Theresa Rebeck's response to Jon Robin Baitz on the HuffPo

Several bloggers are discussing Jon Robin Baitz's excellent piece in The Huffington Post. The piece goes a long way in explaining why it's so hard for playwrights nowadays, why they go to television and film, and why nobody lets Chuck Isherwood sit at their lunch table. It's definitely a must-read, and you should certainly check it out.

BUT I'm interested in a response in the comments. A mysterious commenter named only "Rebeck" (who could it be?) responded:

HILARIOUS. your posting cheered me right up, Robbie. it has never been clear to me why they get so mad when we make a little money from the big old evil TV machine. would it be better for our craft if we jus sat around in crummy overpriced New York studios, worried about how we were going to pay the rent?

my experience has been it helps to have a little money in your pocket, when the New York Times whacks you on the head because of some utterly inane new rule they've come up with as an excuse to dismiss your play. Ben Brantley suddenly decides he likes David Mamet and uses his review of my play to express this fact? Oh brother. Maybe I should dip into my savings and go to Italy for a few days...

Theresa Rebeck's response is interesting, but also sadly unsurprising. She obviously has a point about how it helps to actually get paid, but her mention of the critical response to Mauritius is whiny and embarassing. It's one thing when Brantley and Isherwood carelessly eviscerate work that deserves at least a little respect, but Brantley's review of Mauritius didn't read as a discovery that he likes Mamet - more like an acknowledgement that Rebeck's play (as many, many others said) is just like American Buffalo - only less interesting.

Frankly, I find it difficult to place Rebeck in the same category as those playwrights who would really benefit from a bit more kindness from the critics. With a very few exceptions, her plays aren't really challenging the form. Don't get me wrong, she's written plays I've enjoyed, particularly Bad Dates. But Theresa Rebeck is not.. oh, Will Eno, Adam Rapp, Adam Bock, or the many other playwrights whose work sometimes gets trashed because they're taking risks, and that makes people uncomfortable. Nobody is calling Theresa Rebeck a hipster from Williamsburg in their reviews.

Why I hated Mauritius

A whole lot of reasons.

But something's been bugging me since I saw it a few weeks ago, and I finally put my finger on it. (If you don't want spoilers, don't read on.) The whole play is supposed to hinge on our hero, Jackie (Alison Pill), right? She's the one who seems like a "lamb", but really is all feisty and smart and maybe a little out of control but STRONG and take-no-prisoners, right?

So WHY is it Dennis (Bobby Cannavale), the sly, attractive charmer, who resolves the drama into a happy ending? Why does it have to be Dennis who steals the inverted Jenny stamp, and offers to whisk her away to the land of infinite margaritas? All this yelling and screaming and fighting for two hours, only to have Jackie proven incapable of getting her due, and then have her rescued by an unlikely, outer-borough prince charming? I'm sorry, fuck that! It just sucks.

The Scene also left me with this feeling, like women everywhere were being put down, but in such a under-the-radar way that it was difficult to pinpoint. But now that I'm rethinking it, The Scene resolved with Tony Shaloub's life having been ruined by an sexy evil vixen, and Patty Heaton's character getting rescued by Chris Evan Welch. Does Theresa Rebeck hate women, or just think we can't take care of ourselves? Hard to imagine that of the playwright responsible for Bad Dates. But then again, that play resolved in Mr. Right finally coming along. And it really sucks that the only female playwright represented on Broadway this season can't do better.

What gives, Rebeck? You got some splanin to do.