Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« For the Mad Bomber | Life Insurance for Pot Smokers »

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Baugh!: Episode 3

posted by on January 24 at 11:40 AM

I’ve received requests for one last installment in my Baugh! series on John Longenbaugh’s “theatre” column in the Seattle Weekly. I’m getting pretty sick of John emailing me half-baked rebuttals and refusing to let me post them on the Slog, so I’m going to try to be done after this.

Sentence: “When the Rep’s artistic director, David Esbjornsen, asked about ‘the protagonist’ in The Lady From Dubuque, [Edward] Albee responded, with feigned freshman innocence, ‘What is a protagonist?’”

Previously from John Longenbaugh:

As to all your other comments—whatever. I assumed that having someone fact-check my column each week is what the Weekly’s supposed to do, but if you want to donate the time, go for it.

I think you’re going to have to give up on the Weekly’s fact-checkers, John. It’s Esbjornson.

Previously from John Longenbaugh:

But rather than engage in any more button-pushing, I’ll just say that I’m just as glad that you’re out of theatre criticism as I am glad to be out of it myself. I would guess we’re both tempermentally unsuited to it.

Posted by: John Longenbaugh | October 27, 2006 04:59 PM

After I brought this comment up the first time, John emailed me to say his column was not going to be criticism and asked that I correct the record.

Well, based on this week’s column, I have to rescind my correction. What the fuck is this, John, if it’s not criticism? You’re talking about the play, for the most part, not the production. But it’s certainly criticism. What’s happening? Have you found that you’re “tempermentally unsuited” to reporting theater news, too?

RSS icon Comments

1
“When the Rep’s artistic director, David Esbjornsen" ... It’s Esbjornson.

Are you serious?

Posted by magpies in a pottery bowl | January 24, 2007 11:45 AM
2
John then emailed me to say his column was not going to be criticism, and asked that I correct the record.

Where are The Stranger's fact-checkers on this one, sweetie?

Everyone knows that you do not put a comma in front of a dependent clause -- especially when it splits your subject!

Posted by magpies in a pottery bowl | January 24, 2007 11:51 AM
3

temperamentally

I swear the internets are going to kill my spelling and grammar.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 24, 2007 11:57 AM
4

Those would be copyeditors, not fact-checkers. This is a blog, not a newspaper. But thanks for the correction, sweetie. I'll take care of that right now.

Posted by annie | January 24, 2007 11:57 AM
5

blogs are not usually edited, and are not print material... but yeah, nit picking is boring.

no more baugh posts please. no one cares.

Posted by seattle98104 | January 24, 2007 11:58 AM
6

These posts would be great if read aloud by the Frye Apartments guy.

Posted by Jason | January 24, 2007 12:07 PM
7

The Stranger's childish feud with the Weekly is only amusing to Stranger employees.

Posted by Jeff | January 24, 2007 12:08 PM
8

A blog post about a typo in a competing free small-town weekly.

This is embarassing for you.

Individually, you Stranger staffers are very altruistic and self-righteous liberals, safe in your perch above Value Village. And I'm sure it's very exciting for some of you to badmouth the harmless folk at the Seattle Weekly, to get caught up in the Stranger spirit of animosity. All of the hasty new Stranger hires are, I'm sure, revelling in this opportunity to feel even better about themselves.

The only problem with your continuing attacks is simple - your paper is in shambles, internally and on newsstands every week. You have Mudede and Graves - that is literally it! Everything else is garbage.

That the two professional writers you have on staff are also two that rarely engage in your war of words should tell you something - maybe you all should just grow up.

Posted by Paint | January 24, 2007 12:09 PM
9

who requested additional installments in this pointless and spiteful series and how can we have them punished?

Posted by why why why | January 24, 2007 12:29 PM
10

What's with the Stranger today? Good God.

Posted by Gabriel | January 24, 2007 12:31 PM
11

Jeff @7 "childish feud"? Seriously, the Stranger hasn't pointed out nor taken advantage of all the true bullshit going on down there, and Annie is taking issue with Longenbaugh's content. That hardly constitutes "childish" or "feud".

Paint @8 "harmless folk at the Seattle Weekly." Heh. You said it, not me.

