Critics Are Good - An Essay

[Not Barker, Todd.]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 6:21pm

Since another popular [but bad(?)] show has opened up (The Little Mermaid), I think now would be a good time to review (pun) why we need critics and why they aren't awful hate mongers.

Critics serve a vital function in ANY artistic community. They keep artists striving for a higher standard. Good reviews and awards encourage artists to keep refining their technique and making their work better. Without critics, it becomes a game of marketing and statistics. Put out some machine processed crap that the latest poll says that they'll all like. And without critics saying its bad, some piece of crap marketing product may become the new standard of art.

Now, you may say, "People will realize its bad and tell others not to come." But that exactly my point! If you get rid of critics, eventually, they come back as a part of the natural process. They are important, they aren't mean nasty haters who want to kill everything in sight.

Which brings me to my next point. A critic's job is NOT to poke holes in something. His/her job is too evaluate it. Praise what's good, point out what's bad. If you don't believe me, I can point out some review threads that can prove this. (Xanadu, some pointed out that Beane's work on Tony Robert's character was sub-par, but loved the show otherwise).

You may or may not agree with critics, but that doesn’t mean that they are worthless, stupid, or awful. And just because a large number of people are flocking to something doesn’t make it good, it makes it popular. Popular does not equal good. (Snakes on a Plane, anyone?). A critic's job is to evaluate whether or not it is good. If you disagree with them, say so plainly and state your reasons (hint: popularity is not a good reason!) rationally. Don't whine!

And another thing. If a show is fun, but not good, do not act as if fun = good. I am positive In My Life would have been a blast! But would it have been good? No. There are plenty of fun shows that are also good (Hello Dolly! / Hairspray / Xanadu / The Drowsy Chaperone). But again, do not loudly proclaim that it was fun as if that made it Pulitzer worthy. Say it was fun, say you loved it! But do not act as if that alone made it good. Again, if you did think it was good, calmly and rationally say why.

To address this show, many have said that they think it got bad reviews because it was Disney. I STRONGLY disagree. I think almost everyone in the theatre community wanted this show to be good because they loved the movie and knew what great potential was there (I think some reviews even mentioned such things plainly). According to this line of thinking, some shows will get bad reviews no matter what. Which we know is not true. Xanadu? Sweeney Todd? The Lion King? Spring Awakening?

Again, critics aren't perfect. Many thought Chicago's score was crap when it came out. Over time, opinions have changed. But they aren't monsters either.

[henryt]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 6:39pm

I agree, but I don't think people really care what critics say. Wicked got panned, but look at all the people who disregarded them.

[Not Barker, Todd.]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 6:41pm

Not really my point.

[BenKaye]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 6:56pm

I totally agree with you Not Barker.

Critics get too much of a bum rap, and it's always good to hear people defending them, and their just opinions.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 7:00pm

I wanted Mermaid to be great. Really great. Sadly, I ---


But I'm about to run out. I'll finish this later.

[PotO2]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 7:07pm

I agree and think critics are great, *as long as* people don't replace their opinion with the critics'. I believe people should read a review, and keep in mind that that person gave it a good/bad review, but *don't* let that change your mind completely. The critic is stating their opinion. It doesn't have to be yours.

Honestly, I think that if someone says they want to go to a show and it looks/sounds pretty good to them, but then they read a bad review and decide not to go, they probably didn't want to go that much in the first place.

[jaystarr]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 7:13pm

Barker- You point out some good points ! I agree with most of the things you said.

Also...

It's critics job to review and be critical about shows...not everyone has money & time too see ALL the shows on Broadway, that's why we have critics to sort things out for the general public and if you dont like what they say.. you can always see the show(s) that they panned- its called freedom.

I have nothing against critics... its their job... and most of the time -theyre right!

J*
Updated On: 1/11/08 at 07:13 PM

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 7:30pm

I've learned a lot from reading critics over the years. These people have dedicated their lives to developing their own understanding about art and sharing their insights.

Sure they can be brittle and sometimes even abuse their power, but that is human. I don't know a profession where that doesn't occur.

I once thought that critics should be replaced with patron responses. Get a variety of people from different walks of life talking about what they saw... and the came broadway.com's word of mouth.

Now listening to those "critics" is PAINFUL.

[TabooPhan1]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 7:37pm

I see where you're coming from, and I would like to agree with you, however I feel a little bit differently.

I think the idea of having entertainment critics is good. However, the problem I have with them is not that they simply exist, it's that people like Michael Riedel start to believe that because they're a theatre critic they have some kind of keen eye that others don't have. I have found that many (not all) critics just end up sounding pompous and self-gratifying, and most times I can't help but feel they really offer biased, jaded opinions.

I guess in the end it all just comes back to opinions. I don't read reviews at all because most of the time I disagree with critics anyway. Shows like Avenue Q or Taboo, for instance, have been criticized to death and I've loved them. So what does it matter? You hit the nail on the head when you said that audiences become the real critics, and in my opinion those are the only opinions that really matter.

I would also disagree that being a "fun" show doesn't necessarily make it good. If your definition of a good show is "pulitzer prize worthy", you're going to be disappointed more often than not. I personally would say a good show is one that you personally enjoyed for whatever reasons you might have. For example, I do not find Les Miserables to be entertaining... many people disagree. See my point?

Just my two-cents, but I personally am not a fan of professional critics in any medium.

[Not Barker, Todd.]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 8:20pm

"I would also disagree that being a "fun" show doesn't necessarily make it good. If your definition of a good show is "pulitzer prize worthy", you're going to be disappointed more often than not."

I'm not saying everything has to be "Pulitzer Prize Worthy", its just that people often people scream "It's FUN!" as if that very fact made it so. I was using hyperbole.

And I still say fun does not equal good. I'm using the word good as a measure of quality (writing, performace, etc). Fun means you enjoyed it. I've enjoyed many a piece of art that was crap quality wise. Just because I enoyed though does not make its level of quality go up. I may appriciate the good in it more, but it dosen't change anything about the actual piece.

"You hit the nail on the head when you said that audiences become the real critics, and in my opinion those are the only opinions that really matter."

Critics are audiences too. To me, the opinions of the artistic community and the well read and intelligent is what matters to me, and they are audiences as well. These are the people who spend their lives slaving away to understand and appriciate these things. Why not listen to them? Everyone is certainly allowed to have their own opinion about things, but I am so sick and tired of people unfairly bashing critics and whining because people "don't have their own opinion." I wrote this because I see so many get bashed and get into arguments, not because they have a different opinion, but because they don't seem to get how to voice it intelligently.

Updated On: 1/11/08 at 08:20 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 8:25pm

The usual routine when critics pan a show (this case being Mermaid)

CRITCS SUCK!
WHO NEEDS CRITICS?
IT'S JUST AN OPINION
CRITICS DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!
CRITICS HAVE NO TASTE.
etc etc

People need to get the hell over it.

[roquat]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 10:29pm

Producers love to say that critics don't matter, that "the public" will find the shows it likes--bull. When an artist is just starting out (usually in low-budget, off-the-beaten-path shows), nobody knows who he is, and producers won't take a risk promoting him unless some critics go all out to praise him and point out what's new and interesting in his work. Critics often have to overstate their opinions just to get potential ticket buyers interested in new artists. Without that first push, no artist would get anywhere.

Updated On: 1/11/08 at 10:29 PM