NY Times theater reviews

I think Maya Phillips might need to take a class on how to use a computer.

The last 2 paragraphs of her Cost Of Living review contained excerpts from her journal, and it seems to be happening again in her newest review of I’m Revolting.

I thought her job was reviewing plays, not sharing her personal life with readers.

Jesse Green loves to bring up his children, his grandparents, his childhood, etc in his reviews, and yet you don't seem to have a problem with that. Hmm, wonder why?

Art is literally subjective, so each person's lived experience will always play into their perception of a piece of work. Critics don't have a switch they flip to make them into a human typewriter void of life the minute they step into a theater.

RUkiddingme said: "I don't know what you're implying - why don't you say it?

As for Jesse Green, I have lots of problems with him - but I didn't read 2 of his journal entries this week so I didn't include him in my thought."

I (and I suspect others) am (are) having trouble understanding what is at the root of your issue here, and I am not implying anything at all. (I cannot speak for LarryD2.) We do not all like the same things in a critic so perhaps it's just a matter of you being allergic to this one. For me, I like critics who (a) write well, (b) have something interesting to say more often than not, and (c) share as much as they can about themselves as they are willing, because that's the best way I know of to get a sense of whether they are a critic to whose opinions I can relate. Maya Philips checks those boxes for me but YMMV. We don't all have to like the same theatre (because it's subjective) but what are you looking to get from a critic if you don't know where they are coming from? It sounds like maybe you prefer to learn about the theatre from a reporter rather than a critic. That, of course, is your prerogative. We also don't all have to like the same critics and it would be bizarre if we did.

I think what I (and possibly others) am maybe perceiving as a glib tone is why we are not understanding you? Quite honestly, I found myself immediately empathizing with her reaction to Cost of Living, and her writing that made me want to see the show more.
I also agree with Hogan above that I enjoy when a critic gives me context for why the felt the way they did about a piece. Because (all together now) art is subjective. I appreciate the bigger picture around someone’s thoughts.
But, alas, we are just strangers on the internet. So, who’s to say? What works for me clearly doesn’t work for you, and that’s okay!

Updated On: 10/6/22 at 10:10 PM

It would be dishonest for a critic to present themself as unbiased. The more we embrace the fact that art criticism is just 1 person’s opinion — and that their opinion is informed by their experiences — the more useful it actually is. Because then the critic can draw the line in the sand between their critical assessment and their personal baggage. Pretending the personal baggage doesn’t exist will only blur that line, forcing the readers to resort to guess-work to find it themselves.

RUkiddingme said: "she made them about her life and that's not her job. "

Or is it? A fair number of us here clearly think that it is. As I said, you don't have to think so, and you can go look for someone that just gives you just the facts, ma'am.