Should a Reviewer for the NYT have some theatre background?- Page 3

[indytallguy]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 1:12pm

Hey Whizzer, would you post your own personal beet and goat cheese salad recipe? Dying to try it out. :)

Updated On: 3/21/16 at 01:12 PM

[SnoopyQc]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 3:02pm

Marcel Pagnol (the man behind Fanny, The Baker's wife) has write a very good essay on this matter called "Critique on Critics" (Critique des Critiques). I don't know if it was ever translate in English but it's a must read for those of you who understand french.  

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 3:09pm

I don't ever expect anyone is going to agree with me on anything I write on this forum. I thought many people made very good points. although I didn't agree with those points in relationship to my original thought. They no more changed my mind, than I did theirs. And that is fine. I felt I was respectful to everyone and everyone was respectful to me.  I am surprised that more people did not agree with me, but that is also fine. I am an adult and can think for myself.   My beef is not specifically with Brantley. although lately I have had some doubt of his judgement (particularly after "Disaster"...) but every critic of a big news outlet.

It never occurred to me to google their bios before. I was a little surprised when I did that with Brantley's what came up.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 3:16pm

Brantley didn't review Disaster -- that was Charles Isherwood.

[Hackasaurus_Rex]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 3:16pm

Isherwood reviewed Disaster.

 

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 3:31pm

My bad...but it's basically the same bio. They are both journalists trained in journalism, with  no training/experience in the theatre.  And Disaster is not the only review that has puzzled me.  Brantley wrote the Hughey review. So I would have written the same thing. Like I said, it was more a generic question about reviewers for large news outlets.

Updated On: 3/21/16 at 03:31 PM

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 3:47pm

So, at the end of the day, you seem to largely be questioning their bona fides because they've written reviews with which you disagree? You understand that our reactions to art are subjective, right, and that they might have those same reactions even if they had a background making theater? I mean no offense, but your entire argument from the beginning of this thread seems to hinge on you feeling that Ben Brantley is unqualified to critique theater largely because you don't share his taste. 

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 3:59pm

I mean no offense, but your entire argument from the beginning of this thread seems to hinge on you feeling that Ben Brantley is unqualified to critique theater largely because you don't share his taste.

No. It's because I feel his background doesn't make him the right person to be critiquing theatre. He has a bachelors in English and no experience in the theatre. It's not because I don't share his taste. The debate is whether or not one needs some personal history in the theatre to be critiquing it professionally and for the largest and most influential theatre outlet in the world (perhaps) The NY Times.  There are plenty of people who don't agree with me.. I get it. And I respect everyone's opinion. I just haven't changed mine.

[JM226]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 4:04pm

question: are all food critics also professionally-trained chefs? if you do some research and find that the answer is "no," perhaps you should apply those same standards here. contrary to the OP's feelings, you really do not need to be trained in a particular field to critique it and offer an opinion. 

[haterobics]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 4:07pm

If everyone reviewing theater had a theater background, then everyone would just say they are only reviewing it because they couldn't actually get in and do it, so now they just rip apart the people who succeeded where they failed, no? 

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 4:11pm

We have no idea to what extent Brantley knew of theatre before becoming a critic. He may have been very informed on history and different shows but decided not to go to school for that. It seems like he knew he wanted to do something along the lines of media criticism - the degree in English. Besides, not everyone with a BA in Drama is someone I would want critiquing shows. As long as someone has a passion for theatre, considerable writing abilities, and a critical mind, I see no reason why they couldn't be a reviewer. Besides, Brantley has seen hundreds, if not thousands, of shows by now and knows what he's talking about. People may not agree with him, but I find him well-written and generally good at explaining what he does or doesn't like about a show. Yes, our opinions differ (His review of Broadway's The Wild Party being the most egregious), but to me he's miles ahead of Isherwood.

Updated On: 3/21/16 at 04:11 PM

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 4:19pm

Food is Food. And Theatre is Theatre. I don't know if the same rules apply.

Would you send someone to critique a Ballet who had never studied ballet at some level? Either by studying it themselves or immersing themselves in the art form. I don't see anything  in Brantley's bio that mentions he has either studied theatre himself or immerses himself in some way in the art form other than attending theatre.  Honestly, I get it. No one agrees with me.

And I don't know... have most food critics studied food in some aspect? Maybe they have. You don't say so. I think it would be necessary in that instance as well, to be honest. If you are a critic of any art form, I personally think you  need some practical, personal experience in that art form or have studied it is an intellectual study.  Just showing up to give your opinion isn't enough for me.  Again.. a journalist and a critic are two different jobs.  You can agree with me or not. That is my opinion.

