jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14736316792887920991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36864475.post-77664426130003363312007-11-17T15:46:00.000-05:002007-11-17T15:46:00.000-05:00Hey Leonard,Interesting stuff... I think you might...Hey Leonard,<BR/><BR/>Interesting stuff... I think you might be misunderstanding Moxie's point about Rebeck, or rather how that point sits in the midst of a broader conversation about New Work. What Moxie was saying (as I read it, anyway) was that the main issue she (and, I might add, many bloggers including myself) have with the Times is their hostility to less conventional writing, as evidenced by Isherwood's absolute condescention to new writing as evidenced by almost every not-Thom-Pain review he's written about a new play that stretches the form.<BR/><BR/>Rebeck was claiming that for her own work quite explicitly, saying that the Times criticizes you for some new rule of dramaturgy that they just made up that day. Which is a valid criticism of the TImes. But that's <I>not why the Times criticizes Rebeck's work</I>. The Times criticized Mauritius for the same reason I criticized The Scene. It's boring, it feels like it's been done before a thousand times (and better!) by other writers etc. Which is different from the Terrible Twosome's habit of making up bogus rules so they can criticize new work for not living up to their highly conventional taste.<BR/><BR/>I think Moxie was pointing out that difference, <I>not</I> saying that everything <I>must radicalize.</I> If that makes sense.isaac butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07815094790605298884noreply@blogger.com