CHICKEN & BISCUITS - Reviews- Page 2

[troynow]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 1:23am

Seems odd to
me that a producer or co-producer of a broadway show can write a review. Feels like this is a conflict of interest

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 1:27am

troynow said: "Seems odd to me that a producer or co-producer of a broadway show can write a review. Feels like this is a conflict of interest"

Major conflict of interest. In VARIETY no less –– a respectable trade publication –– which def wouldn't let that slide for a film of TV series. And not even a disclaimer. Shame on VARIETY.

[troynow]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 6:38am

I would like to know how it is not a conflict of interest for Ayonna to write a review here and be a producer of competing plays?

[BJR]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 8:39am

JBroadway said: "I think there’s definitely a case for altering the culture of theatre criticism to (a) include more marginalized voices as critics, (b) write reviews with a contextual mindset of who the target audience is, and whether they’d enjoy / are enjoying a show, and (c) be constructive and resist the urge make catty jabs just to entertain readers.

But I also think that making space for marginalized artists shouldn’t mean making their art immune to criticism. A thriving artistic community will always output a mix of hits and misses. And part of making space for marginalized voices is to make space for them to write good things and bad things, just like white artists do.

So agree with all of this. Multiple things can be true.

 

[Kad]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 8:53am

Regardless of whether or not someone who is a producer should be writing reviews in a major publication, I think Prescod’s review is a pretty poor piece of critical writing.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 9:19am

This isn't Verizon vs. AT&T - the culture of the theatre community isn't one of cutthroat smear campaigns or insider trading. I think there's probably enough trust in the community that she won't smear other shows simply because they are technically her "competitors." While there is some degree of competition on Broadway, the general trend has been more of a "rising tide lifts all boats" mindset. It's not like Chicken & Biscuits is going to seriously eat away at the audience for Is This a Room. 

It can also be case-by-case, especially with freelancers. On the "Three on the Aisle" podcast, I remember the critics saying they sometimes recuse themselves from writing a review of a specific show if they have personal ties to a show or the artists involved. But not if they have personal ties to an entirely separate show that just happens to be playing at the same time. 

I'd think the only potential issue would be if Prescod writing bad reviews will burn bridges with potential future colleagues in the industry. But that's a risk that she's taking on herself. Or alternately, if she tries to avoid this situation by never writing a single bad review, then we can adjust our opinions of her credibility accordingly.

[JasonC3]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 9:29am

I think the standard by which she should be judged is the code of ethics and conflict of interest policies applicable in journalism regardless of how the community feels about her review.

[BwayStarlette]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 9:46am

I liked this show. And I'm glad Variety gave it a good review. But like how can Variety be ok with someone who has multiple (associate) producing credits - this season - reviewing another show?  It just clearly should not be allowed. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 9:48am

I guess so, but it's such a small, insular community - I think it's hard to avoid in reality. I guess that doesn't necessarily make it right, but at the very least it's worth acknowledging that if this is a problem, it's not an isolated one. 

[Kad]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 9:56am

JBroadway said: "I guess so, but it's such a small, insular community - I think it's hard to avoid in reality. I guess that doesn't necessarily make it right, but at the very least it's worth acknowledging that if this is a problem, it's not an isolated one."

How many other critics at major publications such as Variety were / are active producers, as well, though? 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 10:01am

JBroadway said: "if this is a problem, it's not an isolated one."

Really? Can you put some meat on that bone? I've been around quite a while and I can't think of another example. I am pretty sure that this would get someone fired at most publications.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 10:16am

@Hogan Well as I said, the hosts of Three on the Aisle discussed it. Terry Teachout had written Satchmo at the Waldorf, and I believe he mentioned that he's recused himself from writing about John Douglas Thompson in subsequent productions, because they were close collaborators and friends. And John Douglas Thompson works a lot! It's not like Terry Teachout stops writing about all the other "competitors" in town every time one of his collaborators on that show has work playing in New York. 

