Does the NYT Critic's Pick Seal Mean Anything to You (Anymore)?

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 9/27/18 at 9:52pm

I used to hold the Critic's Pick seal at the New York Times in rather high esteem. An honor rarely held for shows of the highest caliber. But it seems these days like it's now a rarity for a show not to get Critic's Pick label.  

This week alone, Bernhardt/Hamlet and The Nap, two shows that I (and many others) thought were meh to whatever, both garnered the seal. Earlier this summer, Straight White Men did as well. Carousel was a rather controversial one in the spring, too. I could go on.

So, here's my question: do you personally consider the NYT Critic's Pick seal to mean anything significant? Did it used to have meaning for you and its since lost it? (Alternatively, am I just too critical and do these shows really deserve high praise?!)

Updated On: 9/27/18 at 09:52 PM

[Elegance101]

Posted: 9/27/18 at 9:58pm

Clearly, it still means something, but it does seem weird that more and more shows that aren’t all-around acclaimed (by fans and critics) are getting the seal. I know it always comes down to taste, but I agree that recently, it almost seems like a crapshoot in terms of what’s going to get it and what’s not.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/27/18 at 10:03pm

In fairness to Carousel (which I didn’t much like, save for Joshua Henry), Brantley seemed to really, really, like it, with the exception of the latter part of act 2. The critics pick for that one seemed entirely justified.

I can’t speak to the others you listed as I haven’t seen them.

[WayTooBroadway]

Posted: 9/27/18 at 10:14pm

Don’t agree with him on CAROUSEL and STRAIGHT WHITE MEN but yes on THE NAP. Haven’t seen B/H. Agreed with him on many stamps of approval... but for some, not so much.

Goes to show the beauty of theatre, and art for that matter.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 9/27/18 at 10:33pm

The strange phenomenon you all are describing is called "personal taste" a.k.a "subjectivity." Yes, it's a crapshoot, because you can't predict how a single human being is going to react to a show. Hell, I can't even always predict ahead of time whether I'M going to like a show or not, let alone a person I don't know. 

The problem here is that critics are expected to be the voice of the audience, but that's just impossible. IMO we should lean further into the other direction; have reviewers be open about their own biases, and emphasize their own personal reaction to the show. I really admired how Jesse Green started to do this in one of his recent articles. 

[NOWaWarning]

Posted: 9/27/18 at 11:36pm

The seal itself has never meant anything to me, personally, and I don’t pay attention to which shows get it. I am always interested in the actual review, though.

[raddersons]

Posted: 9/27/18 at 11:45pm

The day that Tuck Everlasting got critic’s pick was the day I knew it meant nothing to me.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 12:29am

The Critic’s Pick Seals are handed out like candy to kids on Halloween these days. Zero meaning for me these days.

[Skip23]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 1:35am

Generally I don't take Critics as the end all and be all.  But I do like their input. 

I see a lot so I make up my own mind.  But if many critics say the same thing I generally take heed.

 

Michael Feingold of the late lamented VOICE came closest to sharing my personal tastes.  But I never think ANY critic can take the place of my own view.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 4:50am

That has never meant anything to me. I've always thought of it as a lazy man's review. Reviews themselves can sway me ...but I see about 75-80% of what opens regardless.

[Lot666]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 9:48am

As I have virtually no respect for the insufferable and self-important Ben Brantley, the "Critic's Pick" concept is tarnished for me.

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 10:19am

It still does for smaller shows.

I saw Agnes last week, which is in the smallest space at 59E59. It was a Critic's Pick and it was one of the best things I've seen all year.

I think Brantley and Green go into the Broadway and the bigger Off-Broadway productions with too many prejudgements based on the past work of the people involved or their expectations of what the play should be.

It's worth noting that Show Score is pretty much useless as well. You have to be truly terrible to get anything below an 80 or a 75.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 10:23am

JBroadway said: "The strange phenomenon you all are describing is called "personal taste" a.k.a "subjectivity." Yes, it's a crapshoot, because you can't predict how a single human being is going to react to a show. Hell, I can't even always predict ahead of time whether I'M going to like a show or not, let alone a person I don't know.

The problem here is that critics are expected to be the voice of the audience, but that's just impossible. IMO we should lean further into the other direction; have reviewers be open about their own biases, and emphasize their own personal reaction to the show. I really admired how Jesse Green started to do this in one of his recent articles."

^this. The rest of this thread is just a pretext for telling everyone where your taste falls in relation to someone else's, which is an intellectually meaningless conversation. 