Posted by treacle | January 24, 2007 12:36 PM
12

I didn't realize The Stranger hired highschoolers. I love you guys, but put down the myspace and grow up. You write about a lot of great stuff, why would you bother with this sort of crap?

Posted by Ann | January 24, 2007 12:37 PM
13

Treacle, I'll let the other comments make my case.

Posted by Jeff | January 24, 2007 1:06 PM
14

"highschoolers"? I'm only 11.

Posted by Lindy | January 24, 2007 1:08 PM
15

Letting that 'crackhead posing as an intellectual' Longenbaugh write a feature article for their paper about the state of theatre sealed the Weekly's Irrelevant status.

Oh, and memo to Longebaugh: your article is 100% off base at best, and more likely 100% full of shit. Find a bridge and swan dive, plz.

Posted by Gomez | January 24, 2007 2:04 PM
16

"Temperamentally unsuited" isn't exactly how I'd put it.

There seems to be a prevailing opinion among the shrinking violets within Seattle's theatre community that any form of rampant, scathing criticism will inhibit their work from even being seen. I'm personally kind of conflicted about this. I mean, on one hand, if you don't have the guts to be criticized, then you shouldn't be producing a show in the first place. On the other, this "community" tends to romanticize themselves as casualties of the system. People who struggle daily to get their work seen outside of their safe, limited circles. There's something to be said this, I think. Fringe organizations tend to look at any sort press (particularly underground press) as a means to fill seats. And when it doesn't, or rather, when no one shows up, the tendency is to blame their one bad review rather than strive to do something better with their time. Let's face it. There is a LOT of BAD theatre in seattle. But often, I read your reviews (AND Longenbaugh's) screaming back at the page with a sense of teenage outrage. But while my response to *your* critiques tend more often than not provoked by legitimate responses to the work itself, Longenbaugh's vitriol reek merely of the grumbles of a failed playwright. And the fact that you're broadcasting these contentions at all makes the both of you both look like the idiot. Life is too short. Grow up.

-Reverend Foot

Posted by ReverendFoot | January 24, 2007 2:56 PM
17

^

|

|

|

|

Everything always looks smarter when it's in a single long paragraph.

Posted by magpies in a pottery bowl | January 24, 2007 3:30 PM
18

"I’ve received requests for one last installment in my Baugh! series"

Yeah, right.

I really don't think even your best friends understand your curious obsession with the goateed wonder, Annie. Please stop now.

Posted by J.R. | January 24, 2007 3:43 PM
19

Hi, RevFoot... while your point is valid, it doesn't change the fact that Longenbaugh's article is so full of shit it stinks all the way to Bellingham.

He blanket buried the entire city because of a handful of productions from mainstream companies that are all but disconnected from the local scene anyway. He clearly doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Posted by Gomez | January 24, 2007 4:01 PM
20

Just threshin' the Longen from the Baugh, it seems.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | January 24, 2007 4:58 PM
21

Firstly, I think it is terribly ironic that The Stranger is bashing on the Weekly’s lone theater article this week when it couldn’t be bothered to produce one of its own.
You are right ReverendFoot, fringe theater’s do seek out press and especially underground press but you seem to be implying that there is some other kind of press out there that Fringe theater’s can tap into. Perhaps the P-I’s and Times’ glossy spreads and exposes that captivate the imagination of every man, woman and child in King County? It is very true that if a theater’s marketing strategy is a review then they don’t in fact have a marketing strategy. Aside from purchased ad space (from fringe theater’s deep pockets) reviews are the only press a theater can hope to get (unless you are WET). Reviews have little effect on the box office, good or bad. However, the tendency for people to prefer to be flip and dismissive of theater in Seattle certainly does.

Like this entire post. Initially it was somewhat exciting that the two weeklies would have an on going public debate about theater in Seattle with a large reading audience. Instead, everyone is much more content to point out spelling errors and liberally use the word ‘suck’ so they can see their own name in print.

That is obviously how important theater is to people in Seattle. We are all fools to be involved at all. It is a quixotic attempt to engage the public artistically and intellectually. Ideas could be discussed, the value of theater could be debated, but surely that is asking too much. Yet we dogs will come skulking back to be dismissed again by whatever is fashionable at the time or defined by easy phrases that can be substituted for thought.

