Commentary on Commentary: Charles Isherwood Strikes (Out) Again.
Ugh. I just read the most ridiculous short piece in the NYTimes Sunday Arts section. This is my summary:
In “Glass Ceiling Meets Sisterhood”, Isherwood finds another excuse to delight himself with being “clever” about topics he seems unable to acutely analyze. The topic at hand appears to be a light “compare and contrast” of Sex and the City (the movie) with Caryl Churchill’s Top Girls in a broader theme of women, female bonding and defining success – in a short, aimless fluffy piece. I wasn’t expecting an in-depth discussion, by any means, but this is like trying to discuss how Will and Grace and Angels in America work as depictions of modern gay men, and then throwing in broader ideas of the gay male experience – especially if you are a woman and don’t have any idea what it’s like to be a gay man. Yes… that’s how it reads to a woman, Charles Isherwood, that convoluted.
The experiences that audiences have and are intentionally given by a play like Top Girls and a film or show like Sex and the City are so completely different and successful in their own, incredibly unique ways. Even if he did get this, and he was trying to contrast the time periods for women (women in the Reagen-Thatcher Era to now), the characters or the way success for women is defined, his aim isn’t clear, the comparisons drawn don’t make any sense in relation to each other or cultural relevance.
One problem is that no real conclusions are drawn about what either piece really says about women, before, after or around the sweeping generalizations about girltalk and the measures of success. He has no thesis about his subjects as pieces of art, or the characters or woman in general, for that matter. Just a lot of dribble about all of the above, which buries his narrow description/depiction of Caryl Churchill herself in so much shit that I couldn’t even tell if I found it insulting or demeaning. Maybe I would be able to figure it out if I could get around the fact that after reading this, I’m not sure he’s ever really watched, read or paid attention to Top Girls and thought about the questions it raises, even if he seems to like it. And while I’ve never been a fan or follower of Sex and the City, he seems to miss the point of it entirely. From what I know, SATC excels at existing within it’s own style and not taking itself too seriously. It’s character-driven, not introspective. It’s smart and entertaining, but not meant to be challenging.
Bottom line: “Glass Ceiling Meets Sisterhood” is silly and direction-less and doesn’t provide any real substantiative opinions or analysis of the play or the movie in question. I can’t believe he gets paid to do this for a living.
Side note: I’m not sure why I ever expect better when I read anything he writes. This is the man that gave a positively glowing review to the worst musical I have ever experienced in my life. And I’m talking “took it self REALLY seriously” bad. It was so bad, that my brother and I exchanged panicked looks half-way through, when we simultaneously realized there was not going to be an intermission to carry out the identical escape plans we had been formulating since the end of the very first musical number. His review of it resulted in my uttering the worst criticism of a critic that I’ve ever thought, let alone said aloud… it was “Who exactly was fellating Charles Isherwood before, after or during that musical?” Poor taste apparently begets poor taste, in more ways than one.
Tags: Commentary, favorite-favorites, theatre