Wall Street Journal writer admits to leaving most shows at intermission...- Page 3

[LarryD2]

Posted: 12/8/14 at 7:40pm

Banning her from O&M's shows is not enough.

I would like to see her fired from the Wall Street Journal.

Yes, let's fire everyone with whom we disagree! Let's especially fire opinion columnists for writing about their opinions!

[Starship]

Posted: 12/8/14 at 7:45pm

How do you review a show without watching the show?

[LarryD2]

Posted: 12/8/14 at 7:46pm

Joanne Kaufman does not review theater. She is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal who writes broadly about the arts.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/8/14 at 10:41pm

Hopefully a former columnist who used to write broadly about the arts until she showed the readers of the Journal what a world-class entitled beeyotch she was, at which point she was told to go write broadly about the arts somewhere else and with no free tickets.

We don't wish everyone we disagree with to be fired. On the contrary, we applaud the freedom of intelligent and credentialed theater critics to be critical.

But this nasty piece of work just took free tickets and laughed in the face of everyone who struggles to work and pay bills and have some money left over to buy tickets to theater--why? Because we love it. We love good plays and bad. We love the effort involved on the part of theater professionals to create something that will move or enlighten or entertain us.

We love actors and playwrights and directors and designers and dancers and choreographers and musicians and technicians.

We love going to the theater. We go hoping it will be good. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes our hearts are broken. But we keep going. Why Because WE LOVE IT.

So when this smug entitled idiot is stupid enough to brag in a column, laughing at our love and sneering in our faces, squatting and peeing on what we hold dear...

Yeah. We hope the bitch gets fired.

Updated On: 12/8/14 at 10:41 PM

[LarryD2]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 5:59am

You basically spent way more words than necessary to say, once again, "I don't agree with what she wrote, so I want her fired." And I guess you're using the royal we to give your opinion some extra weight and make it seem like your representing a coalition or something? In reality, it just makes you sound pretentious.

Updated On: 12/9/14 at 05:59 AM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 6:15am

There's really nothing to "disagree" with. The woman is routinely given free tickets to shows and she doesn't have the decency to stay through the end. If she's that disinterested in theater, she should stop accepting the freebies.

No one is attacking her for not liking Kinky Boots, Matilda, It's Only A Play, Boeing Boeing or any of the other shows she mentions. She's being taken to task for not bothering to stay for all of them.



Updated On: 12/9/14 at 06:15 AM

[tazber]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 6:34am

How can someone write broadly about the arts if they don't bother to see said arts?

I could care less whether she gets free tickets or not. But I can't ever take anything she writes seriously again.

The Journal is far to reputable a paper to publish any more of her columns.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 6:42am

"A woman who writes broadly about the arts." Where's James Thurber (or Joan Rivers) when you need him?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 8:32am

I don't disagree with her. I dislike her.

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 8:50am

When free tickets are given to critics, reporters, etc the tickets are given in the hope that the attendee will write a review/article to provide publicity but is it a requirement?

Are tickets distributed to a standard list or does a phone call precede the tickets arriving to make sure the person will in fact attend, is interested in attending, etc?

Of course if they continue to not show up eventually they will be taken off the list.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 8:59am

There's really nothing to "disagree" with. The woman is routinely given free tickets to shows and she doesn't have them decency to stay through the end. If she's that disinterested in theater, she should stop accepting the freebies.

No one is attacking her for not liking Kinky Boots, Matilda, It's Only A Play, or Boeing Boeing. She's being taken to task for not bothering to stay for all of them.

This. There's no opinion to attack because she doesn't--and isn't qualified to--present one about theater shows except that she doesn't like theater itself. Kaufman's article is more akin to a restaurant critic writing about how much he hates the restaurant industry and bragging that he never tips.

(Poor analogy, but I can't think of anything better at this hour.)

Updated On: 12/9/14 at 08:59 AM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 9:21am

"When free tickets are given to critics, reporters, etc the tickets are given in the hope that the attendee will write a review/article to provide publicity but is it a requirement?

Are tickets distributed to a standard list or does a phone call precede the tickets arriving to make sure the person will in fact attend, is interested in attending, etc? "

Is this rhetorical or are you actually asking?
No, it is not a requirement that they write something. As for distribution, an email is sent out to everyone on the list with dates, and you respond via email to RSVP and choose a date.

[LarryD2]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 9:50am

I don't disagree with her. I dislike her.

All right. I'll rephrase. "I dislike her, so I want her fired." Would that the world worked that way...

I'd also venture to guess that most people who are impugning her credibility, calling her a hack, and demanding that she be fired have probably not read a single word she's written aside from this column. Updated On: 12/9/14 at 09:50 AM

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 10:01am

My question to you, Larry:

What would reading a word of anything besides this column be worth at this point, even were that true?

I don't care if she's the greatest writer since Mark Twain. We place trust in a critic's opinion because they saw the show and made an evaluation. They maintain what little semblance of trust they have these days from the theater-going public because it is their job to watch and judge theater. Whether rightly or wrongly, they are considered to have some expertise, and the professional thing to do would be to watch the entirety of the piece you are reviewing.

