Neil Simon - Critical Response

Critical Response

For most of his career Simon’s work has received mixed reviews, with many critics admiring his comedy skills, much of it a blend of “humor and pathos.” Other critics were less complimentary, noting that much of his dramatic structure was weak and sometimes relied too heavily on gags and one-liners. As a result, notes Kopince, “literary scholars had generally ignored Simon’s early work, regarding him as a commercially successful playwright rather than a serious dramatist.” Clive Barnes, theater critic for the New York Times, wrote that like his British counterpart, Noël Coward, Simon was "destined to spend most of his career underestimated," but nonetheless very "popular."

This attitude changed after 1991, when he won a Pulitzer Prize for drama with Lost in Yonkers. McGovern writes that "seldom has even the most astute critic recognized what depths really exist in the plays of Neil Simon." Although, when Lost in Yonkers was considered by the Pulitzer Advisory Board, board member Douglas Watt noted that it was the only play nominated by all five jury members, and that they judged it "a mature work by an enduring (and often undervalued) American playwright."

McGovern compares Simon with noted earlier playwrights, including Ben Johnson, Molière, and George Bernard Shaw, pointing out that those playwrights had "successfully raised fundamental and sometimes tragic issues of universal and therefore enduring interest without eschewing the comic mode." She concludes, "It is my firm conviction that Neil Simon should be considered a member of this company ... an invitation long overdue." McGovern attempts to explain the response of many critics:

Above all, his plays which may appear simple to those who never look beyond the fact that they are amusing are, in fact, frequently more perceptive and revealing of the human condition than many plays labeled complex dramas.

Similarly, literary critic Robert Johnson explains that "Simon has, in fact, created a rich variety of entertaining, memorable characters who tell us much about the human experience. Simon’s work also explores a larger number of serious themes and points of view than he is credited with presenting," using "quite varied stylistic formats." As a result, he writes, "Simon’s characters are not only lifelike, but more complicated and more interesting than most characters populating successful stage and screen comedies," and "Simon has not received as much critical attention as he deserves."

Other writers are more assertive in their appreciation of Simon’s work, including Lawrence Grobel, who calls him "the Shakespeare of his time," and possibly the "most successful playwright in history." He states:

towers like a Colossus over the American Theater. When Neil Simon’s time comes to be judged among successful playwrights of the twentieth century, he will definitely be first among equals. No other playwright in history has had the run he has: fifteen "Best Plays" of their season ...

Broadway critic Walter Kerr tries to rationalize why Simon’s work has been underrated:

Because Americans have always tended to underrate writers who make them laugh, Neil Simon’s accomplishment have not gained as much serious critical praise as they deserve. His best comedies contain not only a host of funny lines, but numerous memorable characters and an incisively dramatized set of beliefs that are not without merit. Simon is, in fact, one of the finest writers of comedy in American literary history.