#1
Posted: 4/24/08 at 4:57pm
I'm reading a book by Howard Kissel--"New York Theater Walks"--which I'm enjoying a lot, but he made one comment in passing which got me wondering. In writing about Sardi's, he mentions that casts traditionally would wait there on opening nights to get the reviews. Then he says "In those days the critics attended the opening night and raced out to write their reviews against tight deadlines. Now no newspaper considers theater reviews important enough to hold an edition. The reviewers attend the previews, and the press agents know their verdicts even before the opening night curtain goes up."
Do you think this is correct? I may be totally naive, but I thought that critics still kept their opinions to themselves until the review appears after opening night. Do today's critics attend previews and somehow "leak" their opinions to press agents? For that matter, do they use what they see at a preview to partially inform their reviews? That would actually make sense to me, since I don't see how a reviewer could write what is often a lengthy and detailed review after seeing a show only once. On the other hand, it seems to go against the purpose of a preview for a critic to use what he/she sees there as part of the basis of a review.
Do you think this is correct? I may be totally naive, but I thought that critics still kept their opinions to themselves until the review appears after opening night. Do today's critics attend previews and somehow "leak" their opinions to press agents? For that matter, do they use what they see at a preview to partially inform their reviews? That would actually make sense to me, since I don't see how a reviewer could write what is often a lengthy and detailed review after seeing a show only once. On the other hand, it seems to go against the purpose of a preview for a critic to use what he/she sees there as part of the basis of a review.
Maggie-the-schnoodle
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
