Male Critics- Page 2
Male Critics
#25Male Critics
Posted: 4/24/17 at 4:13am
Speed said: "Ben Brantley loves divas and will praise them every time. Kristin, Donna, Patti, Bette, Audra, etc.
"
The point is we need the female experience, not acknowledgement or approval from men.
astromiami
Understudy Joined: 7/12/12
#26Male Critics
Posted: 4/24/17 at 8:35am
haterobics said: "This seems like the same issue with the Oscars and diversity, where it is a bit misplaced. The Oscars don't produce any films, so unless they are ignoring obvious minority films and cast members, there is not much they can do to make what films are produced more diverse. Same with critics, unless they are unable to critique non-white non-cisgender non-male plays accurately, then there isn't an issue. Should there be more diversity in the work, the casts, the community, and the critics? Sure. But that doesn't seem like the point here, so not sure what the goal would be. Is there some tone deaf review of a non-white, non-male play that I missed?"
I am not sure if this is meant to be serious or not. There are so many breaches of logic that the intent may be satiric.
However, I will bite.
This seems like the same issue with the Oscars and diversity, where it is a bit misplaced. The Oscars don't produce any films, so unless they are ignoring obvious minority films and cast members, there is not much they can do to make what films are produced more diverse
The Oscars do not make movies, but the Times hires critics. So like the producers who can make films more diverse, by making more diverse films, the Times can make its lineup of critics more diverse by hiring someone other than a white man for its number two slot.
Same with critics, unless they are unable to critique non-white non-cisgender non-male plays accurately, then there isn't an issue. Should there be more diversity in the work, the casts, the community, and the critics? Sure. But that doesn't seem like the point here, so not sure what the goal would be. Is there some tone deaf review of a non-white, non-male play that I missed?
Clearly, yes, you missed a lot. Nothing big, but lots of little stuff. I suggest you read EVERY review of the next 5 plays that open and you will get a better sense of it. There is no big stunner of bigotry, but the distance from minority and women's voices is clear when viewed alongside the engagement in writing about their own demographic.
And even if the white men were completely superlative in their empathetic understanding of plays outside their facht, it would still be a problem. If a company only hires white men for certain positions, that is a pretty clear indication of hiring bias. If you think that it is just a coincidence....I have a great deal for you on a great bridge.
Smaxie
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/26/05
#27Male Critics
Posted: 4/24/17 at 11:58am
The landscape is a little worse this morning: Linda Winer has left Newsday.
https://twitter.com/RobKendt/status/856334358399123456
Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.
Updated On: 4/24/17 at 11:58 AM
#28Male Critics
Posted: 4/24/17 at 12:49pm
I think this entire thread misses the point that daily reviewers (of any art, including theatre) are increasingly ignored and irrelevant. They don't control content. And they aren't exactly "critics" - that is, they don't analyze or delve past a really rather superficial level, they merely describe an experience from a limited and subjective place. They aren't scholars, experts, or even particularly good writers. So it seems wise to avoid ascribing more power and/or influence to them than they actually possess.
If one wishes to read arts reviews from a particular point of view (female, trans, frum), I'm sure there are many blogs that can be found to satisfy that desire. Why does it have to be a daily paper?
VintageSnarker
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/30/15
#29Male Critics
Posted: 4/24/17 at 1:28pm
newintown said: "If one wishes to read arts reviews from a particular point of view (female, trans, frum), I'm sure there are many blogs that can be found to satisfy that desire. Why does it have to be a daily paper?"
I see your point, but there are still advantages to being a reviewer for a publication/official website... legitimacy, salary, readership, access. It's like saying, well, if they won't publish your book, why don't you self-publish? Or, if they won't produce your album, release it online. Sure, you could be a blogger or even write reviews on show score. But you're paying for tickets out of pocket. It's harder to get people to find your review. You don't get paid unless the site is established enough to pull in ad revenue, etc. And even though all these opinions are subjective and aren't attached to academic degrees, you have less authority and legitimacy. Sure, the internet diminishes the barrier to entry but that's not the only issue and the onus shouldn't be entirely on those outside the system to change it. That conveniently shifts a lot of responsibility from the people who are responsible for the diversity problem in the first place.
#30Male Critics
Posted: 4/24/17 at 1:32pm
"I see your point, but there are still advantages to being a reviewer for a publication/official website... legitimacy, salary, readership, access."
That statement ignores my opener, which is that the position is becoming increasingly irrelevant. I wouldn't be surprised if they were mostly gone within 50 years. Increasing diversity in a dying profession is an inherently rather pointless topic to explore.
astromiami
Understudy Joined: 7/12/12
#31Male Critics
Posted: 4/24/17 at 2:56pm
newintown said: ""I see your point, but there are still advantages to being a reviewer for a publication/official website... legitimacy, salary, readership, access."
That statement ignores my opener, which is that the position is becoming increasingly irrelevant. I wouldn't be surprised if they were mostly gone within 50 years. Increasing diversity in a dying profession is an inherently rather pointless topic to explore."
I doubt anyone is going to say that they do not care about getting a salary, having a readership, having access to publicists and getting respected as legitimate because in 50 years their job will not exist.
Ultimately, this is an employment issue. You would not say that it is okay for bus companies not to hire black and Hispanic drivers because in 50 years the buses will be driverless anyway.
And nor would you say that it is okay for a publisher not to put out books by female or Asian authors because they can always self-publish.
