Comments on: 99 Enemies Of The Theatre

By: jacquetta

jacquetta — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:58:44 +0000

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.

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 11 May 2010 23:53:08 +0000

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

By: Addison DeWitt Would Not Be Amused : Bitter Lemons

Addison DeWitt Would Not Be Amused : Bitter Lemons — Mon, 10 May 2010 22:46:41 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Greg

Greg — Sun, 09 May 2010 09:55:33 +0000

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.”

By: Jonathan Redding

Jonathan Redding — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:47:19 +0000

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.

By: Addison Dewitt

Addison Dewitt — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:45:54 +0000

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.

By: Terry Stanley

Terry Stanley — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:51:53 +0000

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

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:16:25 +0000

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?

By: Addison DeWitt

Addison DeWitt — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 04:26:22 +0000

“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

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:47:30 +0000

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.