I Just Don't Get It

Are George and I the only two people who care about Pinter's retirement?

Today in the New York Times: a one paragraph article in the theater news section basically recycling the same quote that everyone is using as to why Pinter has retired from playwriting.

Today in any of the arts blogs that I read (Excepting Superfluities): nothing. Not even from Terry Teachout or Steven Oxman, and they're theater critics!

I would say that the cultural consensus would back me up on saying this: Pinter was by far superior in talent and influence to his dear friend Arthur Miller. I don't mean this to defame a dead man; Pinter's quality work stretches his entire career, Miller (if you accept that his early work was "great" a thesis I would debate) burned brightly and faded fast (compare, for example, Ashes to Ashes and Broken Glass). Pinter created a new way of writing, Miller took an old way of writing and applied it to the middle class. Pinter's influence can be seen in such American Greats as Mamet and Shepard. Miller? Part of a movement that has a kind of general background influence on most writers of naturalism.

And yet... nothing. Does he have to die? Is it because he hasn't had a new play on since 2000? Is it because he remains in the public eye? I'd say its because we don't trust artist retirement, but we fall for it every 16 months when Cher claims to be going on a final tour.

Miller dies, Pinter retires, Albee can't get his plays produced in NYC and August Wilson's latest play flops. We should be talking about what is happening with the passing of the elder generation. Where is the torch being passed? Does the torch burn brightly enough to continue? What are the influences of these writers and what does it mean that they are, essentially, passing on?

What about the next generation? The generation of John Guare and Lanford Wilson? What about the younger generation of Kushner et al.? We are watching the great dissolve before our eyes, and someone more important than me should be writing about it. A lot.

UPDATE George Hunka has more (thanks for the smoke up my ass!), meanwhile Terry writes about movie quotes, the Times reviews Stephen Adly Guirgis' new play, Noah feels shamed (don't beat yourself up, buddy), still nothing from steven... but he doesn't post every day, and technorati will helpfully chronicle the lack of attention on this subject. Hopefully, I'll post a little more about why Pinter matters over the next couple of days.

Comments

[Noah]

Pure ignorance on my part. I'm just not adequately familiar with his work. I know BETRAYAL and a one-act called NIGHT. Otherwise ...

I know. This is a big, embarassing gap in my knowledge. Sadly, there are so many of those.

[Elliott]

Now, I'm no theatre expert by far. And I don't know Pinter's works. But the industry is in an artistic recession. No one cares about the plays any more and it's a sad sad thing. They all go for the uppity musicals and the horrid excuse for a show the jukebox musical. The average person doesn't want art anymore, they want a happy go lucky, possibly good show, but none the less doesn't teach much. People don't want to think they want everything handed to them on a silver platter.

I may be wrong, and all this complaining may be because I'm a teenager who still has a ways to go in the world of Theatre. But that's what I see.