Critics are truly ridiculous (Mary Poppins) — Page 2

Margo, you remain a jewel. Good to have the voice of reason continuing to run the review threads!

I just want to emphasize again that I really think everyone should try and watch this seminar. It's a wonderful glance into their world. I've always liked reading reviews and was never one to villify the critics, but I know it can be easy to do so when your only idea of them is through reading their reviews. I always pictured a faceless journalist slaving away in a dark smoky room somewhere, but it seems that more and more people now use this anonymity as a chance to imagine these people as horrible failures who are trying to destroy the industry. Seeing this seminar video let me see the human side to the profession and it literally shaped my appreciation for the work they do. They are sacrificing their own lives in order to keep the theatre respectable. Good critics, bad critics, whoever, they all play a part.

So please, if you are going to express an opinion on theatre criticism, try and watch this video all the way through. It's only fair that you give them the chance to show themselves as human: some stuffy, some lovely, some self-effacing, all charming, all very intelligent and articulate (except for that dreadful Roma Torre, but I just don't care for her).

Then if you still want to label them based solely on the reviews they write, more power to you. But I think you'll be surprised at just how human and surprisingly likable they are. This discussion gives a good representation of the different personalities who wind up earning a living this way, and it allows them all to talk about their experiences in the profession. A large part of the discussion involves their various viewpoints on high ticket prices, snobbery, influence, and how readers should approach their reviews. Overwhelmingly I think you will find that they are not the bad people you want them to be.

I'm not sure why I feel the need to always try and defend the critics, but it's hard to stay out of it. They don't need defending, since being hated is a part of the job. I guess I just can't stand to see so much animosity and petty, uninformed hatred being directed toward these hard-working, intellectual people who are- for all intensive purposes- allowing theatre to continue operating at a relatively high level. IMHO the critics are every bit as much an asset to Broadway as any director, producer, publicist, or performer. It is no easy job seeing that many shows and remaining somewhat objective. These critics didn't create the system, they are simply making their livings within it. The fact that so many people freely attack and insult them is ludicrous and sad.

So if you can spare 90 minutes, watch this video. It might not change your opinion, but it will at the very least give you some proper insight. Understand that they are not necessarily the malignant art-destroying demons you picture in your head. If nothing else, they are working to keep art alive- and the only way to do that is to identify what they think doesn't belong. Show a little respect, please. Or if you insist on judging these folks, at least do them the courtesy of knowing who they are and where they're coming from.


American Theatre Wing Seminar- Critics

---

Updated On: 11/17/06 at 05:49 AM

When it comes to movies, plays, etc. I never listen to what they say. I go to see what I WANT TO SEE, not what someone else says is 'good' or 'not good'.

That's not what I smell.

The only time I ever hear people b!tch about the critics is when they disagree with them.

When I was on tour, when we got negative reviews (which was 75% of the time), the critic was an idiot, a good review, a genius.

And the way I see it, if you can't handle John Simon, then the theatre isn't for you.

Critics reason that if someone is paying well over $100 a ticket to see professional artists perform on the most famous venue in the world, then there will be standards to which they'll be compared. Yes, MP isn't geared for the same crowd as I AM MY OWN WIFE, but it's playing in the same areea and it's more expensive so it stands to reason it should hold up for ANY audience member, not just those who need a booster seat.

Truth be told, I have not read any of the critical reviews for this, but I am someone who was not overly enthused to see the show nor have I been a fan of Disney's prior Broadway efforts, and I was absolutely blown away by it. I am uncertain how anyone could say that the show lacked heart or magic as the children seemed to be eating it up and the parents and adults seemed to enjoy it as well. I did not hear one carp from anyone sitting around me in the orchestra and many, many ringing endorsements during the intermission. The rousing standing ovation the cast, particularly Gavin Lee and Ashley Brown, received at the climax was certainly a good bellwether of the opinion of the audience. I was actually dreading the evening as the 60-something man sitting behind me was carping before the lights went down about "no one" being able to play Mary Poppins except Julie Andrews, but even he was won over by the close. By contrast, when I saw the critically acclaimed The Lion King, the kids were thoroughly bored, the parents were becoming exasperated and a handful of people actually left at intermission (I wish I had followed them out). If this show is getting lackluster reviews, then it is more a demonstration for how out of touch Broadway critics and self-important Broadway fanatics really are more than anything else. Trust me, based on the word of mouth being generated in the theater in that one night I saw it, whether it wins a Best Musical Tony or not, this will be a successful Disney/Broadway tent pole for quite some time.

I didn't see anyone leave when I went. Maybe we are all seeing a different show in a different universe? Or maybe they have really on and really off nights? When I went, the group of people around me seemed rather impressed. (Including a fellow who saw the OLC.)

---

"Does anyone standing in line for tickets for THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA care that I gave it a pan?"

