A TREATISE NAILED TO THE DOORS OF THE AMERICAN THEATRE
(in no particular order)
By Addison DeWitt
- An under-educated audience.
- A passionless existence lived by artists who must, by nature, lead the masses away from a passionless existence.
- Political correctness of any kind for any reason.
- Believing that the director is always right.
- Pulled punches.
- Fear of offending someone.
- Pulled punches for fear of offending someone.
- Fear.
- Convincing oneself or others that it is worth going into debt to get a degree in theatre in a market where the number of available jobs is minuscule, the actual education is questionable
- Prioritizing contacts over work.
- A shaky belief that you know better than others.
- The American standard of beauty.
- Blind casting.
- Dilettantes in authoritative positions.
- The system.
- The buddy system.
- Working the system.
- Granting institutions.
- Bureaucratic artistic organizations that claim they are supporting smaller (fringe) theatres by throwing a giant schmooze-fest once a year when there are clearly more hats than feathers (Festivals).
- Lazy American writers.
- A slave mentality.
- Teachers who lord comparatively little knowledge over less-knowing minds and charge too much to boot, but by all indications seem to have been able to justify it to themselves somehow.
- The “powerless” actor who has been convinced over the years that anybody in authority over them knows better and if they ask a question or question a note then they will not only not be right but will probably be wrong and WHAT THEN?
- Director/teacher/professors who tell actors they’re wrong.
- Actors who smile at important people because it’s stupid not to.
- Name-dropping.
- Name-throwing.
- Gossip.
- Rumor.
- Self-indulgence.
- Artistic Directors who throw money at problems.
- Lack of vision.
- TV theatre.
- Theatre companies whose mission statement is held in higher regard than the art form.
- Not understanding the script.
- Believing that the stage is the only place theatre happens.
- The pathetically small number of actors who understand acting beyond merely being seen onstage.
- The pathetically large number of talented female actors who see the few well-written female roles going to less Patriarch-threatening female counterparts who then fail to embody the role.
- Those same talented female actors who then giggle ravenously over their peers’ failed attempts, while smiling openly to their faces and visibly supporting them after opening because the director’s at the same party.
- People who “don’t care how they do it in New York”.
- Space holders who should just be in real estate.
- Directors who won’t admit they don’t know.
- Illiterate critics.
- Using “fringe” as an excuse for tacky.
- The Actor/Model.
- Ed McMahone for inventing the Actor/Model.
- Agents and casting directors who embrace the concept of the Actor/Model.
- Type casting.
- Gratuitous against-type-casting casting.
- Line-counting.
- Racists.
- Homophobes.
- Misogynists.
- Unions that serve the working 2% and keep work from 98% of their rank and file while denying they are doing it.
- Thin skin.
- Romantic notions of fame and glory.
- Believing you need more than a platform and a passion.
- Believing you can do it with less.
- Fear of saying “no”.
- Always saying “yes”.
- Disclaimers on posters.
- Generic interpretations and choices.
- Non-handicapped accessible 501(c)3 organizations.
- Theatresports.
- Believers of what they hear.
- Artists who waste other artists’ time.
- Co-directing.
- Non-communicative production teams.
- Artistic Directors who always cast themselves after the sham of holding “open” auditions.
- Believing somebody else has the answers.
- Believing you don’t.
- Actors who hate their face and/or body.
- The people who taught them to.
- Rooms with no magic, that will never have magic, that still are in use for the express purpose of making magic.
- Authors who pose as members of the opposite sex so they can write about that gender.
- The reverse sexism that encourages that.
- Cute bios.
- Separatism.
- Knee-jerk reactionism.
- Gratuitous anything.
- S.P.E.L.L.I.N.G. I.T. O.U.T.
- Assuming that simply because no one understands you you must be an artist.
- Grant/Festival applications that ask for a tape of a theatrical piece rather than taking the time to read the play.
- Treating Shakespeare as anything more than the extraordinary playwright he was.
- Doing a show without a stage manager.
- Unstructured rehearsals.
- Choosing a season with more than one eye on the box office.
- Fear of controversy.
- Cluttered, unclear press releases.
- Supplying answers to the audience rather than questions.
- Having to work any other job.
- Not having a dream to lose sight of.
- Refusing to alter your vision.
- A High School teacher I knew who threw in a sword fight for two students the night before they opened YOU CAN’T TAKE IT WITH YOU.
- Confusing stage acting and film acting.
- Schadenfreude.
