CollisionWorks

But it is, as Berit has now put it, "douchebaggery of the highest water," and there are certain things up with which I shall not put. And the continued mentions in other NYC theatre blogs sent me back to force myself to read the horror again. In full. Dammit.

For it seems that, according to the second-string New York Times theatre critic, with most of Broadway on strike, there is little-to-nothing left of interest on the stages of NYC, and certainly no such thing as Off-Off-Broadway. Why don't you watch Friday Night Lights on TV instead, or for real theatre, the crowds at Trader Joe's?

Jesus fuck a bagpipe.

Now, I have been more and more happy with the Times's theatre coverage in recent years - they have been covering OOB more and more and more. I've not been a fan of Isherwood's writing, for most of the reasons usually brought up in the blogs, but I thought people were overreacting to him, and that he was just one facet of a richer group of voices at the Times that were doing better and better work in covering a wider spectrum on NYC theatre. Yes, I know, there's plenty that is worthwhile and uncovered (BELIEVE me, I know), but they're doing a better job -- I can certainly remember years and years where NOTHING below Off-Broadway level was ever mentioned, even in passing.

I was lucky enough to finally get a show of mine reviewed in the Times this year after ten years and 54 shows designed and directed in NYC - I've been mentioned here and there in articles, quoted a couple of times, but finally a review. I was also made aware that the review happened because the (freelance) reviewer - who pays attention to OOB and is on my company's mailing list - was particularly excited by the concept of my show and got an editor at the paper excited as well.

Charles Isherwood's little exegesis on the state of theatre in the city with the strike on, printed under a "theatre" heading by a "theatre critic," and basically saying, "well, there's some theatre left in the worthwhile houses, but why bother with any theatre at all?" removes much of the good will I've been feeling for the Times of late. Actually, maybe just about all of it.

I am, however, vaguely and bitterly amused by his use of "Addison DeWitt" as a pop cultural touchstone to describe himself and his fellow critics, DeWitt being the complete SOB of a theatre critic (brilliantly played by that glorious bastard George Sanders) in All About Eve. I know there aren't many theatre critics as characters in drama, and probably far fewer portrayed sympathetically, but should Isherwood really want to compare himself and his fellows to a noted fictional scumbag, even in jest?

The fairest, fullest, and most reasoned response on the blogs has been, as usual, from Isaac Butler at Parabasis, who sends an open letter to the Times regarding Mr. Isherwood. It has also provoked various and altogether appropriate levels of snark, anger, disbelief, obscenity, and outright rage from (thus far) Matthew Freeman, Adam Szymkowicz, John Clancy, Jamie at Surplus, and Moxie the Maven, whose headline, "What the fuck, Chuck?" is my favorite pithy summary of the matter thus far. Berit thinks that from now on Mr. Isherwood should be known as "What-The-Fuck-Chuck" or WTFC for short (but, hopefully, not for long).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to trying to cast and build some apparently non-existent and non-worthwhile shows . . .