I also don't think that ANYONE who has studied theatre would make a good reviewer. I think it would take a unique person that has a balance of both a solid background in theatre and who could also be open minded and a good writer. It would take a unique person with several sets of skills that would together make them a great reviewer.

Like I said, I think everyone has been very respectful. And I think I have. But lets just end it. No one seems to agree with me. And no one has swayed me from my opinion.

Updated On: 3/21/16 at 04:19 PM

[Pootie2]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 4:50pm

"Respectful" is certainly not an adjective I would attach to you, CurtainsUpat8, given your opinion about people who enjoyed the musical Disaster; that's hardly the same as expressing an opinion about a show.

[Hackasaurus_Rex]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 4:54pm

Food is a perfect analogy.  It is making something from a collection of independant ingredients (Like a painter's paints, a writer's words, an actor's emotive abilities) and transforming those ingredients into something that transcends their original state... and in the process the result elicits feelings in the person digesting it.  That is art.  The analogy is sound.   And yes, food critics don't need to know how to prepare a meal to disect how it makes them feel.  They just need to be articulate about it.  Same applies with theater critics.   I know what your argument is and on the surface I agree that a person critiquing something should have a knowledge above and beyond the average theater goer to qualify them to give their reviews in print and sway public opinion.  But that doesn't have to come in the form of school training or working behind the scenes in professional theater.   Years of theater going, a capacity to understand complex ideas (and well as sophomoric ones) and being able to articulate their feelings about it can be enough.

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 7:00pm

I guess my own personal view is that no one should really be annointed as qualified to give official opinions that are considered more influential than other, unofficial opinions, because everyone has their own combinations of tastes, values, and preferences, and no one critic can match any of their readers entirely.  So i'd rather see summaries/news articles announcing shows rather than critiquing them, but that is my own opinion.  I have only ever read Brantley reviews after having seen the shows in question, and i disagree with him as much as agree, and there does not seem to be any correlation between whether he liked a show and whether i liked it.  The same is true of any individual poster on here as well, for that matter.  I find it more helpful to read collections of opinions and their reasons from a cross-section of people than to read a detailed article by one particular newspaper employee. 

If i find the subject matter of a show interesting, i will buy a ticket to go and see it, and actively avoid reading reviews or threads about it until after i have seen it, and then maybe join in the discussion threads afterwards, or not, depending on how excited i am to discuss it.  But if i have already decided that i'm not interested in a show or i'm on the fence about it, then reading a collection of good opinions in a thread on this board can make me change my mind and buy a ticket to see it when i wouldn't have done so otherwise.  But reading any one newspaper review wouldn't get me to do so. 

In a similar vein to the food analogies, there are lots of reviews that can be found online of products designed by engineers, such as smart phones, or of travel accommodations.  The people writing those reviews critiquing those products often have no experience at all designing/making/producing the products, only using them.  Yet they are reviewing their own experience with using a product, just as a theatre reviewer does.  Neither of them has to say that they could have made a better product in order to say whether they enjoyed using a product or not (such as a smart phone or musical theatre show).

Updated On: 3/21/16 at 07:00 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 7:24pm

On a slight side note: It's not that the opinions or critiques of people who have a background in theater are of no interest - quite the contrary. But you asked specifically about prerequisite qualifications for reviewers, OP.

I think it's possible for reviewers to make idiot statements that arise from an ignorance of the thing they're reviewing - the TV reviewer who talked about Avatar: the Last Airbender "inventing" dramatic cartoons as if anime never existed comes to mind. But that reviewer didn't fail because he didn't have a media studies degree or a background in television production. He failed because he didn't know about the history or international examples of his field.

A good reviewer is a good writer who can describe a production evocatively and clearly articulate his or her thoughts on it. For me, the best reviewers aren't the ones I agree with, but the ones whose writing acts a reliable bellwether for whether I'll like something.

I disagree with Alan Sepinwall a lot, for example, but he's good enough - and I've been reading him for long enough - that if I get excited about a show from his review of it, it's almost guaranteed that I'll like that show once I start watching. He's never made a television show in his life - he's just a highly enthusiastic viewer who started writing about television in college and hasn't stopped writing or thinking about the art form since.

Brantley doesn't fulfill that role for me, but that's fine; most reviewers don't. But it isn't because he dared to take the position despite majoring in English.

