I'm sure you know about this, but if not, the Times has a nice summation.
Wonder what Wendy Wasserstein would have thought of this mess. Also... this award is four years old. Four. Has it really exhausted the list of possible winners?
Update: Adam Feldman and Time Out New York carefully demonstrate the difference between blogs, open letters and journalism. Essential reading on the subject.
I wonder if the age of the award actually had something to do with the decision. As I understand it, the fund that was put in place for the award ensured it a life of at least four years. This being its fourth year, and the economic climate being what it is, it's very possible that this is the last year of the Wasserstein prize. If that's the case (and I don't know if it is, I'm just speculating) I easily imagine following the logic that, especially since this is the most financially significant prize available to up-and-coming female playwrights, if none of the nominees this year were THAT GREAT, it would be best to save the money and let the Wasserstein prize live to see another year, when the recipient would be really deserving.
ReplyDeleteThe statements that seem to have been coming from the judges of the Wasserstein Prize was that the four nominees they received did not excite them as a whole, and so they determined it was the nomination process that was flawed. They plan on fixing the process, and hopefully identifying a play that they deem worthy of the prize.
ReplyDelete