To The Haters by Laurel Ferguson

While researching for my expository choice essay, I came across this old article written by a British guy who can only be described as a theater hater. This article is from 2000, and since theater evolves so frequently it’s important to acknowledge that Mr. John Freeman likely didn’t experience theater as we do when he wrote this article. Nevertheless, my response will include modern references because I'm writing it in a modern time.

Now, I understand that some people don’t like theater, and I get it, it’s not for everyone. I don’t consider myself a sports person - it’s all a matter of preference. But this guy took his detestation of theater to the next level. I don’t know who wronged him, but he wants theater gone. To him, its mere existence is so offensive that the only way to set the world right is for theater to be completely eradicated, actors to be unemployed, and theaters to be turned into “snooker halls or massage parlours.” I was actually confused about the tone of the article for a while, mistaking it for satire at first, but it seems that Mr. Freeman takes this topic very seriously.

So, in honor of our English unit dedicated to reading plays and learning about performing arts in ancient Greece, I’m here to respond to a few of his points.  As a Theater Kid, I have endless things to say about this article, but I will try to keep this blog post short enough to stand.


“[Theatre] has lingered as long as it has through a class consciousness that places live performance above television and cinema, as if the mere act of attending a theatre event provides some form of necessary cultural medicine.”

• No one’s placing theater above film. One is not better or worse, they’re just different.
• I'm not going to say that theater has never been romanticized, but for the most part, no one’s saying theater is necessary just like no one’s saying television is necessary. It’s just a form of entertainment - it's not that deep.

“We should refuse to sit and watch the same old masquerade, the same old plays, the same old actors. We need to kill the theatre off so that new performance can have room to grow.”

• You don’t have go to the same shows. Find something new! I can guarantee that anyone can find at least one show they’ve never heard of if they just look for one.  Additionally, pretty much all entertainment is dependent exclusively on consumer demand.  If people stop going to shows they don't like, they won't be able to stay open - the purpose of the show is to appeal to an audience.  You don't have to get rid of all theater because you're tired of some of the older shows.
• Humans are sentimental.  This is a fact that's being proven even now, as people our age freak out about the end of the decade they grew up in.  Nostalgia is a powerful emotion, and one that's attractive especially to older audiences.  So, just because you're bored of the same shows and actors doesn't mean that others shouldn't get to enjoy it.
• New kinds of performance are created through theater all the time: Hamilton is a hit rap musical about the founding fathers.  I'm also not sure how the cultivation of theater would inhibit the growth of other kinds of performance, but Freeman does not specify this in the article so I suppose we'll never know.

“We sip bottled water in internet cafés, eat Mexican food off wooden plates from Mozambique and make phone calls from aeroplanes. And yet who would think it from our theatre-fare? Who would think, from the theatre, that our world is anything other than an endless loop of dialogue, drawing rooms and denouement?”

• It's true that theater has been around for a long time and it can be considered a tradition.  But our society is based on tradition, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.  It's the reason so many of us celebrate Christmas or get married.
• Theater has been modernized. In fact, new shows open on Broadway every year.

"John Freeman is a senior lecturer in performing arts at De Montfort University."

• This excerpt comes from the author's credits at the end of the article.  For someone who is trying to seem like an expert, there is quite a lack of evidence (which is not derived from opinion) to back his argument. He doesn't even imply that he's speaking on behalf of anyone else - his whole argument is subjective to him.  And maybe the point of this article was just to get his own opinion out there, but I can't see this being a very convincing way to get people to side with him.

These are only a few of the arguments I pulled from the text, but feel free to check out the entire article as it truly gives the full experience (John Freeman's passion is exhilarating).  I had a lot of fun responding to this article, so I hope you enjoyed reading this blog post as much as I enjoyed writing it!