Jesse Green “assigned to a new role” at the Times- Page 2

[bear88]

Posted: 7/15/25 at 8:49pm

The New York Times isn't firing - or, uh, reassigning - all of its critics. None of the film critics are gone, for example. They're making choices about who is staying and who isn't. I'm as curious as anyone about the rationale, but it's probably less about quality of criticism than we would like to think. It's probably about whatever media strategy they have in mind, and whether they think their incumbent critics are well-suited for that. (Answer for today's unlucky four: No.)

My biggest concern is that I just don't trust the New York Times to make the right decisions for the right reasons.

The Times isn't going to give up on theater criticism. They still cover plenty of cultural stuff, even if some of their choices - assign theater reporter to write a profile of Jordan Roth - make my eyes roll. I don't think they are going without theater criticism. My fondest hope is that they find someone whose stuff is worth reading. I don't care whether I agree with it or not; I just want thought-provoking criticism. It's all well and good to experiment with videos and other platforms, but I fear that the new vision will downplay a good, thought-provoking written review.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 7/15/25 at 8:56pm

ChairinMain said: "Jesse Greene isn't getting replaced because he liked Smash more than Boop.He, and the rest of the principle critic bench at the NYTimes, are getting replaced because the Paper is going to replace them with more social-media friendly personalities. They don't want new critical voices - they want increased engagement. They want influencers. This is incredibly disheartening.

"

This is what makes me worried without hearing more about the Times’ intentions.

Sure we all have our faves who will probably be up for the job (Holdren, Shaw, etc) and I’m all for the Times expanding its voices. But I remain fearful for what the future of criticism at that publication looks like and how much the bottom line is driving it. 

Zach Wolfe at the Classical desk is a greater loss than Jesse Green.

Jesse Green was often a good critic and I’m choosing to view his tenure as a successful one. He was also an excellent profile-writer before becoming a critic, and I’d welcome him doing more of that. 

Updated On: 7/15/25 at 08:56 PM

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 7/15/25 at 9:07pm

Hasn't the Times (and other papers) always wanted its critics to be "influencers?" 

It's the form that's changing, not necessarily the function.

I agree the Wolfe is a bigger loss as Green as are the other two critics.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 7/15/25 at 9:37pm

We're all reading into a somewhat vague statement, but - is there any theatre critic at a major publication with a GREAT social media presence that elevates their work? I can't think of one.

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 7/15/25 at 10:09pm

I really enjoyed Green’s work and reviews when he was at New York Magazine, but was never a fan of his work at the NYT. Interested to see if they even appoint a chief critic, or if they just have a revolving door of folks.

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 7/15/25 at 11:47pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "We're all reading into a somewhat vague statement, but - is there any theatre critic at a major publication with a GREAT social media presence that elevates their work? I can't think of one."

Not sure if you consider it a major publication but I do like Adam Feldman's social media presence for the most part.  Though I do feel like his reviews seem catered towards a slightly different audience than the traditional band of reviewers.  They may not be as insightful as people like Holdren/Shaw but they usually get to the point (unlike some of Green's) and can sometimes be a pretty fun read (see: the Pirates review).

[MezzoDiva47]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 2:08am

good riddance

green was only given an elevated status as a critic because he had the new york times banner behind him

if you really look at his reviews he was all over the place with random and inconsistent ideas as to what made for a quality show

his critics picks choices were laughable and seemed almost deliberately opposite to the consensus among the public and even other peer reviewers

but the worst sin is that he seemed to loathe the very art he was tasked with attending and critiquing

im not saying that the NYT should hire a cheerleader who loves all shows but green seemed to relish criticizing any new show he didnt like

which was almost every show

no one is shedding a tear here

the irony is critics dont matter any more and yet they think they are still important with major influence

the general public does not read reviews

and it can be verified statistically that within the past 25 years no critic review has seriously swayed ticket takes in either direction

universal praise does not in any way guarantee success

universal pans do not in any way create a flop

in todays information age critics are obsolete

 

MezzoDiva47 has spoken

bow down accordingly

 

Updated On: 7/16/25 at 02:08 AM

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 5:29am

Zach Wolfe at the Classical desk isa greater loss than Jesse Green.

This. Zach worked his entire life for that job and deserved it.  His criticism was much more thoughtful than Tomasini and is a champion of new works. Going to him.  

As for Green, let’s be careful what we wish for.  Green could be insufferable at times, but we could be getting much worse.  

 

[whatever2]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 9:49am

not only is Woolfe's loss (two Os in the last name) substantially more disappointing, less deserved, and frankly downright baffling -- or maybe because of those things -- his inclusion in the changes makes me wonder what the Grey Lady is really up to ...

