How much weight do you give to critics/reviews

[beacon1]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 10:59pm

Do you blow them off or does it depend on who is writing?

Who is your favorite critic?

Who is your least favorite?

Opening Night Reviews: When are they released?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 11:06pm

Take 'em with a grain of salt. :)

It depends on the paper, or wherever else the review is. A lot of them are released online around curtain time on opening night, and then appear on paper the following morning, but some papers (like the Village Voice, I think?) usually run them the following week.

Are you worried about Barefoot, beacs?

[beacon1]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 11:09pm

Yes, Em.

Folks say Amanda is still shouting and not projecting and since she is the center of this, it's of concern.

On the bright side, folks seem to think Mister Wilson is really great---he can only do so much.

*bites nails* The show CAN'T close before I get there.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 11:12pm

It won't.

I dunno. I guess I expected her to be the weak link, especially next to someone who is so NATURAL on stage. But I don't think she'll ruin the show to that point!

[beacon1]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 11:15pm

I can't wait to read YOUR review. :o)

[Lamc16]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 11:16pm

For me, it really depends. I don't religiously read reviews because I like to garner my own opinion, but I do have a general awareness of what has been said/written. I don't really have a favorite reviewer though I do think Brantley is the most literate and certainly the best writer. Without a doubt, though, the WORST CRITIC EVER IS JOHN SIMON.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 11:19pm

You've got to give Simon props for being a BRILLIANT writer, though.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 1:33am

I would say the worst critic w/o a doubt is Jacques Le Sourd...panned DRS and gave Brooklyn a rave among other things...is Simon really worse than him?

[justme2]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 1:37am

My decision to see a show is never based on what a critic writes. After all, it's one opinion. Just as my opinion of a show is based on more than just the stage show itself (i.e., who's in the cast, have I enjoyed this director's work before, etc,)....so is the critic's. So, you have to take their reviews with a grain of salt.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 2:44am

well said Justme2

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 6:14am

The show won't close because of the reviews, or Ms. Peet's performance. The show will close because nobody wants to see it, theres NO publicity for it, and there's no draw for the tourist crowd. A tourist from....Korea....won't know from Amanda Peet or Patrick Wilson.

Pretty much that and the fact that the play suffers the same way as Odd COuple did. It's just old.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 8:46am

well, i hope this show does okay, but I also dont base why I see a show on critics' reviews. Its too bad that many people do, though, because critics usually look at a show based on the art form, and the sort of "deeper" parts of a play or musical. They look at every thing in the show and see if it all works. But your average tourist or theatre-goer many times just goes to enjoy the show and have fun.
What Im basically trying to say is that no matter what critics say, audiences usually will go to a show, and I think BAREFOOT should do well because I would think it'd attract an older audience too.

I dunno how accurate all that stuff i said is (having never seen BAREFOOT) but those are just my thoughts on critics and all...

[twogaab2]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 9:59am

None at all. As so many of these reviewers (note I do not use the term "critics") know very little about theater or jounalism. Many of them desplay little sensitivity to art or music (many tin-ear types). I generally go by my own opinions (as wrong as they may be). It will make little difference to the world in general if I am wrong.

[kelzama]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 10:06am

From the performer's point of view: A very famous broadway legend advised that if you give any credence to a good review, you also have to trust in the bad ones. The advice: trust in your director, your peers, and your talent.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 11:50am

which broadway legend said that? sounds like a good quote...

[lovinlife]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 12:01pm

None. I'll form my own opinion. I love Cats.... enough said.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 2:02pm

If it's a production I don't know anything about and it gets a good review I may be interested in seeing it but if a critic pans a show I was already interested in I'll still go see it. Usually if I already don't (or think I won't) like something the critic won't like it either.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 4:57pm

Nice quote Kelzama, and very true. Critics/reviewers have a lot of experience in viewing shows. I always read at least a half dozen reviews on a work that interests me, prior to seeing
it.
I take the glowing and the trashing...somewhere in between those is a few realistic views. But I do think they have quite a bit of weight as a group.

[sanda]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 5:12pm

Do you blow them off or does it depend on who is writing?

I normally only read reviews from NYTimes and this board. If it is a rave from Ben Brantly, I probably will watch it in my next NYC trip. If it is a mixed review, I will read some other's opinion from this board and make decision. (Sometimes I don't care at all if there is my favorite star in the show) If it is a pan, I will avoid the show like avoiding the plaque.

Who is your favorite critic?
Frank Rich

Who is your least favorite?
The guy from broadway.com. I forget his name.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 5:14pm

Some critics don't know what they talk about. My advice to everyone is never to listen to friends or critics. "My friend told me it sux, so I am not going to see that show" is a very mediocre quote.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 5:32pm

I think the best critic working today is John Lahr (The New Yorker), although he can be a bit spoiler-heavy at times.

The worst are Clive Barnes (a hack who hasn't stayed awake throughout a show in years and mostly writes his reviews based on press kits), Linda Winer (her style is a bit too simplistic for my tastes), and the aforementioned Jacques Le Sourd.

Like him or not, John Simon is always interesting. That's what makes him one of the few "must read" theatre columnists out there. The same thing can be said about Riedel.

I also think Brantley is a much better critic than most give him credit for. I think a lot of the hostility towards him is unwarranted. Most people are probably just jealous of his position.

As far as reviews go, they mean nothing to me. A pan isn't going to stop me from seeing a show I want to see, just like a glowing review probably won't get me to a show I have no interest in. I always read reviews, though, because I find them interesting.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 7:34pm

If the show interests us , even if the critics trash it, we will see it. If it does not, even if they rave, we will stay away

Many times critics have raved about a show & we thought it was dreck & vice versa

[kate2]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 7:56pm

I tend to ignore critics/reviews. If i like/don't like a show nobody elses opinion will change mine.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 7:58pm

Exactly

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 8:17pm

EVERYONE ONE OF US is a critic. Message boards and newspapers' critcs are all equal in position, they all give an opinion. It's not something we necessarily have to agree with.

Updated On: 2/16/06 at 08:17 PM