[CaseyBrent41]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 10:30am

I'm sure opinions on this change if you're involved with a show that gets one, but between the nap and bernhardt hamlet both mediocre, while the critics may have liked them, they don't seem worthy of a seal. That should be saved not for raves, or positive reviews, but for extraordinary, special theatrical experiences. Like Cursed Child, or South Pacific, or The Ferryman, etc etc (random ones I know but just examples) 

[Kad]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 10:32am

For me, ideally, a critic shouldn't be the voice of the audience. They should be more informed and better educated about the artform, something that it is not reasonable or even desirable to expect from the audience. I think it's possible to not like something and still acknowledge it is a well-made piece of art or vice-versa.

The critic's pick thing is just a fancy tl;dr and an easy sign of approval. They may as well just put a thumb's up emoji. It's no different than a critic providing easy pull quotes in their review (which critics often intentionally do- or not do).

Updated On: 9/28/18 at 10:32 AM

[AC126748]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 10:38am

I have never once thought of critics as representing the "voice of the audience." Criticism is inherently subjective -- if there was such a thing as an objective opinion, there wouldn't need to be dozens, if not hundreds, of critics. If you use criticism as a way to determine what you will or won't see -- and I don't necessarily recommend that anyone do this -- the best thing to do is to find a critic whose taste, as evidenced by their reviews, aligns with your own. Just because Ben Brantley or Jesse Green write under the banner of The New York Times doesn't necessarily mean that their particular, individual tastes will represent your own. And it doesn't mean their writing is better than any other critic writing for a less prestigious publication. Reviews are an extension of the discourse around theater that includes criticism, message boards like this and personal conversations among friends.

Updated On: 9/28/18 at 10:38 AM

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 10:42am

I would much prefer a starred system (out of 4 or 5 stars) like TIME OUT and most of the British publications have. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 11:35am

we have show-score, which aggregates and displays an even more exact "star" system, and makes much more sense as a guide than any one review. The idea of a review is not, as others have said, to report on the audience consensus, but to give one person's opinion, hopefully within a frame of reference developed over time. I gain as much or more from reading a review of someone with whom I routinely disagree as I do from reading the review of someone who has a taste profile similar to my own. Individual ratings, whether stars, big gold check marks, or whatever, are just an editor's shorthand for the ADD set, never something to get worked into a tizzy over.

[uncageg]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 11:41am

NOWaWarning said: "The seal itself has never meant anything to me, personally, and I don’t pay attention to which shows get it. I am always interested in the actual review, though. "

Same here. And no matter what the reviews are, if it is a show I am interested in seeing, I will see it no matter what the reviews are. "Hot Feet" always comes to mind! 

Since living here, I usually see shows before opening night so reviews are not out. I usually pop on here to read Whizzer's and others first preview thoughts but they don't sway me. I do keep them in the back of my mind when I see a show sometimes.

 

Updated On: 9/28/18 at 11:41 AM

[Bwayfan292]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 11:47am

I usually never read reviews, I just see the threads and see if they are negative, mixed, or positive.

I usually take what people say on the boards if I should see it or not. Some people hate everything, but others like Whizzer give a fair and honest review, I also see the preview threads to see if the overall thought is negative then I should Probally skip it.

[zainmax]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 11:48am

Re. Hogan, it's still helpful sometimes to know where the critic ultimately stands on the show. When I'm reading some of Brantley's reviews, all I'm trying to figure out is the answer to one question. Did he like it? (Cue Ken's advertising pitch).

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 12:32pm

zainmax said: "Re. Hogan, it's still helpful sometimes to know where the critic ultimately stands on the show. When I'm reading some of Brantley's reviews, all I'm trying to figure out is the answer to one question. Did he like it? (Cue Ken's advertising pitch)."

yes, I did not mean to suggest otherwise. My point is basically that where he stands ultimately is only meaningful if it is set within a general sense of his taste and how it is likely to align with your own. I could say the same thing about (to pick someone with whom I am most often in disagreement) Terry Teachout. The specific question, however, is not about that alignment but about the editorial decision to make something a critic's pick.

[Bwayfan292]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 12:33pm

Does the general public read reviews though? Or do they just go cause a show looks cool?

[wonkit]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 12:44pm

Not since Bernhardt/Hamlet...

[SomethingPeculiar]

Posted: 9/28/18 at 12:57pm

Bwayfan292 said: "Does the general public read reviews though? Or do they just go cause a show looks cool?"

There isn't a yes-or-no answer, and I think it's very different with a play than with a musical. Smaller shows or shows without stars rely on rave reviews (and, later, Tonys) to stay alive. Look at The Humans, Band's Visit, Oslo, Fun Home, Come From Away, and even Hamilton (though that was also the audience reception). Then there are the shows that didn't recoup, but the reviews helped them in the beginning (Dolls House 2, Hand to God, Groundhog Day, Carousel).