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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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).

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).