Abe Goldfarb vs A.C. Douglas
Claire McIntosh
European culture, and is also amusing as you have one pushy and
obnoxious Jew - A.C. Douglas - advocating "tradition" in opera
stagings, and another - Abe Goldfarb - furious over the idea that Jews
should trash goy culture at every opportunity. It's Jew vs. Jew. And
very nasty and personal. Very instructive!
Farb's Flophouse: A.C. Douglas
by your humble critic, Abe Goldfarb
http://parabasis.typepad.com/blog/2005/11/farbs_flophouse.html
November 04, 2005
Through what a tangled web we slog when first we put our thoughts to
blog. Having recently viewed the blog of Mr. A.C. Douglas, and in
particular his post regarding Mr. Isaac Butler’s thoughts on
directing, I should like very much to request that he stop. For while
it is all very well and good to sound a siren call for a return to
standards in theatrical presentation, and while it is all very well
indeed to proclaim the opinions of the traditionalist, I think that
Mr. Douglas’s blog reveals him as a false advertiser.
Oh, how his fingers must dance over the keyboard as he delightedly
taps out his rhapsodies of bile. Oh, how his head must swim,
drunkenly, as he recounts the dreadful shortcomings of all who are
unfortunate enough to oppose him (but from whom he curiously invites
no direct response, not being kind enough to offer a comments section;
still, what do the sort of lowbrow troglodytes who post on blogs know
anyway? Oh, wait…). Oh, how the fiendish little imp must sweat as he
attempts to weasel out of actually responding to the valid points his
opposition occasionally springs. Why, the very thought of how it must
feel to actually be A.C. Douglas, lone beacon in a world of simpletons
and frauds, is almost too terrible to contemplate, so I shall leave it
to the good man himself.
Dash it all, the agony, though! Besieged on all sides by “post-modern”
fools, who think that the experience of art can possibly be
subjective! Stabbed at by shameless apes who think that popular
culture holds any aesthetic value! And a matinee movie ticket costs
$8.00!!! Take heart, Mr. Douglas, for we are brothers beneath the
skin, truly. I too believe that there are aesthetic litmus tests for
any work of art, that frequently something just is or isn't good. I
know you think yourself alone, but you are not. Why, A.C., I think,
in a way...I might have loved you.
But.
How a man who enjoys watching Friends more than once a day could
possibly denigrate the cultural taste of a Star Wars fan is a question
for a wilier critic than I. How that man could categorize Curb Your
Enthusiasm and The Sopranos as “simpleton-appealing, unimportant,
eminently disposable” pop trash or call Batman Begins a “putative
kiddie flick” is baffling. How a man with, by his own admission, no
special liking of theater could consider himself qualified to comment
on the creative process therein is a question that, frankly, makes my
head hurt, and I refuse to think on it any longer. No, no, analysis is
useless in the face of such iron-clad anti-logic.
I shan’t attempt much comment on his taste for music in general and
opera in particular, as he seems eminently well-versed, but I am sad
to report that he comes somewhat unstuck when he presents himself as
an expert on things he knows nothing about. Surely, the good Doctor
Douglas doesn’t think that the special effects in Citizen Kane are
undetectable. No, he couldn’t, and I shall take his smugness upon
declaring them so as a joke. After all, anyone who cannot spot the
difference between the painting of a house and a house itself is
either an infant or someone who has not seen an awful lot of films.
Nevertheless, a quick lesson in theater for Mr. Douglas: if one cannot
draw the distinction between a “play” (something that people go and
watch in a theater with a lighting rig, a playing area, seats, four
walls and a ceiling) and a “script” (words on a page that become a
“play” when people “play” them) then one should, frankly, get stuffed.
I’d love to draw a point by point analysis of his latest post, calling
attention to how he misrepresented the good Mr. Butler, but really,
that’s it. That is the extent of his misunderstanding, and he milks it
for a few hundred words, decontextualizing and misrepresenting without
shame (or perhaps he was just being “post-modern”), concluding that
the be-all-end-all of a theatrical presentation must be the most
faithful possible rendition of the words on the page. As a man who
doesn’t have a taste for theater, I think he has a lot to teach us.
Nothing fancy, no sudden moves, just, you know, say it. And hands off
of his opera, too! Experimental directors get the worst of his wrath.
Just plonk people on stage and let him listen! Don’t get creative,
I’ve heard it burns. Art, according to Mr. Douglas, should conform
entirely to his expectations. Discovery is for the living. He leaves
us with a sweet coda. I quote: “Not a palatable view of the matter in
this postmodern era, I know. But, then, since the rise of equalitarian
democracies elitist views have never been very palatable, have they.”
A.C. Douglas is clearly advertising falsely. He is no elitist, and no
classicist, but a Douglasist. The OED has no definition for this word
as yet, but I shall suggest one: “a priggish, misrepresentative
blowhard with too much time on his hands who mistakes his own
whimsical fancies for the general standard.”
Still, I am a professional, and will refrain from making matters
personal. Which makes me feel a lot better.