The right to criticize?- Page 2

[Demitri2]

Posted: 5/23/05 at 5:20pm

I learned something in here not long ago after I had given my opinion on a certain Broadway person. The next day there was a message in my private messages box from THAT person thanking me warmly for my kind words. Luckily it was a compliment I had given yet it made me truly realize that our words on this board are read by a lot more people than we may think. From now on I'll try to critique only those who have passed on. It's hard though.

[TGIF]

Posted: 5/23/05 at 5:28pm

And NOW you will get PMs asking you who it was!

[sloshyj]

Posted: 5/23/05 at 6:41pm

The "right to criticize" is not being debated by anyone here. The right of anyone to post whatever he/she thinks is obviously the point of this message board. And though something may not be profane - which is grounds for removal from the site - being "tactful" is a whole 'nother thing.

I refer you to this thread:

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=850741#1055985

I take serious issue with Matt_G, Tiny-Toon, StephanietheStar and others who have taken to repeatedly mocking Ms. McAlexander in a childish, inconsiderate way. It is a case of guilt by association, and lack of censure by those who post to the thread. To post your well-informed critique of a performance, surrounded by hateful drivel such as this, has the effect of diminishing your solid points. And to lump you in with the lowest common denominator.

Yes, as you've all discovered, some actors, playwrights, directors and other theatre professionals not only read this board, but are willing to interact with you - a relatively small portion of the overall theatre-going community. You should consider this while posting your opinions. Would you want your favorite actor to read your hateful words about another's performance? And thanks to google-cache and the long memory of the Internet, do you want these words - perhaps crafted in your teens or in a fit of anger - to remain floating in the digital ether for the rest of your life?

Truth be known, theatre professionals don't have many conduits for critical/audience reaction. This site and a few others like it give them a rare glimpse into what works and what doesn't. This is a very small community doing very expensive productions that are critiqued in only a handful of publications. Actors do "google" their own names, and may in fact stumble across a board such as this one. For a working actor who has only recently "made it" on Broadway, the effect of your words could be great. Sure, they have to be thick skinned, but posting their picture and/or calling them names is always going to be hurtful.

Movie actors are not likely to pay it much attention, as their scope is so much larger and there are a multitude of message boards for this purpose. But stage actors are much closer to this than you may know.

All I would ask is that you have some humanity in your posts. Be unencumbered, post your opinion and be honest, please! But keep in mind that these are not people without feelings and that they may end up reading what you type in haste.

And how about some self-policing? When someone is out-of-line, even if you agree with the sentiment, it would be nice to see that sort of thing eradicated from within.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/23/05 at 6:44pm

"And how about some self-policing? When someone is out-of-line, even if you agree with the sentiment, it would be nice to see that sort of thing eradicated from within."

Ari Fleischer, is that you?

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 5/23/05 at 6:46pm

Oh Namo you tease!

[NYBroadwayNY]

Posted: 5/23/05 at 7:01pm

There is a difference between:

"to criticize" and "to critique"

"Criticize" carries with it a sense of being negative and finding fault, ONLY.

"Critique" carries a kind of all-around review, including both POSITIVE and negative thoughts.

Anyone can criticize. It's the shallow way out. Those who critique have the wisdom to see the whole picture and not just say, "I hate so-and-so" or the show "Something-on-Broadway" is trash.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 5/23/05 at 7:11pm

I agree that actors put themselves out there, that is the nature of the job, and that if they are thin-skinned perhaps they should stay away from message boards, or, suck it up if they want to read about themselves.

However, we must also consider the family members and friends of said performers - they did not choose their family/friends' professions, and having to read nasty comments about their loved one is not fun. Why should they have to stay away from the boards which they may enjoy for many other reasons?

[robbiej]

Posted: 5/23/05 at 8:15pm

'he lacked the physical beauty Tennessee Williams he called for.'

And herein lies the problem with anyone being able to put a criticism out into the world through the internet. Tennessee Williams did not...DID NOT write the role of Stanley Kowalski as a specimen of manly beauty. He wrote the role for John Garfield (go ahead and google and you'll realize he's no Brando).

