Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post [1 cent]

I would appreciate comments on the following letter I am thinking about sending to the Post, following the review of "The Disputation" by Peter Marks, the Post's theater critic.

Dear Editor:

The recent highly negative review by Peter Marks of Theater J's production of Hayim Maccoby's fascinating play "The Disputation" (Thursday, September 8) was an insult to the play, to Theater J, to the cast, to the Washington theater public, and to your own newspaper. Were it not for the enormous influence of the Post, it would be laughable, particularly in that other reviews have all been glowing, and run is already virtually sold out.

But it highlights an enormous problem. Your employment of Marks in this important role has serious negative consequences for theater in Washington and, therefore, for the entire cultural life of the capital region. Marks' reviews are virtually universally negative. A quick comparison of his columns, with other reviews of the same productions, makes this clear.

What is the purpose of allowing such a bitter and fault finding critic to continue to poison the local theater scene in your newspaper? Obviously, a critic is supposed to be critical, but there is a significant difference between helpful, intellectual criticism, and the type of negativity which Marks purveys.

The chief theater critic of the region's major newspaper should be a positive force in helping Washington theaters survive. If he does not like a play, he should say so, but he should make it clear that some people may appreciate it more than he does, and that it is worth a night out to see. He should look for good performances, or good direction, or even a few good moments in a play he finds generally sub-par. He should commend theaters for their selection, their experimentation, their goals.

He does none of the above. His typical review is more likely: "I wish I stayed home and watched TV". Nothing could be more detrimental to the artistic and financial health of the theater community in Washington, or to the theater going habits of the region's residents.

Mr. Marks appears to have a personal agenda. I do not pretend to know what it is. Within the theater community, I do not think anyone takes him very seriously as a critic any more, but the increasingly bemoan his effect on their venues.

Low marks to Peter Marks. It is time for him to go.