Andrew Klavan knows why The New York Times is suddenly sour on David Mamet’s creative ouput. The famed playwright dared to switch ideological teams, and now Mamet’s work is infused by his conservative principles.
That simply cannot stand unchallenged at the proverbial “Gray Lady”–or its still-powerful arts section.
For the Times’ culture writers — and anyone else interested in preserving the left’s near-monopoly on our arts — Mamet’s political conversion presented a problem. The Pulitzer-winner’s credentials could hardly be any more impressive. He’s written mainstays of the modern theater like Glengarry Glen Ross and American Buffalo, and screenplays for such terrific films as The Untouchables and The Verdict. His original mix of American tough-guy vernacular and Pinteresque allusion had a huge effect on stage writing throughout the last third of the 20th century. He is an American master.
So the Times set out to destroy him….
Klavan dismantles the newspaper’s new approach to Mamet, from mocking its content-free slams to noting how its arts critics don’t mind when a liberal like Robert Redford lets his progressivism shine through his work.
An art world with only one opinion is an art world inhospitable to the arts. David Mamet has come roaring into the maturity of his vision. He is a conservative. Perhaps the lockstep guardians of our political sensibilities should get over it and give him the honest consideration he deserves.