[FiddleMeThis]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 10:18pm

Jesse Green is currently the finest NYC theatre critic writing today. Brantley comes in second. His writing is elegant and he always manages to convey the message of the production in a non-obvious way. Isherwood writes like he works for his college paper, and his taste is simplistic. DISASTER is a complete shambles of a show, as it's now being presented. He was dead wrong. And his over the top rave for AMERICAN IN PARIS, while most other critics were more cautious, also had the effect of missing what are some major flaws in that show.

Frank Rich was a fantastic critic, and didn't have a huge theater background. Theater is a beat like any other, and theater critic is not a job reserved for whoever has the most theater training.

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 11:13pm

FiddleMeThis.  IMHO you have supplied the best answer and have come the closest to moving my position with your great response.

You wisely bring  up Frank Rich, who in my opinion, was one of the best reviewers of theatre ever. He is an extraordinary intellect. How many theatre critics today come close to Frank Rich? No one really. Although he was a writer who had no practical experience in the theatre, but he had a huge intellectual capacity to understand theatre on a profound level. He proves my theory wrong. Some of his reviews were masterpieces of critique.

You say "Theatre is a beat, like any other" and that may be true, but who we get to fill that beat makes a difference. There are few Frank Richs in this world. I would be very grateful if there were a few more.

i also agree that Jesse Green is one of the best. His reviews just don't have the depth of intellect that Frank Rich had. But Jesse Green usually gets it right. (He hated Disaster too)

Updated On: 3/21/16 at 11:13 PM

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 3/22/16 at 12:27am

For the record, Chris Jones of The Chicago Tribune, who is IMO one of the best theatre critics out there, has a Ph.D. in theatre. Not only is he a great writer, but he actually knows what he's talking about - not because he's a practitioner, but because he has the education for it. I think ideally all theatre critics would have an advanced degree in theatre. Otherwise, why is their opinion valuable enough to be published?

[JM226]

Posted: 3/22/16 at 7:38am

well to that end, why is ANY opinion on a SUBJECTIVE ART FORM valuable enough? one person who sees ugliness in a piece will then see beauty in another, and vice versa for someone else.  at the end of the day it's just an opinion on a subjective art form that cannot be scientifically measured.  whether they're educated or not is irrelevant.  there shouldn't be any value PUT into their opinions. 

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/22/16 at 8:10am

CurtainsUpat8 said:
i also agree that Jesse Green is one of the best. His reviews just don't have the depth of intellect that Frank Rich had. But Jesse Green usually gets it right. (He hated Disaster too)

By which you mean: I agree with his opinions.

My close friend -- an ethnomusicologist PhD who's a professor of musical theater history and has written three books on the subject -- loved Disaster. She raved about it. Is she wrong? (Of course not -- because opinions are subjective, and different people respond to different things).

 

Updated On: 3/22/16 at 08:10 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/22/16 at 8:44am

^ WHY don't we have a LIKE button!!!?

[indytallguy]

Posted: 3/22/16 at 9:32am

What I appreciate about Jesse Green (and also did about Frank Rich) is the thoughtful nature of his reviews which almost always offer detailed insight into his particular opinion of a production.

I don't always agree with his opinion (nor would I expect to) but he provides the analysis that lets me understand his line of thinking. Often I come away with a new appreciation for some aspect of a production as a result. I like reviewers and critics from whom I learn regardless of whether or not we agree on a production's overall quality.

[haterobics]

Posted: 3/22/16 at 9:38am

AC126748 said: "By which you mean: I agree with his opinions."

It is ironic that we've come full circle from a critic writing negative reviews and them having no experience, but safely landed back on Frank Rich who had no theater experience and was nicknamed "The Butcher of Broadway" for his ability to affect the longevity of shows with his reviews.

[FiddleMeThis]

Posted: 3/22/16 at 9:49am

Well said, indytallguy. This is the whole point. A good critic is not someone who's opinions always match mine. It's the WAY a critic gets to his opinions. Brantley, Green, and Rich all do a great job of showing that. It's very easy for a critic to express his likes and dislikes; it's why criticism as an art form is losing out to online commentary. But a truly excellent critic can pick up on the subtle, unspoken messages of a production, and the feelings it evokes in an audience who is truly paying attention. There's a lot of alchemy involved in why a show works, or doesn't work, or is worth seeing or not. The best critics pick up on that and express it in a way that many of us feel but maybe can't express.

For that reason, I don't think every great critic needs to have a master's degree in theatre. There's a lot of different ways to approach this art. And I definitely don't need to agree with a critic's baseline opinion of a show to think he or she is a great critic.