If she isn't seeing the whole show, free ticket or not, her evaluation isn't worth the news-rag it's printed on, even if that rag happens to be the Wall Street Journal. They aren't sending her a free ticket because they like her writing. They're sending her a free ticket because it's common courtesy to comp the ticket of someone evaluating your show. If the recipient of said ticket is abusing the privilege by not attending the full show, and then proceeding to write about it, they should not be surprised, nor should anyone else, by the loss of that privilege, especially after writing an article with no small amount of braggadocio on the subject of their free-loading.

Updated On: 12/9/14 at 10:01 AM

[tazber]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 10:10am

The company who was sending her free tickets should send her a 1099.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 10:23am

As someone who dreams of getting invitations to write about Broadway shows (and has been blacklisted by one company for writing a negative review of a show they invited me to review), I can safely say this woman disgusts me. She is not a theater critic. However, she has undermined her credibility by bragging about how she doesn't bother to see most of the shows she's comped on all the way through. What else does she skip out on without fully experiencing?

This isn't a case of disagreeing with someone's opinion. This is a case of a writer bragging about why they halfass the job they have and people expecting some level of accountability.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 10:35am

This isn't a case of disagreeing with someone's opinion. This is a case of a writer bragging about why they halfass the job they have and people expecting some level of accountability.

Well-said!

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 10:52am

I like Rick Miramontez' response.

https://www.playbill.com/news/article/theatrical-press-agent-blacklists-wall-street-journal-critic-joanne-kaufman-who-bolts-from-broadway-shows-336868

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 10:57am

Just to clarify... and I am not defending this vile piece of trash... she is not a theater critic. She is an arts & culture columnist. She never reviewed shows and I'm baffled as to why they authorized her for press passes/free tickets in the first place. Good riddance to her!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 11:36am

And I guess you're using the royal we to give your opinion some extra weight and make it seem like your representing a coalition or something? In reality, it just makes you sound pretentious.

Moi? Prétentieux?

[Kad]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 11:50am

Culture writers are often given comps to these shows, with the hopes they'll write about them (glowingly) in their columns. It's not all about "official" reviews anymore.

[Brick]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 11:57am

Rick Miramontez' response is perfect and I'm disgusted WSJ wouldn't print it.

But at least she has been put out of her misery of sitting through his free shows.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 12:20pm

Curious, Larry: What about this loathsome creature makes you want to defend her? Is she your mother or something? Short of filial obligation, I can't imagine any other reason to like her.

I've been reading Joanne Kaufman for years and I've never understood why the Journal keeps her on. Her book and music reviews are undistinguished, even when they're raves. (About one of my favorite jazz singers, Stacey Kent, she said "She has charm to burn, a smile that could give you hope in February and sings like nobody's business"--I always thought that was [1] an odd thing to say about charm, [2] Stacey Kent is better than the werirdly unexciting "hope in February" and (3) "nobody's business" is a dull cliche not worth writing.)

Frequently, her columns leave me scratching my head, wondering, "Doesn't this woman know ANYTHING about the subject?"

A few months ago, she did a "profile" about Elizabeth Ashley, who is playing the Grand Duchess Olga in You Can't Take it With You, a part that was played to glorious effect by Anne Francine and then Colleen Dewhurst in the Jason Robards revival and Mildred Natwick in the Art Carney/Jean Stapleton version.

Yet Kaufman spends the ENTIRE column wondering why Elizabeth Ashley would accept such a small role, never once understanding how a gem-like role like that is a wonderful job for an older actress...as well as a delight for the audience! This is dum-dum Kaufman's opening paragraph.

When I read that Elizabeth Ashley had signed on to play the Grand Duchess Olga in a Broadway revival of George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart's durable 1936 comedy "You Can't Take It With You"—currently in previews, it opens Sept. 28—I was briefly stymied. I thought I knew the play pretty well (in case you don't, it's about a slightly batty Depression-era New York family), but I couldn't place the duchess.

Now we know why she didn't remember the role: BITCH NEVER STAYS FOR THE LAST ACT!

Why do you defend her?

Updated On: 12/9/14 at 12:20 PM

[LarryD2]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 12:34pm

Curious, Larry: What about this loathsome creature makes you want to defend her? Is she your mother or something? Short of filial obligation, I can't imagine any other reason to like her.

The reaction to her column around these parts, and the calls for her dismissal, are almost comical. She's an opinion writer. She's paid to have opinions. Her editor is probably loving that her column is getting this much attention.

I would call for a columnist's dismissal if they repeatedly espoused inexcusable views in print: racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. The fact that a writer has a tendency to leave Broadway shows at intermission is so far down on the list of what I'd consider a termination-worthy offense that it actually wouldn't even make the list. Will she find her name taken off some press lists? Yes, and perhaps she had that coming. Should she be sacked? I wouldn't, if I was her editor.

I read three newspapers faithfully every day. If I thought every writer with whom I routinely disagree or dislike deserved to be fired, there wouldn't be a lot left to read. And I would hardly say I'm "defending" Kaufman. I'm just stating my opinion, which differs from yours. I don't have to like her to think she doesn't deserve termination for doing her job.

Updated On: 12/9/14 at 12:34 PM

[tazber]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 12:37pm

But...AGAIN...how can she have an opinion if she doesn't bother to see/hear/experience what she's writing about.

It's like posters on here who post "reviews" about shows they haven't seen.

And she has just as much credibility.