The fact that you cannot name any of the blogs that view theater from any minority point of view (which you say you are sure exist), while I am certain you can name the critics at the Times and some other publications, shows that who is published in established media very much does matter!
#32Male Critics
Posted: 4/24/17 at 3:26pm
You got a string of false equivalences there, y'know. But let it pass, let it pass. The point has been made; you either agree with it, or you don't.
Sunny11
Broadway Star Joined: 9/3/14
#33Male Critics
Posted: 4/24/17 at 3:50pm
New York theater criticism is an incredibly small world to begin with. I think that there are only about 20 major publications of note. In addition to that turnover is low, Isherwood started at the Times 13 years ago.
Frankly when the current major critics where at the start of their careers 1980/90s work place diversity just wasn't as important in our culture as it is today. And because infusion of new blood happens slowly that ethic make up has stayed almost the same.
Hopefully today there are a lot of talented women and POCs in journalism school aspiring to this field so things will evolve.
l
astromiami
Understudy Joined: 7/12/12
#34Male Critics
Posted: 4/24/17 at 7:07pm
While there are some good theater critics in NYC (Helen Shaw and Alexis Soloski immediately come to mind) there is no reason why the Times has to hire locally. When they hired Isherwood, he was based in LA.
I do not understand why there is so much energy spent on covering for the Times. Reading here one would think they lack the resources to do an adequate search and lack any reputation to make them more important than some theater enthusiast's blog.
Smaxie
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/26/05
#35Male Critics
Posted: 4/24/17 at 7:17pm
>When they hired Isherwood, he was based in LA.<
Isherwood was an editor and critic at Variety before he went to The New York Times. He was in New York as chief theatre critic for Variety for at least six years before he went to the Times in 2004.
Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.
astromiami
Understudy Joined: 7/12/12
#36Male Critics
Posted: 4/24/17 at 7:40pm
Smaxie said: ">When they hired Isherwood, he was based in LA.<
Isherwood was an editor and critic at Variety before he went to The New York Times. He was in New York as chief theatre critic for Variety for at least six years before he went to the Times in 2004. "
I am sorry for the error. Isherwood started off as a critic in LA and I guess Variety moved him to NYC.
In any case, the Times (like Variety) has moved staff around the country. There is no reason they could not move a good critic from another city into Isherwood' s slot. Journalists have to make quick moves all the time.
#37Male Critics
Posted: 4/24/17 at 10:15pm
astromiami said: "There is no big stunner of bigotry, but the distance from minority and women's voices is clear when viewed alongside the engagement in writing about their own demographic."
Hiring someone to check off a diversity box doesn't solve all representation problems. Hilton Als is a POC and has written some pretty misogynistic stuff in the past. So should the New Yorker hire a female critic to make up for Hilton's biases towards shows with a female voice? How can theatre criticism- a dying artform in itself- balance all demographic groups across a dozen publications so that each voice potentially represented in theatre will have a demographically-matched critic who "gets it" best? The NY Times might as well start up a Broadway.com Word-of-Mouth round table review. All 12 of them can share 800 words of space and the equivalent of Isherwood's salary.
Jesse Green is better equipped to review theatre for the NY Times than Ben Brantley, who has already been doing it for 20 years. I can't fault the Times for hiring someone who is, in my opinion, above and beyond the best person for the job based on the current field. You claim they didn't do an adequate search, but they posted the job. People applied. Do you know of any woman or minority critic who applied? Can you name names who you think are not just a "good critic" as you said in a previous post, but the best person for the job based on their oeuvre of theatre criticism?
Maybe Vulture can hire a woman or POC to replace him. Maybe Newsday can find a millennial minority who doesn't mind going in the online content direction Linda Winer derides. The onus is not entirely on the NY Times.
newintown said: "And they aren't exactly "critics" - that is, they don't analyze or delve past a really rather superficial level, they merely describe an experience from a limited and subjective place. They aren't scholars, experts, or even particularly good writers."
If anyone in the field today qualifies as a critic, it's Jesse Green.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never knowing how
Updated On: 4/24/17 at 10:15 PM
Wanting life but never knowing how
#38Male Critics
Posted: 4/25/17 at 10:51am
"If anyone in the field today qualifies as a critic, it's Jesse Green."
I disagree; the only person with whom I'm familiar writing today who I would call a real critic is Michael Feingold. But he's never written for a daily, that I'm aware of.
"The NY Times might as well start up a Broadway.com Word-of-Mouth round table review. All 12 of them can share 800 words of space and the equivalent of Isherwood's salary."
I love this idea; the committee must be comprised of more than 12 people, because every possible combination of these categories would need to be represented: male/female; white/African American/Asian American/Latino/Middle Eastern/First Peoples/Inuit; heterosexual/homosexual/lesbian/bisexual/trans/queer/questioning/intersex; Catholic/Protestant/Jewish Orthodox/Jewish Reform/Sunni/Shiite/Hindu/Atheist/Agnostic/Pagan/Etc.Etc.Etc.; abled/otherly abled/spectrum/etc. Am I forgetting any important demographic categories?
That is to say we cannot just choose one person from each category: every combination of categories must be represented, as a male/Asian American/bisexual/agnostic/otherly abled writer will definitely see theatre with a paradigm significantly different from a female/Asian American/bisexual/agnostic/otherly abled writer, and both must be represented to please everyone.
