#1
Posted: 4/20/17 at 7:05pm
Does having mostly white male critics stop having a diverse stories and female centric stories getting good reviews?
#2
Posted: 4/20/17 at 7:18pm
Fun Home, Hairspray, Dreamgirls, The Colour Purple, Legally Blonde, Waitress and Wicked received good to excellent notices from the critics so... No.
#3
Posted: 4/20/17 at 7:36pm
Sunny11 The original versions of Color Purple Legally Blonde Waitress and Wicked did not.
#5
Posted: 4/20/17 at 9:52pm
I don't know if it's good reviews that are effected...I'd say general exposure. Theatre (among other art forms) has a huge mysoginy problem. Cisgender white men dominate theatre. Look at writers, producers, directors, etc. The critics are no exception. When Isherwood was fired, there were many people - myself included - who were really hoping the Times would hire someone who is not a cisgender white man. Who did they hire? Another cis white man.
#6
Posted: 4/21/17 at 12:02pm
Of the 38 shows currently on Broadway, 20 have female roles at the center, often in the title.
So I would answer that good reviews don't seem to matter. What matters is that the stories get told.
Updated On: 4/21/17 at 12:02 PM
#7
Posted: 4/21/17 at 1:17pm
I actually thought about this question while reading Hello,Dolly! reviews this morning. I was focusing on the lack of diversity in the critics themselves, but either way--I think it's a good discussion point that keeps coming up...and nothing seems to be changing. I know that you can't just go ahead and fire all the white guys to beef up the diversity...but like it was mentioned with the Isherwood firing...why not take that opportunity to bring diversity to the table? Especially when Broadway is consistently becoming more diverse in and of itself.
#8
Posted: 4/21/17 at 2:22pm
While there are some objective markers that a reviewer can use, ultimately, a critic does bring his/her likes and dislikes, life experiences, and opinions into the review. I'm not a critic, but I can only use myself as an example. I may connect strongly to something in a play because of an experience I had, but someone else may be left cold by a moment that touched me deeply. I guess my answer then is yes, it could be a factor.
Where I think it comes more into effect is when choices are made about what to review off-Broadway, off-off, and regionally. I think (hope) they try to balance the coverage, but I don't know if they do. And, of course, it comes down to who gets productions produced and developed in the first place.
#9
Posted: 4/21/17 at 2:27pm
http://exeuntmagazine.com/features/not-new-day-new-york-times/
"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt
#11
Posted: 4/22/17 at 9:56am
"...why not take that opportunity to bring diversity to the table? Especially when Broadway is consistently becoming more diverse in and of itself. "
The NY Times hired a highly qualified critic, should they have not hired him just because he was a white male. I believed the NY Times hired Elisabeth Vincentelli after she was let go by the NY Post. I know some people did not like her reviews but I enjoyed her reviews when she was at NY Post.
#12
Posted: 4/22/17 at 10:29am
SueBee06 right on!
I totally agree that one's personal experience determine how art affects you and how you empathize with a piece or a performer, and being a woman is a large part of that experience and that empathy.
I hear the arguement that the Times hired "the most qualified" critic as opposed to hiring based on gender but nothing qualifies a male to have lived the female experience.
The vast majority of theatre audiences are women and this entire week I've been disheartened to be surrounded by white male critics with their notebooks out at several press previews.
The New York Times had such an important opportunity to help correct this and they simply hired more of the same.
Why hire another male to tell women what to consume? Unbelievable.
#13
Posted: 4/22/17 at 5:17pm
"Why hire another male to tell women what to consume? Unbelievable. "
Just curious. Do you make the decision to see certain shows based on their reviews from the critics only? I think most people on this board read the media reviews, get opinions of other board members and ask family and or friends about a show before deciding to buy ticket to show. In other words, it is just not while males telling you what to consume.
Updated On: 4/22/17 at 05:17 PM
#14
Posted: 4/22/17 at 5:48pm
I personally value the opinion of critics over family or board members as I do think most of the time they at least try to have an objective point of view. The vast majority of the time even if I disagree with critics I can at least see where they're coming from, unlike people who come on these boards to call Great Comet 'boring rubbish' for example.
