Is it time for Brantley to retire?- Page 3

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 4:45pm

Critics are very necessary to the theatre, now more than ever as top ticket prices climb to $110+ for every show. Very few people can afford to go blindly to every show and then make up their own minds. It's just way too expensive to do that. And simply relying on synopses of plot to determine our choices doesn't really work, because there are MANY MANY works that may not sound particularly interesting or promising from a description, but turn out to be terrific once seen. How many people would have seen Urinetown or Hedwig or even Sweeney Todd based solely on a plot synopsis? The rave reviews and word of mouth are what led many people to take a chance on those and other shows that may not have sounded too appealing and people went and were happy that they did.

There is no critic with whom you will ALWAYS agree and whom you can always rely on, but in the past there were ones who were so perceptive and lucid in their writing and expansive in their descriptions that you could read their reviews and then decide for yourself whether the show sounded like something you wanted to see, even if that critic ended up not liking it (there are several shows that I remember Rich not particularly caring for, but he was so wonderfully vivid in his descriptions that he made the show sound so interesting that I went anyway and was able to find things that I enjoyed about it; with Brantley, with shows he doesn't like, he's so dismissive and snippy and paints with such a broad brush in his negativity that it's hard to glean any positive aspect of the show).

Critics are a necessary evil and what we need are better and smarter critics who can separate the wheat from the chaff and let us know when something new and special has arrived that is worth seeing. Ideally, I want a fraternity of critics who knows MORE about theatre and music and dance than I do and can point out interesting aspects to a show I might miss and explain why a given piece which on its face may not seem so significant has worthwhile attributes and something meaningful to say. Most of these idiots know as much about play analysis, stagecraft, music theory and theatrical history as your Aunt Millie from Idaho. A great critic should be able to lead his audience and give them a sense of discovery and new understanding of this great art (like Rich did and Feingold can), not simply follow the crowd, give the most obvious and superficial assessment possible that's devoid of any real thoughtful analysis or real insight of a given work.

The answer is not to eliminate critics, but to get better and more qualified ones in positions of authority.

Updated On: 3/19/06 at 04:45 PM