Posted by GDC | January 24, 2007 6:30 PM
22

Agreed with the stance that a good review should show a level a respect for the effort at hand, even if poorly executed. Also agreed both Wagner and BaughWaugh are capable of writing competent criticism and are equally capable of missing the point. (On a divergent ass-kissing note, Annie, I thought your review/interview of 'Babel' was superb.)

But I also find it unbelievable how sycophantic Seattle can be when it comes to the power its readers give their reviewers, and how far what gets printed influences - no - DETERMINES what ends up getting seen. But that isn't the reviewer's fault. It means that the readers are fucking lazy. And so I don't understand why they're fighting with each other when they should be fighting with the "shrinking violets" they've sent for slaughter.

Trevor

Posted by Aaron | January 24, 2007 10:57 PM
23

Trevor/Aaron:

(Someone is mixing their alter-egos, aren't they?)

Your assumption that Seattle readers, particularly the No-Shampoo variety that tend to constitute The Stranger might be right on. We're pretty much talking about the laziest motherfuckers on Earth. It doesn't change the fact that there is no other way for these productions to get listed other than to make fliers or post it on tpsonline.org, which is pretty much an incestuous gesture, since A) nobody actually READS fliers and B) the only people who frequent the tpsboard are other actors/playwrights/directors active in the fringe circles.

I'm not sure this has anything to do with this post. Although I should probably take responsibility for opening this can of oysters, I'm sure it warrants being discussed elsewhere.

Annie, we love you! (And we don't love you, we love to hate you. Which is just as lovely.)

Love like '68,

ReverendFoot

Posted by ReverendFoot | January 25, 2007 4:04 AM
24

GDC--

Not ironic, purposeful. I'm doing Baugh! because Brendan, our very competent theater news columnist, is out of town and can't compete with Longenbaugh directly. He'll be back shortly and I'll desist.

Trevor/Aaron: Are you the same person who sat on my lap at NWFF? The town can't be full of people who passionately adore my BABEL review. Can it?

Posted by annie | January 25, 2007 9:38 AM
25

Annie - fair enough. Although, and this touches on a disconnect between the theater community and 'the press', I would quibble at some of the theater stories that have little to do with theater. The spelling bee for instance.

On to the disconnect:
What does a spelling bee have to do with theater? As a theater person - nothing. As an average joe/audience member- everything, it is theater!
This is a problem that the theater community has. It is always a struggle to fill seats and we are desperate for any print that might get one person to come. So, like greedy children, we feel a certain ownership of this precious print commodity. But it’s not ours, nor are we its consumer, the print is for the reader and it is the job of the paper to write interesting things for the readers to read so that poor theaters will pay for ad space.

So really, I would love to see more Baugh! if it would be substantive (sort of like the last few entries of this thread). Although, it would help if there were better topics to discuss (applauding sets? Jesus Christ…what next, young actors putting on age make-up?) The stories that The Stranger does write about theater and theater happenings are a great boon for getting more people interested in seeing theater at all (be it spelling bees, opera or whatever). Reviews are, as Brendan observed once, largely for the actors and directors- however they can also be helpful for raising money ( ever thought of doing a star system?)

I wouldn’t encourage you to desist. I was sad to see you move to film, I always thought you to be very good critic. Most everyone else in the theater community didn’t but they are all babies who would prefer an Adcock book report to something scathing yet substantive (plus I don’t think you ever gave me a bad review).

What’s my point? Please keep talking about theater. It’s better to hated than ignored, though liked is best.

Posted by GDC | January 25, 2007 10:34 AM
26

Reading all these comments decrying Annie and The Stranger's alleged pettiness toward Longenbaugh feels sort of like listening to Bush complaining about the ungodly atmosphere of DC partisanship. Just because he's decided to start playing big boy now, let's not forget which pompous clown has pissed in the face of decency more than anybody else lately.

I want some damn accountability. Clearly and unfortunately that's not going to come from the Weekly's editors, so I'll take it where I can get it. I don't have a journalism degree, but I'm pretty sure you shouldn't get paid to write a big dumb article about the demise of theater in poor, naive Seattle when you don't actually see theater in Seattle. That's the opposite of integrity.

Oh, and merely calling oneself a grizzled veteran in print doesn't qualify his opinions. Even if he rephrases it slightly differently every week. That only works if you are on Fox News.

Posted by Matthew | January 25, 2007 6:36 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).