- Drinking or doing drugs on stage.
- Stand-up comedy.
- Anyone who believes they’re not in here somewhere.
![[title of show] at the Celebration Theatre](http://www.latheatrereview.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/1500_NpAdvHover.jpg)
[...] new site LA Theatre Reviewhas a funny and sometimes poignant “99 Enemies of Theatre” list posted by Addison [...]
Mr. “DeWitt” - Not sure I should even pay any attention to what you have to say when you’re hiding behind the name of a fictional character. Didn’t you think someone would notice? Are you the same guy who writes all those awful reviews? Is that another made up name?
Dear… Max, is it?
Harumph.
Color me stunned that you managed to recognize the character name under which I have chosen to write, but also managed, somehow, to not piece together the why or the wherefore of its utilization. It is becoming rampantly evident that wit, irony, analytical skills and humor have all gone the way of Dodo. So, let me spell it out for you.
It is ironic, intentional, and not a little amusing to use this name.
You see, Max, all big cities are actually small towns. They are filled with the same small minds and massive egos that make the smaller burbs swelteringly oppressive. Big city dwellers convince themselves that since they live in a large metropolitan area, and ply their various trades in a clamoring atmosphere of pot-melting influences and cultures, they are automatically immune to small town thinking and judgement. And, as a result, believe themselves to be automatically cosmopolitan and forward-thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth. Especially in the miniscule world of small theatre.
I am a known commodity in the theatre world. People know me and pretend they don’t. Others don’t but pretend they do. The majority embrace me while still others avoid me when I walk down the street. Either way, my opinions are usually either welcomed without any counter arguement whatsover, or dismissed like so much dishwater. Neither is appropriate. The individual’s reaction tends to depend solely on one’s ever-changing opinion of me, and/or my work, and/or my reputation, and/or the mealy gossip of the day.
When approached to write for this new internet site, I agreed heartily but made it clear that my contributions of all thoughts theatrical would be, for the sake of clearer communication, written under a nom de plume. A “pen name” for the lay(wo)men. And so it is. As I have longed for the days when an Addison DeWitt would return to the stage pages, having labored heavily under the sodden pens of lesser writers for years, I have chosen in admiration, in homage, and with tongue firmly planted in my cheek, to fill that void myself. If not now, when? If not me, then whom, indeed?
My writings here will be free of any other person’s opinion. The voice one hears as one reads my words will be untarnished by any founded or unfounded opinions one has of my person or personality. I hope you take my words to heart and know that I, like Addison DeWitt himself, care for, dream of, dwell in, fight for and cherish nothing but the theatre. And all it can and should be.
My column is mine and no one else’s. And I don’t write reviews. I leave that to Mr. Hoff and the others.
Yours drippingly,
Addison DeWitt
DeWitt,
You’re kidding, right? I mean, this is all a joke, right? If not, you are the most ridiculous person I’ve read online. And this is the internet I’m talking about. Full of ridiculous people. Don’t be such a baby and a coward. If you care so much to make change then stand up, speak loud and make a change. Aren’t you railing against fear? (#8) But this entire endeavor seems to be awfully self-indulgent (#30)
And seriously, if you actually care and are actually a person people know to some degree you seem even more cowardly. Speak up already.
“Ryan”,
Ahem. On what, exactly, are you basing your assumption that what I’m writing or not writing is a result of some kind of “fear”? (#8) Reading again my response to “Max” I’m hard-pressed to find any mention of my being frightened of anything or anyone. Perhaps I misread myself. Would you more clearly point out the boots in which I am, apparently, shaking? Or are you displaying symptoms of number 20?
I clearly state my justified reasons for anonymity: “When approached to write for this new internet site, I agreed heartily but made it clear that my contributions of all thoughts theatrical would be, for the sake of clearer communication, written under a nom de plume.” For the “sake of clearer communication”. This, so that those who might know me professionally but not care for my work practices, for example, might be able to read my words without the fog of personal abhoration clouding their eyes. I don’t believe I state that I am “afraid” I won’t be able to communicate. Or that I am “frightened” of what people might think or do. All this to say, “Ryan”, that you need to point out more clearly to me where I am exhibiting fear-based traits. Un tôt vous remercie.
As pertaining to my employment of number 30, self-indulgence, I confess to erring in that direction as a direct result of hoping to reflect the original Addison DeWitt’s writing style and theatrical panache. I confess. Guilty as charged. I do, however, point you further to rule number 99, of which I am, most confidently, not guilty. And never claimed to be.
