A Question About Criticism

[jdixon69]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 10:05am

I'm wondering about something that only someone with more knowledge of Broadway history can answer.

One difference I've noticed between film criticism and theatre criticism is the relative importance of audience reaction. Roger Ebert can sit in a theatre filled with people who are laughing/crying/really affected by the same film he's seeing, then go back to his office and write a devastating pan without batting an eyelash; it is his opinion only that matters.

Whereas in theatre reviews I've read (since the late '90s), it has always felt like the critics were reluctant to pan anything that was obviously working for the rest of the audience. While this is obviously a bastardization of the whole process of criticism, as a consumer, this approach is more useful to me, giving a clearer picture of whether I'd like or dislike a show (especially with comedy, which I think most critics are at sea with).

But I've noticed recently that theatre critics seem to be moving closer to their film brethren, feeling comfortable slamming something that their fellow theatre-goers obviously like. I noticed this on some DRS reviews, and especially now on Wedding Singer, which is apparently going over very big every night.

My question is this: is the practice of critically taking it easy on crowd-pleasers a theatre tradition, or a more recent development? Does anyone else see it swinging the other way?

[BluCat500]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 10:35am

Well, I believe movie critics particularly ones as big as Ebert get private screenings of movies, therefore they really have no exposure to audience reaction.

Whereas theater critics inevitably have to be surrounded by a theater full of people...

I have no hypothesis as to how this would affect their reviews, but its rather hard to compare the situations.