(no subject)
Due to the demands of my MFA program, as well as the extra work I've taken on of my own volition, in trying to produce The New Works Festival, I have been more than a little "out of the loop" lately.
I found myself with an hour or two of precious free time this morning, as I wait to strike, what I found to be another terribly uninteresting Stoppard script, and I stumbled upon the already outdated Guardian articles/banter (pissing contest might be more apropos) instigated by Neil Labute.
(and kudos to him for doing so)
I feel I should admit at this point that I have not always been Labute's biggest fan. I think of his work in much the same way I do Stephen King or John Grisham: formulaic, a bit fluffy, and overproduced.
(I mean come on, the guy writes another play every 3 months, it seems...)
Yet, I, and so many others, cannot help but appreciate his chutzpah, and for that, the cup of my admiration runneth over.
In the
original article Labute lambasts the American Theatre for its lack of social consciousness or globalized view, taking the easiest of stances on the, now all too familiar argument, that commercialization has gripped our local theatre scene to its core and wrung out little to nothing with any socio-political substance to it.
I couldn’t agree more.
(The points that got the most attention include calling writers “pussies” and theatre a “resilient little shit of an art form”.)
Yet, what strikes me (and others) as odd, is the target of his attack is aimed not at the producers of this little shit of an art form, nor the artistic directors for choosing such mediocre work, or even the hundreds of colleges around the US who do little to encourage gumption or experimentation in this medium; but rather the playwrights for not creating the raw material necessary to overcome this problem.
Thus, the (some may say tragic?) flaw in his argument is revealed.
Don’t get me wrong, I look up to David Hare and Tony Kushner as much as the next guy (ok maybe not as much as most, but still they have their place and merit), but there are literally thousands of playwrights in this country (most with scripts that contains more than a bit of substance to it) whose work is rarely produced; or if it is, it’s only produced on such a minor level as to illicit only mild interest or enthusiasm from a national audience. Really, what work is being produced outside NY city limits that receives any national or god forbid international attention?
When Labute praises the European scene for its in yer face theatre, or edgy playwrights I cannot help but wonder why we are surprised, when their countries have national funding which allows their theatres to take more risks than we, as Americans, are able to in our current economic climate and situation.
Again, I don’t want to be misunderstood: I cannot praise the man enough for publicizing a view of incredible importance as to the critical nature of our American theatre scene. Seriously, we’re on the same team here. What I don’t understand is why he would choose to attack the playwrights of this country rather than the other much more viable and guilty suspects.
George Hunka’s response, I found to be mildly valid, if not a bit egocentric. (and if you don’t already know, he publishes an incredible blog that is updated regularly with theatrical happenings and opinions) None the less, he makes some good points; though none of them really strike to the essence of Labute’s flawed argument. I get the impression he is more offended personally than critically and rationally responding to Labute’s valid argument.
However, Labute, with all of his resilience, comments back to Hunka, as well as others, and does so in a strikingly convincing manner. Once again, I have to say: chalk one more up as a win to Labute.
The two banter back and forth for the next few days, not only in Hunka’s response, but also in another response article posted by Naomi Wallace. (And if you don’t already know who she is, you probably wouldn’t have read this far anyway.) Though she defends the American playwright, she seems to do so only out of self interest or self preservation, adding little to the fight that has already ensued.
At the end of the day, what’s important is that Labute is right in a sense: The American Theatre Scene looks pretty bleak; especially, when one puts it up alongside that of the theatre of England or other European countries such as Germany, France, Czech, etc. Yet, I can’t help but think we’re comparing apples and oranges here and the real devastation isn’t being perpetrated by the artistic creators, but rather by the producers, artistic directors, and worst of all school teachers and administrators, who are terrified of taking the necessary risk in order to produce contemporary, relevant, and viable work with some substance to it. So who are the pussies in this resilient little shit of an art form, really?
I found myself with an hour or two of precious free time this morning, as I wait to strike, what I found to be another terribly uninteresting Stoppard script, and I stumbled upon the already outdated Guardian articles/banter (pissing contest might be more apropos) instigated by Neil Labute.
(and kudos to him for doing so)
I feel I should admit at this point that I have not always been Labute's biggest fan. I think of his work in much the same way I do Stephen King or John Grisham: formulaic, a bit fluffy, and overproduced.
(I mean come on, the guy writes another play every 3 months, it seems...)
Yet, I, and so many others, cannot help but appreciate his chutzpah, and for that, the cup of my admiration runneth over.
In the
original article Labute lambasts the American Theatre for its lack of social consciousness or globalized view, taking the easiest of stances on the, now all too familiar argument, that commercialization has gripped our local theatre scene to its core and wrung out little to nothing with any socio-political substance to it.
I couldn’t agree more.
(The points that got the most attention include calling writers “pussies” and theatre a “resilient little shit of an art form”.)
Yet, what strikes me (and others) as odd, is the target of his attack is aimed not at the producers of this little shit of an art form, nor the artistic directors for choosing such mediocre work, or even the hundreds of colleges around the US who do little to encourage gumption or experimentation in this medium; but rather the playwrights for not creating the raw material necessary to overcome this problem.
Thus, the (some may say tragic?) flaw in his argument is revealed.
Don’t get me wrong, I look up to David Hare and Tony Kushner as much as the next guy (ok maybe not as much as most, but still they have their place and merit), but there are literally thousands of playwrights in this country (most with scripts that contains more than a bit of substance to it) whose work is rarely produced; or if it is, it’s only produced on such a minor level as to illicit only mild interest or enthusiasm from a national audience. Really, what work is being produced outside NY city limits that receives any national or god forbid international attention?
When Labute praises the European scene for its in yer face theatre, or edgy playwrights I cannot help but wonder why we are surprised, when their countries have national funding which allows their theatres to take more risks than we, as Americans, are able to in our current economic climate and situation.
Again, I don’t want to be misunderstood: I cannot praise the man enough for publicizing a view of incredible importance as to the critical nature of our American theatre scene. Seriously, we’re on the same team here. What I don’t understand is why he would choose to attack the playwrights of this country rather than the other much more viable and guilty suspects.
George Hunka’s response, I found to be mildly valid, if not a bit egocentric. (and if you don’t already know, he publishes an incredible blog that is updated regularly with theatrical happenings and opinions) None the less, he makes some good points; though none of them really strike to the essence of Labute’s flawed argument. I get the impression he is more offended personally than critically and rationally responding to Labute’s valid argument.
However, Labute, with all of his resilience, comments back to Hunka, as well as others, and does so in a strikingly convincing manner. Once again, I have to say: chalk one more up as a win to Labute.
The two banter back and forth for the next few days, not only in Hunka’s response, but also in another response article posted by Naomi Wallace. (And if you don’t already know who she is, you probably wouldn’t have read this far anyway.) Though she defends the American playwright, she seems to do so only out of self interest or self preservation, adding little to the fight that has already ensued.
At the end of the day, what’s important is that Labute is right in a sense: The American Theatre Scene looks pretty bleak; especially, when one puts it up alongside that of the theatre of England or other European countries such as Germany, France, Czech, etc. Yet, I can’t help but think we’re comparing apples and oranges here and the real devastation isn’t being perpetrated by the artistic creators, but rather by the producers, artistic directors, and worst of all school teachers and administrators, who are terrified of taking the necessary risk in order to produce contemporary, relevant, and viable work with some substance to it. So who are the pussies in this resilient little shit of an art form, really?