[Zeppie2022]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 11:42am

"My fondest hope is that they find someone whose stuff is worth reading. I don't care whether I agree with it or not; I just want thought-provoking criticism"

Cmon, you and others be honest. Name me one NY Times theater critic you all liked. People bitched moaned and complained about Brantley, Isherwood and Greene. I disagreed with all three at times but for the most part enjoyed their reviews.

[verywellthensigh]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 12:21pm

Ah, I kind of liked Green's unpredictability.  And being one of the few severe critics of the try-hard Cabaret revival.  

[shomeika]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 12:26pm

Whatever the reason - good riddance to that snarky old goat.

 

#saidwithlove

[sparklingtonic2]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 12:32pm

I didn't always agree with Jesse Green, but I always liked hearing what he had to say. Also, that statement from the Times makes me cringe. Personally, I think it has "cost savings" written all over it. I worked in print media for a long time, and I've seen many papers push out senior writers and editors so they could bring in cheaper contractors. There's no shortage of people who want to do this kind of work, so why not hire folks who cost less and can be pushed around more easily? Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my cynical first take.

Updated On: 7/16/25 at 12:32 PM

[dexter3]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 12:53pm

Lol 

His snark and out-of-touch 'critics picks' will not be missed. Really excellent decision to move him elsewhere. Byeeeeeee.

[Bwaygurl2]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 1:08pm

I think Green is an excellent writer, even when I disagree with him I respect that he can say clearly what he thinks doesn't work. Sure, he can be eccentric but it doesn't bother me like it does others. 

[Wick3]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 1:43pm

Since Green is assigned a new role at NYT, at least he still has a job. The job market out there is quite grim so I'm glad he still has a paycheck. Hopefully he didn't get a paycut.

I'm just guessing he won't be able to get comp tickets at Broadway shows anymore?

[Timon3]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 2:22pm

Jesse has worked in theatre all his life, including working for Harold Prince.

Saying that I assumed the NYT critic liked something, giving it a critic pick, then the producers spend £1m bucks on a whole page advert, telling readers it got a critics pick.

[TweetyPie2]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 5:13pm

Wick3 said: "Since Green is assigned a new role at NYT, at least he still has a job. The job market out there is quite grim so I'm glad he still has a paycheck. Hopefully he didn't get a paycut.

I'm just guessing he won't be able to get comp tickets at Broadway shows anymore?"

I doubt that he got comp tickets. That’s unethical.

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 5:17pm

Reviewers get comps. The producers provide them. 

Now if a producer sent a case of champagne and tin of caviar the day before, that might be unethical. 

[bear88]

Posted: 7/16/25 at 11:40pm

Wick3 said: "Since Green is assigned a new role at NYT, at least he still has a job. The job market out there is quite grim so I'm glad he still has a paycheck. Hopefully he didn't get a paycut.”

Green is in his late 60s, just a few years younger than Ben Brantley. If he sticks around, Green will probably just take the next buyout, if he doesn’t just quit and work on another book.

My problem with this whole thing is less about Green in particular, as he wasn’t my favorite critic. But the Times isn’t dumping its critics so they can have them do exciting new things. They want to force them out and replace them with cheaper folks who will focus less on written criticism and more on videos and stuff.

I have nothing against employing new technology to tell a story (ironically, Brantley did that in his piece on Audra McDonald and ‘Rose’s Turn’). But what’s obvious is the priority here. The editor and the Times leadership doesn’t want to spend as much on well-paid critics and the focus will be less on writing.

Maybe this will all work out and the Times will hire a terrific theater critic. But the process here, of dumping four critics en masse, doesn’t give me much reason for optimism.

 

[Blow Gabriel]

Posted: 7/17/25 at 12:49am

They should get Ben Brantley back. His reviews were the BEST

[djoko84]

Posted: 7/17/25 at 1:00am

Thank G-d Green is gone from theatre reviews. He was absolutely awful. The only reason people are saying bring back Brantley is because Green was so bad, he made Brantley look like Shakespeare. Brantley is a curmudgeon and should stay on X or whatever platform he's on now. I hope they'll get a younger critic who'll actually know what they're talking about. Green is the main reason the NY Times Critics' pick has no influence anymore. Not to mention, the Times doesn't have any influence when it comes to making or breaking a show anymore either.

[lopside]

Posted: 7/17/25 at 4:51pm

People across theatre-y social media are having a field day with this news.

Green seems to have actively put off people from critical writing