Why Patronize ‘Affair’s’ Patrons?

Don Shirley’s review of my play “A Love Affair” (Calendar, Nov. 8) brings up the question: What does a playwright do when he feels he’s gotten an unfair review? He kvetches, naturally. But also, if he’s given a forum, he reviews the reviewer. Everyone knows a stage review is only one person’s opinion. However, when it appears in the Los Angeles Times, it becomes a very important opinion.

Based on his review, one only can surmise that Shirley rode into Santa Monica Playhouse on Nov. 3, toting his pencil and pad, with an obvious attitude . . . an attitude not only toward the play, but toward the people lining up to see it.

The opening salvo of Shirley’s review was, “Santa Monica Playhouse’s more middle-aged audiences can always count on a few chuckles from a new Jerry Mayer comedy.”

I can understand a reviewer’s arrogance toward a playwright’s work, but why patronize a completely innocent “middle-aged audience,” as Shirley refers to them? In the first place, Santa Monica Playhouse’s audiences are not exclusively middle-aged. There is always a healthy number of yuppies in their 20s, 30s and 40s, as well as some post middle-agers in their 70s and 80s. Often we even get a few teen-agers and pre-teens.

But let’s concentrate on “middle-aged audiences.” Since snobbism is not easily disguised, even when masquerading as an “evenhanded” review, it seems clear that Shirley felt that middle-agers are much less knowledgeable and theater-wise than he is.

This attitude seems puzzling, because Shirley, from all appearances, seems to be struggling through middle age himself.

One more word about middle-agers: They are undeniably the backbone of America’s theatergoing public. Shirley had better pray that middle-agers continue to enthusiastically support theater, or he’ll be out of a job.

As for Shirley’s review of “A Love Affair,” I will accept the fact that my play was not his cup of tea, but I will not accept a comment like, “Mayer’s treatment of TV’s younger producers and his own corporeal frailties is wryly amusing, which is all that Mayer ever aims for.”

How pompous of Shirley to feel he knows my aims better than I do. That would be the same as my saying of his “aims,” “Shirley continues to judge the plays of others rather than write plays himself, because this is all Shirley ever aims for.”

My last complaint is Shirley’s unpardonable dishonesty of omission. On the night he saw “A Love Affair,” he neglected to mention that the members of the audience all around him were thoroughly enjoying themselves.

He deceptively dismissed the audience reactions as “titters” and “chuckles,” when he knows full well they should have been described as “hearty laughs” and “enthusiastic guffaws,” as well as silence from time to time as the audience was moved by the “touches of reality,” “enjoyable story” and “superb acting.”

These last quotes are from audience comment cards praising the play.

Please feel free to have Shirley contact these satisfied theatergoers and inquire if they are middle-aged.