Should a Reviewer for the NYT have some theatre background?- Page 2

[haterobics]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 2:23pm

CurtainsUpat8 said: "Theatre is a process that often takes years of hard work by dozens of people before a show opens. Being a part of that process might give a reviewer a certain empathy that they would not have otherwise."

Whether people have labored over something for month or years, or how many people it took to get everything up on that stage... it either works or it doesn't. I doubt anyone is unaware how long it takes before a show lands on Broadway. Whether anything other than the end result MATTERS is the issue. 

[Plum]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 2:38pm

You asked about "reviewers," specifically, so I'll say that I agree with the posts above - no, reviewers don't need to have a background doing the thing they're reviewing. They're writing for a general audience who wants a mixture of a summary and a thumbs up/thumbs down in order to know whether a show is worth watching. Having a deep background for this kind of work means watching a lot of shows, not making them.

A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis never made movies, Todd Vanderweff and Alan Sepinwall never made TV shows, and Ruth Reichl aside, most restaurant reviewers never worked at a restaurant. If you hate Brantley's reviews, great, but I doubt he'd come around to your points of view if he only had a theater degree.

On a side note - in a world as small as NYC theater? Any critic who came up from the trenches would inevitably be writing about former coworkers, friends, and enemies; in some ways that critic's opinions would be suspect in their own right.

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 2:38pm

I am sorry but I can't agree with almost anyone here. But I appreciate the discourse and you have a right to your thoughts, as I do to mine. 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 2:45pm

There is also a difference between FORMAL education and experience  and knowledge, experience and understanding.  

 

Do I shake my head when a show I detested is successful?  Sure, but the same principle applies: not everyone shares my taste.  So be it.

 

For me, a review is more meaningful when I look at WHAT the reviewer liked or disliked...not just that they did.

Updated On: 3/20/16 at 02:45 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 3:47pm

I favor constructive criticism not destructive criticism.

[BeNice]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 8:40pm

I'm also going to get on my feminist soap box here for a second (even though I am a man) and lament the dearth of prominent female Broadway theatre critics. I think it would be nice to get the perspective of a woman on Broadway shows reviewed in the Times seeing how almost 70% of Broadway audiences are, in fact, women. 

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 9:10pm

well there are 2 prominent women critics not at the Times so you are not at a loss for what women think. And there are 2 prominent women critics at the Times although they do not review Broadway shows. 

[BeNice]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 9:20pm

Yes, that is my point exactly. Perhaps a woman can be Brantley or Isherwood's next replacement. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 9:38pm

perhaps.

btw, should I get on my male hetero soap box for a second (even though I am not one)?

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 10:41pm

I agree that you don't have to have worked in theatre to be a critic but it helps to have familiarity with it. As an extreme example, you wouldn't send out someone who'd never seen a show before and expect to get back a meaningful review about how that play fits into a larger context of the history theatre or what's currently being written and produced. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what Jesse Green's credentials are as a theatre critic?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 11:04pm

A critic or anyone else should be hired because they are qualified.

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 11:17pm

Well. yes Mr. Roxy but that is what we have been debating.. what makes someone qualified?
I believe it takes much more than having seen a bunch of shows to make you qualified to hold a job as a reviewer. I am a little surprised...Not one person here agrees with me and that is fine. I am not changing my view from my original post. I don't think Mr Brantley is qualified. He has the job, and I am sure they aren't going to replace him because of my post. I will just stop reading his reviews.    Most people here think that you don't need any background in theatre to write reviews. I couldn't disagree more. 

Updated On: 3/20/16 at 11:17 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 11:55pm

Nobody said that at all....they just said they didn't need to know it to the extent you seem believe.    

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 2:05am

Janet Maslin was my favorite film critic. She tried to give honest reviews while sparing the feelings of the people responsible for the film. This drew criticism such as this 1997 article in Slate by someone named Sally Kerr:

For more than a decade Maslin has stood out among critics for being what critics, those curmudgeons, so rarely are: She is upbeat and forgiving, often to a fault. As the Johnny Mercer song instructs, she accentuates the positive and eliminates the negative. Or, as in the case of the latest Star Wars episode, she buries her list of negatives so late in the piece that it barely registers. This habit of combining compensatory praise with dismissals makes it difficult to know what Maslin actually thinks. (Her pan of Forrest Gump, for example, was dead-on and brave in its criticism but also packed to the gills with compliments.)

Odd that her tenure would overlap that of the "Butcher of Broadway," who reveled in attacking anyone and anything. If Maslin's attempt to remain gracious while still being a credible critic failed, apparently the failure never registered with Times management or readership, as she was film critic for twenty-two years, and resigned the position on her own.

Perhaps that is why there are so few female theater critics. It is thought, even among the prospective female critics, that they will not have the heart to demolish bad productions.