#15
Posted: 4/22/17 at 9:04pm
"I personally value the opinion of critics over family or board members as I do think most of the time they at least try to have an objective point of view. The vast majority of the time even if I disagree with critics I can at least see where they're coming from, unlike people who come on these boards to call Great Comet 'boring rubbish' for example."
Understood. My point was there are options besides male critics to give you a opinion of a show. Some people value word of mouth rather than a good review from the NY Times, to each their own.
#18
Posted: 4/23/17 at 6:38am
I just read Jesse Green's review for Indecent. If I do read any reviews, I usually check out his because he does a good job of contextualizing plays. In light of this thread it did have me taking note of the fact that he highlights Oslo and Sweat at the beginning of the review and praises the male playwright while criticizing the female playwrights. One of the big takeaways from the Indecent review is that he had a problem with how the Jewish characters were characterized, or not. I have not seen any of the three plays but I do think that it's possible that someone with a different background would be more appreciate of the things that Indecent and Sweat get right. And the perspective on "credibility" is a matter of opinion since all three plays have a degree of invention.
#19
Posted: 4/23/17 at 7:11am
"I do think that it's possible that someone with a different background would be more appreciate of the things that Indecent and Sweat get right.
You make a valid point but you can say that about many different plays. For example,could the same critic appreciate more of the things of any of the plays by August Wilson since he is not the same ethnicity? I just read his review and thought it was excellent piece of writing.
#20
Posted: 4/23/17 at 8:04am
This seems like the same issue with the Oscars and diversity, where it is a bit misplaced. The Oscars don't produce any films, so unless they are ignoring obvious minority films and cast members, there is not much they can do to make what films are produced more diverse. Same with critics, unless they are unable to critique non-white non-cisgender non-male plays accurately, then there isn't an issue. Should there be more diversity in the work, the casts, the community, and the critics? Sure. But that doesn't seem like the point here, so not sure what the goal would be. Is there some tone deaf review of a non-white, non-male play that I missed?
#21
Posted: 4/23/17 at 8:16am
The more important question is why don't women and POC get hired to be leading critics. Same reason why it's the same for 99% of professions. And yes it matters, even if the shows we have seem diverse. That's not the only possible result.
#22
Posted: 4/23/17 at 11:02pm
yankeefan7 said: "The NY Times hired a highly qualified critic, should they have not hired him just because he was a white male."
It is funny how the qualified person hired more often than not turns out to be a white man. I guess women, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics just do not have as much ability in this field. They are looking strictly at the individual's ability, so the only conclusion to draw is that white men are just a lot better as drama critics than women and minorities.
And since everyone can point to plays by and about women and minorities that get good reviews, there is clearly not any problem.
I mean if they like Fences and Hello Dolly, they clearly have no bias against minority writers and female characters.
Updated On: 4/23/17 at 11:02 PM
#23
Posted: 4/24/17 at 1:55am
haterobics said: "This seems like the same issue with the Oscars and diversity, where it is a bit misplaced. The Oscars don't produce any films, so unless they are ignoring obvious minority films and cast members, there is not much they can do to make what films are produced more diverse. Same with critics, unless they are unable to critique non-white non-cisgender non-male plays accurately, then there isn't an issue. Should there be more diversity in the work, the casts, the community, and the critics? Sure. But that doesn't seem like the point here, so not sure what the goal would be. Is there some tone deaf review of a non-white, non-male play that I missed?"
I think that argument makes more sense for something like the Tony's. When it comes to reviewers, I think it is relevant. It's not accuracy, it's opinion. And that opinion is going to be informed by personal experience (thus what you deem credible, realistic, emotionally affecting, sympathetic, etc.) and... I can't think of the right word... but the more critical lens. I don't know the background of every theater critic but for something like literary criticism, that's going to be informed by your academic background. And a lot of those academic backgrounds are going to teach you to respond positively to criteria based on the work male writers and judged by other male authorities. I feel like I'm too loopy to be articulating this at 2am but I hope some of this makes sense.
#24
Posted: 4/24/17 at 3:37am
Ben Brantley loves divas and will praise them every time. Kristin, Donna, Patti, Bette, Audra, etc.
#25
Posted: 4/24/17 at 4:13am
Speed said: "Ben Brantley loves divas and will praise them every time. Kristin, Donna, Patti, Bette, Audra, etc.
"
The point is we need the female experience, not acknowledgement or approval from men.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71