Male Critics — Page 2

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 am not sure if this is meant to be serious or not. There are so many breaches of logic that the intent may be satiric.

However, I will bite.

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


The Oscars do not make movies, but the Times hires critics. So like the producers who can make films more diverse, by making more diverse films, the Times can make its lineup of critics more diverse by hiring someone other than a white man for its number two slot.


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?

Clearly, yes, you missed a lot. Nothing big, but lots of little stuff. I suggest you read EVERY review of the next 5 plays that open and you will get a better sense of it. There is no big stunner of bigotry, but the distance from minority and women's voices is clear when viewed alongside the engagement in writing about their own demographic.

And even if the white men were completely superlative in their empathetic understanding of plays outside their facht, it would still be a problem. If a company only hires white men for certain positions, that is a pretty clear indication of hiring bias. If you think that it is just a coincidence....I have a great deal for you on a great bridge.

I think this entire thread misses the point that daily reviewers (of any art, including theatre) are increasingly ignored and irrelevant. They don't control content. And they aren't exactly "critics" - that is, they don't analyze or delve past a really rather superficial level, they merely describe an experience from a limited and subjective place. They aren't scholars, experts, or even particularly good writers. So it seems wise to avoid ascribing more power and/or influence to them than they actually possess.

If one wishes to read arts reviews from a particular point of view (female, trans, frum), I'm sure there are many blogs that can be found to satisfy that desire. Why does it have to be a daily paper?

"I see your point, but there are still advantages to being a reviewer for a publication/official website... legitimacy, salary, readership, access."

That statement ignores my opener, which is that the position is becoming increasingly irrelevant. I wouldn't be surprised if they were mostly gone within 50 years. Increasing diversity in a dying profession is an inherently rather pointless topic to explore.

You got a string of false equivalences there, y'know. But let it pass, let it pass. The point has been made; you either agree with it, or you don't.

While there are some good theater critics in NYC (Helen Shaw and Alexis Soloski immediately come to mind) there is no reason why the Times has to hire locally. When they hired Isherwood, he was based in LA.

I do not understand why there is so much energy spent on covering for the Times. Reading here one would think they lack the resources to do an adequate search and lack any reputation to make them more important than some theater enthusiast's blog.

Smaxie said: ">When they hired Isherwood, he was based in LA.<

Isherwood was an editor and critic at Variety before he went to The New York Times. He was in New York as chief theatre critic for Variety for at least six years before he went to the Times in 2004. "

I am sorry for the error. Isherwood started off as a critic in LA and I guess Variety moved him to NYC.

In any case, the Times (like Variety) has moved staff around the country. There is no reason they could not move a good critic from another city into Isherwood' s slot. Journalists have to make quick moves all the time.

"If anyone in the field today qualifies as a critic, it's Jesse Green."

I disagree; the only person with whom I'm familiar writing today who I would call a real critic is Michael Feingold. But he's never written for a daily, that I'm aware of.

"The NY Times might as well start up a Broadway.com Word-of-Mouth round table review. All 12 of them can share 800 words of space and the equivalent of Isherwood's salary."

I love this idea; the committee must be comprised of more than 12 people, because every possible combination of these categories would need to be represented: male/female; white/African American/Asian American/Latino/Middle Eastern/First Peoples/Inuit; heterosexual/homosexual/lesbian/bisexual/trans/queer/questioning/intersex; Catholic/Protestant/Jewish Orthodox/Jewish Reform/Sunni/Shiite/Hindu/Atheist/Agnostic/Pagan/Etc.Etc.Etc.; abled/otherly abled/spectrum/etc. Am I forgetting any important demographic categories?

That is to say we cannot just choose one person from each category: every combination of categories must be represented, as a male/Asian American/bisexual/agnostic/otherly abled writer will definitely see theatre with a paradigm significantly different from a female/Asian American/bisexual/agnostic/otherly abled writer, and both must be represented to please everyone.

Updated On: 4/25/17 at 10:51 AM