CHICKEN & BISCUITS - Reviews — Page 2

troynow said: "Seems odd to me that a producer or co-producer of a broadway show can write a review. Feels like this is a conflict of interest"

Major conflict of interest. In VARIETY no less –– a respectable trade publication –– which def wouldn't let that slide for a film of TV series. And not even a disclaimer. Shame on VARIETY.

JBroadway said: "I think there’s definitely a case for altering the culture of theatre criticism to (a) include more marginalized voices as critics, (b) write reviews with a contextual mindset of who the target audience is, and whether they’d enjoy / are enjoying a show, and (c) be constructive and resist the urge make catty jabs just to entertain readers.

But I also think that making space for marginalized artists shouldn’t mean making their art immune to criticism. A thriving artistic community will always output a mix of hits and misses. And part of making space for marginalized voices is to make space for them to write good things and bad things, just like white artists do.

So agree with all of this. Multiple things can be true.

This isn't Verizon vs. AT&T - the culture of the theatre community isn't one of cutthroat smear campaigns or insider trading. I think there's probably enough trust in the community that she won't smear other shows simply because they are technically her "competitors." While there is some degree of competition on Broadway, the general trend has been more of a "rising tide lifts all boats" mindset. It's not like Chicken & Biscuits is going to seriously eat away at the audience for Is This a Room.

It can also be case-by-case, especially with freelancers. On the "Three on the Aisle" podcast, I remember the critics saying they sometimes recuse themselves from writing a review of a specific show if they have personal ties to a show or the artists involved. But not if they have personal ties to an entirely separate show that just happens to be playing at the same time.

I'd think the only potential issue would be if Prescod writing bad reviews will burn bridges with potential future colleagues in the industry. But that's a risk that she's taking on herself. Or alternately, if she tries to avoid this situation by never writing a single bad review, then we can adjust our opinions of her credibility accordingly.

I liked this show. And I'm glad Variety gave it a good review. But like how can Variety be ok with someone who has multiple (associate) producing credits - this season - reviewing another show? It just clearly should not be allowed.

JBroadway said: "I guess so, but it's such a small, insular community - I think it's hard to avoid in reality. I guess that doesn't necessarily make it right, but at the very least it's worth acknowledging that if this is a problem, it's not an isolated one."

How many other critics at major publications such as Variety were / are active producers, as well, though?

@Hogan Well as I said, the hosts of Three on the Aisle discussed it. Terry Teachout had written Satchmo at the Waldorf, and I believe he mentioned that he's recused himself from writing about John Douglas Thompson in subsequent productions, because they were close collaborators and friends. And John Douglas Thompson works a lot! It's not like Terry Teachout stops writing about all the other "competitors" in town every time one of his collaborators on that show has work playing in New York.

Not to mention they are frequently inviting artists on as guests and chatting with them in a very friendly way, but I guess that technically falls under the umbrella of journalism.

As for producers - probably few or none. So yeah, maybe you're right that some conflicts of interest are more extreme than others. I don't know. It just seems unlikely to yield real-life instances of bias in her reviews, especially if she's freelancing. But maybe you're right that it's more the principle of the thing.

@JBroadway I think there is a distinction between being friends with someone and having a contrary financial interest. I think Teachout gets to decide where to draw the line once there is no temporal connection but if he were reviewing shows that were directly competitive with Satchmo, I would call foul on that. This is a well-traveled path at respectable publications, and I do consider Variety such a place. And TBC I am not referring to an op-ed type situation but a compensated reviewer is someone whose writing reflects on the journalistic integrity of a publication.

I have a huge problem with the “should X critic be reviewing this piece” question because that requires a judgement (by the editor) before seeing the play. And, if a publication sends a freelancer or second-stringer to all the “Black plays” of the year because there isn’t a Black chief critic, those are terrible optics — it’s saying that those plays aren’t worth the time of the chief critic.

You wouldn’t send a high school student to review BE MORE CHILL or LIGHTNING THIEF, for example, even if that’s the author’s main demographic… Though the high school student might write better than Prescod, whose shameful adjective-filled “review” devotes a lot of space to things only known from a press release and would be ripped to shreds in any undergrad criticism class.

A good critic should be able to write intelligently about any piece (whether they personally like it or not). As we saw with Jesse Green’s review, which is fair and well written, he acknowledges his own background and how that informs his opinion. Hilton Als obviously isn’t disqualified from reviewing Noel Coward or Jeanine Tesori because he’s Black, and that doesn’t make his opinion any less valid — on the contrary, it enhances it.

There is a huge problem with diversity among first-string critics at major publications. But when most publications barely have the money for ONE full time theatre critic, and they can’t just fire them for being white, that change will happen very slowly. Hopefully the NYT will name a Black critic (ideally someone who isn’t a man) to the spot previously occupied by Charles Isherwood and then Jesse Green, if Green is the new Brantley.

Updated On: 10/11/21 at 11:30 AM

I think where I'm getting stuck on this "financial interest" point, going back to my first post on this topic, is that the industry we're talking about is one that thrives on building a base of regular theatregoers, which comes with cross-viewership between shows - the "rising tide floats all boats" principle, like I said. Especially where it concerns plays aimed at local audiences, as opposed to large musicals that compete for the 1 or 2 show-slots of a tourist family. When dealing with this sub-market, it doesn't seem like one producer would have any appreciable financial gain from the loss of another.


I understand that it still technically conflicts with the industry standards of journalistic integrity, but I'm also trying to think of it from an actual results-based lens, not just one based on theoretical principles. But I do think it's worth keeping an eye on Prescod's assignments going forward to see if they reveal and troubling patterns.

Updated On: 10/11/21 at 11:42 AM

While a NYTimes review, or any single review, can no longer make or break a show on its own, I think you're underestimating the power these reviews hold. The majority of ticketbuyers are not keyed into theatre in detail- to the average ticket buyer, Jesse Green's name is meaningless and the imprimatur of the Times is still weighty. And, perhaps more importantly, these reviews carry weight with producers- the people who make shows happen. Box office is still king, but if the box office is not strong enough to make other factors (such as reviews) irrelevant, then anything that can help build box office is very important. And Chicken & Biscuits, as it stands now, is not doing particularly well at the box office.