Broadway "Bolter" Univited to Future Shows

Excellent. This was noted here:


Full thread

---

Updated On: 12/15/14 at 06:37 PM

I have to say if you are there to review the piece I don't care if Hitler and the KKK sing heroic songs of victory while beating up a gay baby, you should stay for the whole show. It's your job. Like a surgeon would not stop operating on a murderer. You may hate what you are watching but any critic who leaves mid-way through is not a real critic and should not be taken seriously.

That said, I know this woman at the WSJ is not a critic. However, my personal opinion is that as an arts writer she shows a complete lack of understanding and sensitivity to art by walking out. She may think it's cute to cop to it but it just shows that she is a lazy thinker and not worth reading.

I am not a review, nor an awards voter, but I have always understood / believed / discussed that when you are given comps to a show, especially by the company, there is a certain level of behavior expected above and beyond other patrons. You are there as a guest in that "home", you are not a paying customer.
If the seat is less than ideal, you make do and make the best of it.
You do NOT show up at curtain time and try to rush in as the lights go to black.
You don't comment negatively on the show while you are there, even if you hate it. Be polite until you are at least on a different city block..
You do NOT leave early unless it is absolutely unavoidable as a last resort in an emergency...

When I did reviews long ago for college radio, I got pretty good at taking notes in the dark. Movies were more difficult than theatre. The problem was making a legible enough note with enough detail to remember what the thought was at that time. Of course, sometimes, the train of thought can be quite fun as I once re-read my notes from a film that was supposedly a comedy that was, in my opinion, very unfunny. I think my notes were more amusing than the film. But, I also vividly remember writing a "GREAT!" with a flourish at the curtain of a show I was reviewing. But, since this was not Broadway, I was there generally on opening night, and so I wasn't the only one taking notes. Never got a question from anybody. The notes also were good for when I got to interview an actor or director after seeing the show.

AND I NEVER LEFT AT INTERMISSION. Even when I wanted to.

I've never walked out of a show in the middle, when I've paid or with comps. As a reviewer, I feel it's my duty to stay and watch the whole show even when I don't like it. The only case I could see of leaving a show early when I'm there to review it is if there is an extreme emergency, and in that case I would probably write to the producers and explain what happened, and then not review the show unless I'm able to see it on another date.

Also, even when I pay to see the show, I can't imagine walking out early unless the show is so offensive I can't sit through it. Even when the first act is bad, I'm optimistic enough to hope things will improve in the second act, so I want to stay.

As for notes, I don't always take notes, but I usually have a pen with me so I can scribble a few notes on the program if I need to. Most of the time it's too dark to take notes, although there are some shows where I can see better (especially outdoor shows). Also, if I'm concentrating too much on taking notes, it's easy to miss something that happens on stage. Sometimes I'll write down a few notes right after the show, but most of the time I remember it well enough to write the review without a lot of notes.

Also, about reviewer comps, I agree that asking for free meals is excessive (and ridiculous), but a lot of reviewers can't afford to see all the shows they see if not for comp tickets. Independent bloggers are getting more and more common, and most of us don't get paid to blog, so comps are very helpful. As long as you don't abuse the privilege by walking out early, I see no problem with comps for reviewers.

Updated On: 12/15/14 at 08:52 PM

Hackasaurus, I'm with Bwayto here. You say:

What are you so afraid of experiencing that it would force you to leave a show early that you are reviewing? Is your skin that thin that someone's words could keep you from doing your job?

Let me reverse the question: "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" There are some things that bring a reviewer's activity to a screaming halt. I recently saw a version of "Hair" in which the ending involved the dead protagonist lying naked on an American flag, instead of clothed, on the black cloth as in the original. I was practically shaking when I left (at the end) because I was so offended about desecrating the flag in this manner. I was able to review the production because there was quite a bit to say that was positive. Nonetheless, I can see a reviewer saying, "I'm sorry, but I can't think about anything other than this naked guy dripping bodily fluids on the US flag."

---

The controversy spawning this thread also has nothing to do with being a theater critic either--highly recommend reading the first thread linked at the top.

---

Hackasaurus writes:
I believe the role of a critic is simply not for you. You may be an amazing writer but you clearly don't have the temperament to sit through material that challenges your personal sensibilities.

Hackasaurus, I disagree. I believe that the message is part of the whole in any theatrical production, just as it is in a novel. If I don't have the temperament to be a reviewer, it's for a different reason -- I hate the idea, especially when reviewing a small, local production, of saying that so-and-so was too wooden, or that another so-and-so can't hit the high notes. The company has worked hard to put on the production, and I want to give it the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, I hate being harsh.

Returning to the question of whether a critic must avoid having personal feelings intrude about the message, in my opinion, a review is based entirely on personal feelings. There is no reason that a reviewer should not comment on the message. If the message is so relentlessly depressing that it dwarfs everything else, that is a legitimate basis to dislike a production. Getting back to the version of HAIR that I saw, I questioned whether its treatment of the flag is still appropriate after 9/11. However, I pointed out that the performances were full of energy, and that there was much to enjoy.

Hackasaurus, you are entitled to disagree with my opinion about what constitutes a legitimate topic of comment in a review, but I respectfully disagree that you have enough evidence to conclude that I "clearly don't have the temperament to sit through material that challenges [my] personal sensibilities."

---

I think you missed my point, AHLiebross. I am not saying you are not entitled to have your personal feelings inform your critique of a piece. That would be insane. Of course. Such a thing goes without saying. My point is that those feelings should not keep you from keeping your butt in the seat for the entire performance so that you can review it properly.

As to your thoughts on the "Hair" production you saw, I personally think there is nothing so outrageous about a character laying naked on an American flag in a musical that was created to be a giant theatrical war protest in the first place. Certainly nothing that would compel you to walk out as a critic. Now I never saw this production you speak of but in the context of that particular show they are performing it is not out of the realm of appropriate... 9/11 or not. Maybe the production was drawing parallels to the way young people felt about the wars we were dragged into after 9/11. Maybe the nudity represents innocence. Hell, I don't know. Again I didn't see it.

The point I was making was not to critique the content of your reviews... I've never read one. My point (and it is one that I frankly see no argument against) is IF you are tasked with reviewing a piece and you take your job seriously then you have an obligation TO YOUR OWN CRAFT to sit through the piece in its entirety. And if you can't do THAT, if you can't sit for an entire performance no matter what they are doing on stage, then I stand by my opinion that you don't have the right temperament for art critique.

Hackasaurus writes:

My point (and it is one that I frankly see no argument against) is IF you are tasked with reviewing a piece and you take your job seriously then you have an obligation TO YOUR OWN CRAFT to sit through the piece in its entirety.

Hackasaurus, I agree with you. I have never walked out, and, as I said in an earlier post, I can see someone's doing so no more than once in a career. I would not, however, blame a PTSD sufferer for walking out in the middle if he or she were so unfortunate as to be given tickets to a play that hits too close to home.

I think you and I are basically on the same page, except perhaps whether the version I saw of "HAIR" suffered from bad taste. However, bad taste is protected by the First Amendment, and any critic needs to be aware that "bad taste" for him or her is instead a daring and bold vision for someone else.

---