Not to mention they are frequently inviting artists on as guests and chatting with them in a very friendly way, but I guess that technically falls under the umbrella of journalism. 

As for producers - probably few or none. So yeah, maybe you're right that some conflicts of interest are more extreme than others. I don't know. It just seems unlikely to yield real-life instances of bias in her reviews, especially if she's freelancing. But maybe you're right that it's more the principle of the thing. 

[Kad]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 10:21am

Having personal relationships in the industry is certainly unavoidable and needs to be handled carefully. But having a financial stake in the season you’re reviewing is very different. Of course Prescod won’t be reviewing shows she’s working on, but it is still a conflict of interest.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 10:37am

@JBroadway I think there is a distinction between being friends with someone and having a contrary financial interest. I think Teachout gets to decide where to draw the line once there is no temporal connection but if he were reviewing shows that were directly competitive with Satchmo, I would call foul on that. This is a well-traveled path at respectable publications, and I do consider Variety such a place. And TBC I am not referring to an op-ed type situation but a compensated reviewer is someone whose writing reflects on the journalistic integrity of a publication.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 10:50am

I think perhaps the takeaway here is that all reviews - whether published in Variety or someone’s blog - are just one person’s opinion, and that person is always going to have their own artistic tastes and motivations for writing what they do.

Ayanna Prescod, I’m guessing, wants to promote Black plays on Broadway, and probably walked into the theater planning to write a positive review no matter what. If I were in her position, I would have done the same thing. Should she be writing Broadway reviews while also producing Broadway shows? Probably not, but you could also question whether Jesse Greene, Adam Feldman, and Chris Jones should even be reviewing plays like Chicken and Biscuits at all, since they - like all reviewers - have their own biases and agendas while writing (i.e being white and terrified of being called racist - hence their carefully worded, “nice” pans rather than the scorchers they might have written if the playwright were white).

In short, especially in the age of social media when ANYONE can publish their “review,” we should be taking all reviews from major publications as glorified Facebook posts no matter who wrote them.

[SouthernCakes]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 11:18am

This is all such a strange issue. It harkens back to only actors of disabilities being able to play said disabilities. And I get it. But now we are saying white people review white people? And black people only review black people? I always hate the whole “you just didn’t get it.”

Tyler Perry’s stuff can be both funny and still not great quality.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 11:28am

@Baritone Of course every opinion is the product of its writer but there is a very different aspect when the bias is financial. This is called ethics and all true journalism outlets demand them of those in their employ. What she did crosses the line from probably not to definitely not. You are confounding bias and self-interest. There can be cross-over (as when a white supremacist writes about a black play) but not in this case. And while no opinion is anything but..., when a publication purporting to ascribe to principles of journalistic integrity publishes a tainted opinion, like Variety did, it is not at all the same. They are not glorified facebook posts because they carry the imprimatur of the editors and publishers, and that imprimatur is a recognition of a vetting of the opinion for possible compromises of its integrity. Even on this board I think a lot of us do not post when we have a self-interest. But of course there is no control. 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 11:30am

I have a huge problem with the “should X critic be reviewing this piece” question because that requires a judgement (by the editor) before seeing the play. And, if a publication sends a freelancer or second-stringer to all the “Black plays” of the year because there isn’t a Black chief critic, those are terrible optics — it’s saying that those plays aren’t worth the time of the chief critic.

You wouldn’t send a high school student to review BE MORE CHILL or LIGHTNING THIEF, for example, even if that’s the author’s main demographic… Though the high school student might write better than Prescod, whose shameful adjective-filled “review” devotes a lot of space to things only known from a press release and would be ripped to shreds in any undergrad criticism class.

A good critic should be able to write intelligently about any piece (whether they personally like it or not). As we saw with Jesse Green’s review, which is fair and well written, he acknowledges his own background and how that informs his opinion. Hilton Als obviously isn’t disqualified from reviewing Noel Coward or Jeanine Tesori because he’s Black, and that doesn’t make his opinion any less valid — on the contrary, it enhances it.