Because Brando was eventually cast and became iconic in the role, it is assumed that Mr. Williams wanted a beautiful man in the role. But the national tour was led, I believe, by Anthony Quinn...another non-beauty.

Somehow, someone somewhere decided that it was surely Mr. Williams' intent to have a hottie play Stanley...so anyone who follows who is not classically handsome is deemed miscast and, indeed, cast against the author's intentions. This is simply not so. But that sure gets passed around here like it's gospel.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 5/23/05 at 8:54pm

I notice some common trends on BWW: A thread will start from someone saying how much they like a particular show (or performer or cast recording) and many other join in. Then someone comes along. feeling a duty to puncture the balloon perhaps, and posts s short message like "I hate it. It sucked." When asked why they feel that way they just respond with some vague comment or fall back on the "It was boring" line. THAT gets tiresome.

Opinion is just that and no single opinion is wrong. But if you feel a show is not good at least articulate WHY you think so. A few days ago someone here posted that GYPSY was (in their opinion) a weak score but refused to back it up. What the hell good does that do???

Anyhow ... that's MY opinion!

[justthefacts2]

Posted: 5/23/05 at 9:06pm

Right to criticize? Pretty dull board if we didn't have that option. I love the back and forth - some are passionate, some are using Marquis of Queensbury Rules, sometimes my blood boils, sometimes I really laugh. We all need to just FEEL sometimes, something, anything. And just think, we are not acutally being paid, as critics and gossip columnists are, to do real damage. We're just blowing off steam, asking tough questions, whatever moves us. Roses and raspberries. Why not? It's Broadway.

Updated On: 5/24/05 at 09:06 PM

[mikewood]

Posted: 5/24/05 at 10:01am

There is a difference between:
"to criticize" and "to critique"
"Criticize" carries with it a sense of being negative and finding fault, ONLY.
"Critique" carries a kind of all-around review, including both POSITIVE and negative thoughts."

Point taken.

However, at this point I pull out Webster's on-line dictionary:
Main Entry: cri·tique
Pronunciation: kr&-'tEk, kri-
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of critic
: an act of criticizing; especially : a critical estimate or discussion

So either you are wrong or Webster is wrong.

However, to be fair, your point is well taken. In the realm of Semantics, critique and criticize do have different connotations. Additionally, on the same web site, ask for synonyms for criticize and most of the words that come up are very negative.

However, if you have read my other posts on this subject and LW in general, the following is evident: In my various critiques of Little Women the musical, I have certainly criticized Ms. McAlexander.

[mikewood]

Posted: 5/24/05 at 10:06am

Robbiej,

Either you are wrong and an editor who published Streetcar at a later time is wrong. Taking a glance at my copy of Streetcar, that is most assuredly the character description given for Stanley.

I'm not going to debate the point with you; it's in front of me in black and white.

Have a nice day.

[robbiej]

Posted: 5/24/05 at 10:39am

You realize that that character description may not have, in fact, been a part of Williams original script and may have been added after the initial production...after Brando played it...right?

I'm interested...what does the description say exactly?

[mikewood]

Posted: 5/24/05 at 10:44am

Yeah, sometimes editors add things like perceived intentions or even stage manager notes.

"Stanley Kowalski, an idealized yet animalistic vision of male beauty"

[robbiej]

Posted: 5/24/05 at 11:04am

That just sounds like an odd statement if the play was written with John Garfield in mind. Don't get me wrong...I do believe an animalistic sex appeal is important for the role...and perhaps O'Reilly didn't have that. But I think when it translates to 'He's not physically beautiful enough', then we're making assumptions simply based on the fact that Brando played the role.

[mikewood]

Posted: 5/24/05 at 11:22am

Who knows...maybe it was bad editing?

[robbiej]

Posted: 5/24/05 at 11:29am

Wouldn't be the first time! I'm reading a book called SCREENING ROOM by Dennis Hensley and you would think a chimpanzee edited the thing.