Yours fancifully,
Addison DeWitt
A lot of uncomfortable truth here. I’ve come to believe that all theatre artists should strive toward that great ideal of addiction recovery: the development of a fearless moral inventory. Not that I’m innocent of the list entire, but anyone who hopes to create something beautiful onstage should probably give this a glance and ask themselves which of these apply to them, and more importantly, why.
But on one point I must disagree- Shakespeare was slightly more than an extraordinary poet or dramatist. He was an inventor- both literally in terms of language, of new words (he coined over 2000); and also in terms of the full breadth of human consciousness and internal life represented on the stage. As A.C. Bradley pointed out, the genius of Shakespeare’s greatest characters was their power to overhear themselves speaking, and to discover new portions of themselves in the process. Where would the art form be without his ferociously proleptic imagination?
Given the tongue in cheek approach , I cannot do anything but applaud these sentiments. Certainly the Theatre has nothing to fear but theatre itself but I wonder how effective Luther would have been had he nailed himself to the Wittenburg church door. While it is the truth in humor that make people laugh sometimes you have to stop joking to make a change.
Terry Stanley
Jonathan,
Would you marry me, please? Thank you. Then, one fine evening some years hence, over brandy and hot Moroccan coffee, we can discuss #84 and how Shakespeare might have reacted to some director’s setting “Midsummer Night’s Dream” in space. This “approach” is what I was trying, rather bumpily, I admit, to decry. I hang my head in shame at the slovenly worded thesis. Both your accuracy on calling out Shakespeare’s unequaled mastery of the theatrical arts and, by extension, his great comprehension of the human condition (both past and future) and the clarity with which you present it are not lost on me. Now, kiss me, you fool.
And Terry, I’m just not that funny.
Ah, I see. A murky question, the field of interpretation in a post-Peter Brook world. It’d say “unorthodox but still artistically valid” productions are exceedingly rare, whereas “gimmicky B.S.” or “hobbyist Shakespeare masturbation” is tragically common.
In other words, I agree with you. Still, it’s very difficult to execute Shakespeare well, even productions with some approximation of the optimum circumstances fail with a breathtaking regularity. All the more reason to keep trying.
I like this list. It’s fierce, smart, and probably 95% accurate. By the way, for those who seek to criticize anonymity, anonymity for purposes of job protection and to avoid author prejudging has a long & honorable history; I’d cite Publius, Primary Colors, atrios & digby, among others. In other words, deal with Mr. deWitt’s argument on its own terms. He has his reasons for being anonymous. (Those who think I’m sucking up can note my polite, but wordy, disagreement with Mr. DeWitt’s latest essay.)
“There are in general two types of theatrical producers. One has a great many wealthier friends who will risk a tax deductible loss. This type is interested in art. The other is one to whom each production means potential ruin or fortune. This type is out to make a buck.”
[...] while back (Feb. 2009) we highlighted another Addison DeWitt article entitled 99 Enemies to the Theatre. Funny piece, check it out if you can. What I’d like to discuss in this post, however, is [...]
I was diverted to this new site by a friend. God save us from the bloated egos of the pompous, self-appointed mavens of culture. Addison DeWitt? My God, seriously? That transparent conceit borders on the lunatic. It is apparent that these writings are the bitter work of the usual suspects - failed actors and unsuccessful writers - all desperate to educate us and thereby have us ultimately conform to their constricted outlooks. Please people, put these self-aggrandizing blogsite beasts to sleep before it’s too late. They should just stick to the facts: the who, what, when, where, etc.of theatregoing and leave the critiques to the paying patrons. Perhaps they could include a Yes, No, Maybe Meter registered by people who actually paid to see a production and need to voice an opinion for those who need to be told, but that should be it. Theater owners and producers, ferret out these sniveling creatures and make them pay full admission.Don’t allow yourselves to submit to the perceived power of such hacks as these, who invariably invoke their passion and desire to uphold standards as a defense, just to sell a few tickets. You might get a good review but you will eventually get burned and so will everyone else. At least you’ll all end up on the same level playing field. My advice to anyone interested in seeing live theater on an open evening would be to seize an idea, go with an open mind and take a chance. You’ll do just fine as your own critic and, rest assured, “word of mouth” is the truest way to theatrical failure or success. In the meantime you will have undergone a truer theatrical experience
Why is stand-up comedy an enemy? It’s not doing so well nowadays either and suffers from many of the issues you listed here. Just curious. The rest I understand.