KING KONG Reviews — Page 5

Art critics in Europe have been writing reviews as dialogue for a very long time now. This is borrowed from Ancient Greek philosophy which was mostly written as a dialogue between two people despite it being written by one person. This is a very popular form of writing throughout history. I think it's fine in the NYT and fine as a review of a theater piece. It's refreshing even.

I don't have a problem with the idea of a dialogue as a review. But, as Hogan says, these two seem ill-equipped or unwilling to make it worthwhile as anything more than a series of pithy quotes. Drawing a line from this review directly to Socrates seems excessively generous to Brantley and Green and insulting to ancient Greece.

I have no problems with the tone of the New York Times review. The critics at that publication always go in hard when they think a show is terrible. If anything, having two critics discuss their problems with the show softens the blow--could you imagine if Jesse Green wrote the review alone and ripped the Kong puppet to shreds, too?--while justifying such a negative critique. They knew the show was going to be so bad that they needed a sounding board to justify why they were so negative.

Is this any crueler than Ben Brantley's review of Brooklyn? Aside from quoting the lyrics to point out how bad they were, Brantley ended his review by suggesting it's a lot cheaper to watch the Village Halloween Parade than show up to Brooklyn just for the excellent costumes. The only difference between the Kong review and the regular NYT pan is this one has two critics agreeing the show is terrible. They always go for the quip that cuts deepest when they hate what they saw. Why should Kong be any different?

Wikipedia offers a good definition: "Arts criticism is the process of describing, analyzing, interpreting, and judging works of art... [journalistic criticism or reviews] may even focus on entertaining the reader at the expense of detail about the art under discussion."

What Brantley and Green have done is within this definition.

The tone and effectiveness of the conversation pieces could be debated, but they wouldn't have said anything nicer or meaner on their own. IMHO, the conversation feels like something best served by a video or podcast.

RippedMan said: "It’s not about Kong getting a bow, I agree with you on that, but how they did it by bringing in a limp puppet from above. Why not do it in a blackout and then lights up when he hits the ground? It’s laughable."

Isn't the point to show how little the puppet does on its own, and then how much they do to bring him to life? I mean, it's the puppeteers' curtain call at that point, no? Not Kong's?

haterobics said: "songanddanceman2 said: "As a playwright myself I look to reviews good and bad for advice and to learn in the future, I would be able to take nothing from this."

Some shows are just so far away from needing a guiding hand that there is nothing constructive to say that wouldn't be obvious, or anything positivethat wouldn't read sarcastic. I think if you hit a certain level, they take your show, and their jobs, seriously. But some playwrightsyou just can't reach. So you get what we had here last night, which is the way they wantit."

This one can't simply be laid at the foot of the playwright. This was a producer-driven show from the get-go, and they (eventually) found a writing team who would take money to acquiesce to them.

Impossible2 said: "We live in a culture where people don't go to films or the theatre or concerts anymore for the sheer enjoyment of it. They go to film it on their iPhone so they can upload it to Facebook toor sit there for 2 hours composing their review in their head so they can run home and write their review.

All that matters anymore is sharing your opinion, proving you went somewhere or joining the gang in pointing and laughing at something."

Like whining on a message board?

Sara Holdren of Vulture is quickly becoming my go-to critic. She brings an uncompromising feminist point of view (something desperately needed in theater criticism) and engages with the work in front of her in what feels like a rigorous way.

She took KING KONG on its own terms, found a way to eviscerate it and left me feeling like I've learned something about theater.

All I learned from the NY Times piece is that Jesse Green wants to be on antipsychotics.

MayAudraBlessYou2 said: "@Hogan I suppose I meant "dead" in terms of arts criticism as a career path. There is more criticism, absolutely. But what has been added to the pile is freelance and/or unpaid work. Look at how many major publications went from having separate theater, dance, music, movie critics to lumping them all under one art critic (and firing writers in the process). Major critics are now trying to hack it as freelancers. And then there is the insane amount of people trying to start their own blogs or websites who are not paid. Or even sites like Broadway World which does not pay critics, because people are willing to work for free tickets. Matt Windman actually wrote an interesting book about the current state of criticism called "The Critics Say." And most of the prominent critics he interviewed either lost their position or are scared that will happen soon. I see your point about the institution of it raising certain voices better left unheard, but it also gave us people who cultivated a specific knowledge and expertise that I believe will be lost in the shuffle as more of these voices are added to the pile. How does one's voice rise about the din? This atmosphere is absolutely responsible for the dual review/conversation experiment with the Times. It's all about "how do we stand out? How do we get attention? How do we stay relevant?""

I think it is important to remember that the theatre exists without any formal criticism, and so what you are writing about is, while important, in the nature of a tangent. To me, what is important is the conversation, not whether people are paid, and I think having so much conversation that there is a din is a very good thing, not something to avoid. Let's not forget that the first newspaper came into existence a half century after Shakespeare's death (and I would wager that it did not employ a theatre critic!)

I definitely agree with most of the NYT duo's "issues" with the show, as well as with all the other "qualified" ("love the ape, but..." ) pans. However the tone -- more so than the duo-format -- made me kinda gag. Reads like a snark-off between two internet trolls, not like two intelligent critics. Catty and bitchy vs. intelligent and informed. Their points were lost in the slime, to me at least.

Updated On: 11/9/18 at 04:45 PM