--Frank Rich

---

Critics should not be ignored and they certainly do make some valid points, but I disagree with those who have been saying that its ok for critical reviews to be just personal opinion. Reviews are not there to show off the sophisticated tastes and witty sarcasm of the critic, they are there as a public service. So that people who read the newspaper will have an idea of whether or not to see it. A responsible review contains two things:
1)What the show is trying to do, as in what audience it is aiming for, etc.
2)How well it accomplishes what it is trying to do. If it is aiming to be a Sondheimesque piece of brilliance that sheds new light on the human condition, how enlightened are we at the end? If it is aiming to be a crowd pleaser, how entertaining is it?
Reviews should certainly include the "standards" for which the show is aiming, whether it be huge spectacle or intelligence and heart, but judging every show by the same standards and criticizing theater just because a critic happens to like a certain style of musical and not all musicals are presented in that style is not fair to the paying public who depend on part in these reviews to tell them what to see.

I rarely see critics, especially Mr. Brantley, mention or even seem to have noticed the audience when writing their reviews. Sure, he thought the musical was a bit inane. He's a middle aged man, he isn't exactly the target demographic of MP. If he was at a performance where there were children in the audience, which I'm assuming there would be unless Disney just handed out comps to important people to fill the crowd for that show, I bet he heard a huge positive audience reaction to the show. Hell, if there was anyone besides critics in the audience, I bet there were laughter and tears a-plenty, given the overwhelmingly positive reviews from the "regular" people who have seen the show.

As an example of what I am saying about the importance of critics putting more into reviews than just their personal thoughts, I saw Grey Gardens recently. And, people are going to lynch me for this, but I didn't care for it. I found it superficial in some parts and I thought that the book and the music belonged to two completely different plays. However, as a wannabe critic myself, I would never ever write a review of this show, especially for an important paper like NY Times, saying merely that I didn't like it. There were so many people in tears around me, and so many people have adored Ebersole's performance, that my own boredom with the show pales in comparison to these thoughts. So, in writing my review, yes I would criticize parts of it. But I would also encourage people to see it and point out the good things that my own personal taste in theater prevented me from enjoying. For me to write a totally negative review of what many people think is the best musical of the season just because I didn't really care for it would be hugely irresponsible.

I don't think the negative reviews of MP will hurt the show much. It's a family show, and most people attending family shows look at titles and not at criticism. That's why Beauty and the Beast is still going. However, while critics have an amazingly hard job, and most of them put a lot of experience and wisdom into their work, I think that they are wrong in basing their reviews solely on their reaction and not on what they imagine the reactions of other demographics to be. That's why critics are there in the first place, to help us, the paying public, to decide what to see.

I'm amazed that the critics were as kind as they were to the dreadful MARY POPPINS.

I couldn't agree more that critics are just a part of the way things work, and their opinions are valid. But often they get in the way of people forming their own opinions. It seems nowadays, rather than give a critique of a show, reviewers are trying to either get their quotes on the poster of a hit, or brag about the fact that their review closed a flop.

The crazy thing to me is just how powerful Brantley has become. His reviews often mean life or death for a production. And from the sound of most of his reviews, I don't even think he likes going to the theater!

I like listening to friends I trust, and going to see shows that interest me. Then forming my opinions based on what I've seen, then having intelligent conversation/debate with fellow theater goers discussing why or why not a show is or isn't a hit.

Hopefully we can all keep an open mind.

-QB

All critics are brilliant until they disagree with me.

---

At $111 a ticket, Broadway shows better knock me clear out of my seat and if critics are unanimous in calling something crap, then I appreciate the fair warning.

---

I couldn't agree more that critics are just a part of the way things work, and their opinions are valid. But often they get in the way of people forming their own opinions. It seems nowadays, rather than give a critique of a show, reviewers are trying to either get their quotes on the poster of a hit, or brag about the fact that their review closed a flop.

I like listening to friends I trust, and going to see shows that interest me. Then forming my opinions based on what I've seen, then having intelligent conversation/debate with fellow theater goers discussing why or why not a show is or isn't a hit.

Then do that, don't listen to critics. That's your way of doing things. And yes, sometimes reveiws can kill what could be an otherwise good show, but that's why we have Encores!, revivals, theatre queens and rewrites to follow closing. The reason critics are there is to keep our standard of theatre high, Broadway would be a terrible place if they weren't there, as others have already pointed out. No, their not perfect, no one is, its better to accept the natural system of checks and balances we have, and realize it works out very well, not perfect, but it works.

---

Critics still carry a lot more weight than some people on here would like you believe. The New York Times will always remain "the big one", regardless of how competant (or incompetant) the actual critic is. It's where people look for "the word."

For tourists who know what they want to see anyway, and for us theatre people who see everything - no, it really doesn't matter. We will see things anyway - and often times - us in the know KNOW in advance when a show is going to receive negative reviews.

I didn't fully realize the impact that reviews still have until I started working for Roundabout. People DO read them, and people DO listen to what they have to say. It was almost shocking how many people read every review and purchase their tickets based on reviews.

It's easy to dismiss critics as being unnecessary and cynical, but they really are more valuable than some of you are letting on.

And let's be honest. How many times has a brilliant show gotten horribly negative reviews?

---