There is a huge problem with diversity among first-string critics at major publications. But when most publications barely have the money for ONE full time theatre critic, and they can’t just fire them for being white, that change will happen very slowly. Hopefully the NYT will name a Black critic (ideally someone who isn’t a man) to the spot previously occupied by Charles Isherwood and then Jesse Green, if Green is the new Brantley.

Updated On: 10/11/21 at 11:30 AM

[JBroadway]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 11:31am

SouthernCakes said: "But now we are saying white people review white people? And black people only review black people?"

 

No one is saying that. People are just pointing out that it's a problem to have such a huge majority of critics be white. And it can contribute to the ever-growing disconnect between audiences and critics. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 11:42am

I think where I'm getting stuck on this "financial interest" point, going back to my first post on this topic, is that the industry we're talking about is one that thrives on building a base of regular theatregoers, which comes with cross-viewership between shows - the "rising tide floats all boats" principle, like I said. Especially where it concerns plays aimed at local audiences, as opposed to large musicals that compete for the 1 or 2 show-slots of a tourist family. When dealing with this sub-market, it doesn't seem like one producer would have any appreciable financial gain from the loss of another. 


I understand that it still technically conflicts with the industry standards of journalistic integrity, but I'm also trying to think of it from an actual results-based lens, not just one based on theoretical principles. But I do think it's worth keeping an eye on Prescod's assignments going forward to see if they reveal and troubling patterns. 

Updated On: 10/11/21 at 11:42 AM

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 11:43am

@Hogan -

Good point. I guess had she written a pan it could be seen as her trying to badmouth the competition, but her rave could also be interpreted as promoting her “brand” of new Black plays in which she has financial interest.

That said, I do think journalistic theatre criticism is headed towards irrelevancy. The godlike omnipotence that critics at major publications once had in choosing which plays live or die is mostly gone now that word of mouth can now reach thousands of people via social media. I think we are also as a society starting to think of reviews as coming from people rather than institutions - ie not “The New York Times says…” but “Jesse Greene says…,” which is how it should be IMO.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 11:55am

While a NYTimes review, or any single review, can no longer make or break a show on its own, I think you're underestimating the power these reviews hold. The majority of ticketbuyers are not keyed into theatre in detail- to the average ticket buyer, Jesse Green's name is meaningless and the imprimatur of the Times is still weighty.  And, perhaps more importantly, these reviews carry weight with producers- the people who make shows happen. Box office is still king, but if the box office is not strong enough to make other factors (such as reviews) irrelevant, then anything that can help build box office is very important. And Chicken & Biscuits, as it stands now, is not doing particularly well at the box office.

[gibsons2]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 12:06pm

The Distinctive Baritone said: In short, especially in the age of social media when ANYONE can publish their “review,” we should be taking all reviews from major publications as glorified Facebook posts no matter who wrote them."

Absolutely. Can't wait until those "professional" reviews are a thing of the past. C&B is a great example of when the word of mouth does its thing and gets people to buy tickets. Opinions of people who paid to see the show should be more valuable.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 12:14pm

With a play like this (no famous people involved and disastrous ticket sales), a NYT review can ABSOLUTELY make or break it. As anyone who has worked on Broadway shows will tell you, a rave NYT review will cause a sharp uptick in sales. It’s the only publication with that weight. The uptick might be short-lived, but it is the ultimate tastemaker for the core NYC theatergoing audience. Chicken and Biscuits was no doubt trying to appeal to that group (as any show does) being that they are on life support. And while I don’t have stats, I think there is a subset of the core ticket buying audience who does care about the name of the critic.

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 12:18pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Hopefully the NYT will name a Black critic (ideally someone who isn’t a man) to the spot previously occupied by Charles Isherwood and then Jesse Green, if Green is the new Brantley."

I hope it is Maya Phillips. She wrote the review a few days ago for Lackawanna Blues and I would like to read more B'way reviews from her in the future. 

Who has written the review tonight for Is This a Room is another question... Brantley critiqued it at the Vineyard two years ago.