Letters to the Editor

What You Say

In a (Wal)nut Shell

If Mr. Fox had interviewed anyone from the Walnut he would have been able to correct misinformation. One of the problems facing Philadelphia has been some destructive critics; just ask the remaining Broadway producers about premiering shows in Philadelphia.

Yes, the Walnut does enjoy success both economic and artistic. Check the Barrymore nominations. As for our offerings, which you refer to as unapologetically commercial, did you see La Vie En Bleu, Dumas, Camilla, Lust, Dusky Sally, Windy City, Another Kind of Hero, Mike, A Perfect Gentleman or How It Was Done in Odessa, just to name a few? Have you witnessed our offerings in the Independence Studio on 3, our kids' series, our outreach companies or recognized our adopt-a-school program? If you had, you would have seen many new works that require subsidy because they are NOT commercial.

Our history with the press over 25 years has been mainly cordial. Only twice in all these years have we denied free tickets to members of the press. One critic who used to write for your paper was unusually destructive to our artists. We have never refused YOU a press ticket; it was your paper's decision to not send reviewers.

You obviously miss the star-studded days of the Walnut. However, if you examine the economic history of the theater, and the Walnut in particular, you would understand why stars make no economic or artistic sense.

We celebrate our past. Have you really looked around our lobbies at all the historical memorabilia displayed since 1982? You're right about our historic interior; it was expunged many times over its 200-year history, but I can assure you there is more history hanging from our walls than any other theater in America, and I'll be glad to give you a tour.

The Shuberts sold the Walnut and the Merriam and other theatrical leases in Philadelphia not because they were downsizing, but because of the antitrust suit brought against them in the mid-1960's. Theaters like the Merriam sit dark for many reasons, primary among them is a lack of commercial product and high union labor costs. Producers are masters of their own destiny; presenters have little control.

You quote, "Walnut's management is nothing if not entrepreneurial." Yes, we are entrepreneurial, but we are so much more. We serve this community on a scale that no other theater does. We preserve and protect and keep alive America's oldest theater. We offer you a template for preserving America's grand old theaters. We take artistic risks, but they are responsible and measured to ensure the viability of our institution.

Your eulogy to Mr. Haas regarding the Boyd is most commendable. It is too bad you didn't use the same quality of respect for the actual achievements at the Walnut. You bet our theaters will have a third act, as indeed the Walnut will enter its third century this year — alive and relevant.

Bernard Havard
President and producing artistic director
Walnut Street Theatre

David Anthony Fox responds: I was indeed told by more than one member of the Walnut's PR staff that neither I nor my colleague, Toby Zinman (now writing for the Inquirer), were on the press list. The practice of banning individual critics or papers is virtually unheard of in today's professional theater. Later, representatives of the Walnut Street suggested I was welcome to come back, but by that point City Paper had made an editorial decision not to review Walnut at all. Even Mr. Havard's own remarks reveal that he intended to choose which critics were allowed to review his shows, and that's not acceptable.

Ed Doherty and chef Terry White will not have a house music space in Union Trust [Naked City, "Ice Pack," A.D. Amorosi, July 24, 2008]. City Paper regrets the error.