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 7:37am

There are lots of female critics, just not covering Broadway at the Times. I mentioned 4 earlier. There is no meaningful evidence that any of them have trouble calling a spade a spade. Vincentelli, in fact, can be gratuitously mean. 

[indytallguy]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 8:24am

CurtainsUpat8 said: "I believe it takes much more than having seen a bunch of shows to make you qualified to hold a job as a reviewer. ... Most people here think that you don't need any background in theatre to write reviews. I couldn't disagree more. "

 

I agree that a reviewer needs to be qualified. I don't agree that the qualifications require a theatre background.

 

Their profession is journalism, not theatre. 

 

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 8:52am

"Some of the best baseball managers never played the game. (or were very bad when they did)"

 

I don't think you will ever find a baseball manager that never played the game but you are right quite a few were not good players but that is something totally different. They probably just did not have the God given talent to be a good player but they still could judge talent and knew how to play the game.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 9:06am

Can I offer some personal background? I am a journalist. I write about science and medicine. I am neither a scientist nor a medical doctor, although I have a doctorate. Most journalists do not have formal training and/or work experience in their "beats" -- although some justice writers may have a law degree or have even worked as a lawyer, most do not. Similarly, I think I know one full-time professional medical journalist who actually has an MD.

As indy noted, the profession here is journalism, and the practitioners are skilled and trained journalists. You can dislike Brantley's writing for any number of reasons, but he's been a journalistic professional for over 30 years. You can hardly call him unqualified.

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 9:21am

Again, I disagree. He is writing words for publication and that makes a portion of what he is doing journalism, but what is job really is is "critiquing". That's why he is called a critic.  I understand what you are saying about the journalistic aspect of his job. I don't want to speak for you, but when you are writing about science and medicine I don't get the impression you are critiquing what the scientists are doing. You aren't offering your opinion as a non scientist about what the scientist is working on... you are REPORTING about what the scientist is doing. It would take another scientist to critique. Does that make sense?  If I am misrepresenting what you do, I would be happy to be corrected.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 9:26am

I think you've made your position very clear from the beginning of this thread of what bona fides one must possess to be a successful critic for you. Many people, myself included, disagree, and have offered a specific rationale. You do not seem to be moved by any rationale other than your own, so continuing this conversation doesn't seem fruitful. You have every right to hold the opinion that you hold. However, it is undeniable that many of the greatest critics in history -- in many fields -- were not actual practitioners of the art form they critiqued.

Updated On: 3/21/16 at 09:26 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 9:51am

^Yes.  It seems that you didn't really want a discussion, which invites many perspectives, but rather assumed we would jump on your bandwagon to take down (an exaggeration, of course) Brantley.    

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 10:10am

AC, I agree with you on the substance. the OP is entitled to find anyone "qualified" or not. I think it is really a subset of the broader evaluation all of us make when we choose to follow (or not) critics who generally align with our perspective (or not). The good news is that nowadays we have a greater abundance of criticism accessible than at any time in history, so we can all read reviews that come with the sort of qualifications that are important to us. For me, a good reviewer (and journalist in general) is one who is a keen observer and writes well. For me, someone who is inside looking out is not usually going to have the ideal perspective. 

Updated On: 3/21/16 at 10:10 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 10:14am

Is your argument solely aimed at Brantley/theater or do you believe only a chef should be allowed to be a food critic or a former opera diva be an opera critic?

 

Personally I would trust a food critic with no formal culinary training who has eaten 100 different beet and goat cheese salads to tell me if the salad at a new restaurant is any good over a trained chef who has perhaps been making the same beet and goat cheese salad over the course of his or her career.

 

What makes and qualifies a good critic for me is their breadth of experience viewing/tasting/reading a vast number of things in their medium. Stephen King is a great writer, but I don't know if I need to read his critiques of all new books that are published. I would rather trust someone who just reads books for a living and reads dozens if not hundreds of books per year of all genres and styles. Also, I would be fearful that King would have too many biases being in the industry himself. How could I completely trust that he is giving an impartial critique of his friend's works? I would prefer an "outsider" who doesn't have ties to the industry and can say what he or she thinks without impunity.

[HarrietTaylor]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 10:17am

I believe that critics, as cultural commentators, are theorists. As long as they do keep a general audience in mind I think an understanding of basic theory can only enrich their writing. You don't have to go to school or even create theater to have an understanding of artistic theory, just as context for the medium you're criticizing. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 10:32am

a further point: when you have theatre creators evaluating work, even assuming there is no partiality, the result is still reinforcement of the status quo-always a bad thing in any art form. To wit, Kerr's reaction to Beckett not to mention Sondheim. Insiders don't generally like people who think outside the box.