Dear Mr. Sulzberger, happy New Year,
re: Peter Handke's theater & your theater staff total fateful and telling innocence of his work. Your paper did not even acknowledge his receipt of the Ibsen Prizenor of the Muehlheim as the best German play
see https://handke-drama. blogspot.com/ for all of these and further drama references
There has been no mention of Handke mature dramas since
Alan Riding's uncomprehending 1994https://www.nytimes.com/1994/ 12/26/theater/the-drama- before-language-intervenes. html
or any of the great premieres in Germany or France. Of
your reviewer rabble -Neil Genzlinger, Elisabeth Vincentelli, Alexis Soloski, Susan Fales-Hill, Peter Libbey, Amanda Hess, Michael Paulson. Brantley, only Matt Wolf in his review of Handke director Klaus Peymann's Stuttgart KING LEAR production mentions that Handke did the translation of the Fool's songs, and thus the sorry lot
seem entirely innocent of Handke's work and have never addressed it at the Times or theirf previous hovels of employ.
And just look at the total incompetence of the literary critics who have murdered Handke's work in your pages
Best,
Michael Roloff
As a follow up to „Dear Mr. Sulzberger, happy New Year, re: Peter Handke's theater & your theater staff total fateful and telling innocence of his work = why the NY Times is such a miserable rag! https://artscritic.blogspot.com/2019/01/dear-mr-sulzberger-happy-new-year-re.html & https://artscritic.blogspot.com/2015/04/peter-handke-new-york-times-50-year.html
ReplyDeleteI want to note that
https://www.nytimes.com/section/arts
has become am approximation of celebrity rags like People
https://people.com/
& Us
https://www.usmagazine.com/
I quite understand, I think, the thinking behinds this now decade-long attempt to capture the attention span of the mostly entirely superficial to buy the NY Times and perhaps be induced into its superior political news coverage & I might even not object so violently if the serious side of the arts, as compared to its celebrity side, had not gone down the drain; especially in theater - film and dance and the visual arts still have serious reviewers, and a number of the book critics are not to be dismissed out of hand as are so many of the riffraff that populate the theater side - or is it what they are assigned to cover? Best to all, Michael Roloff