"Ranking" theater critics/publications

[Nycat63]

Posted: 12/4/17 at 8:20pm

Hi all - as a theater fan and someone who relies to a large extent on reviews when selecting shows for my trips to NY (as well as on this board, which has rarely let me down!), I am wondering who/which publications avid theatergoers rely on and trust most heavily. I do know that the New York Times and whether a show is a "critics pick" is typically the most important, but after that I'm less certain. I'd love to know your rankings of the other major critics/publications - realizing of course that some of this will be subjective.

Thanks in advance!

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/4/17 at 8:49pm

ALL of it is subjective. I suggest reading as many as you can, especially after you have seen a show, to get a sense of how your taste compares to that of various critics. I don't believe in rankings, and don't really see how my ranking could be of service to you if I did, unless you first concluded that our tastes align. It is pretty easy nowadays to drill through a bunch of reviews on any given show at show-score.com, and it won't take you long to filter out the ones you don't appreciate. (You can also do the same thing with people who are not critics but who post their opinions of shows here routinely.) Nothing is foolproof, but having a sense of the feelings of a fairly large sample will usually steer you the right way.

[Nycat63]

Posted: 12/4/17 at 9:01pm

Point well taken, Hogan.  I put "ranking" in parens in the title of my post exactly for that reason, though then I probably didn't articulate my actual question the way I should have.  I suppose I'm asking which critics people generally consider the most credible/authoritative, rather than necessarily aligning with their own personal tastes, which of course are subjective.  There is obviously some reason the NYT is considered the most important/credible resource for reviews even if its opinion of a show may ultimately differ vastly from certain people who see that show.  So maybe that's more of what I was getting at - and I'm not asking anyone to actually rank each and every publication, either - I'd just love an idea of which, other than the NYT, are considered the most "legit," if that makes a bit more sense.  It's more of an academic question than anything - I've just always been curious.

[Mike66]

Posted: 12/4/17 at 9:06pm

I've trusted Ben Brantley's judgment for many years, and he has almost never let me down.  Living outside the NYC area, I cant see everything I'm interested in -- when I make the trip I go with Ben. 

m

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 12/4/17 at 9:10pm

Brantley is King.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/4/17 at 9:27pm

The Times has the biggest megaphone so it gets considered at the top of the heap. Most other publications nowadays are pathetic shells of their former selves, and it is hard to consider any of them particularly legit. In terms of esteem, I'd place Michael Feingold at the top of the heap. Many/most of the putatively legit publications have critics who are too old, too ingrained, too male and too white to be taken all that seriously (unless of course that's what appeals to you). We actually have more theatrical reviewing accessible to us today than at any time in human history, much of it on the internet and not particularly enfranchised. I think I answered your question in my first post, and you are still looking for the answer to a different one. If all you want is a crutch, then rely of whoever seems to have the highest bona fides. Otherwise do as I suggest and walk on your own two feet.

[Nycat63]

Posted: 12/4/17 at 9:38pm

HogansHero said: "The Times has the biggest megaphone so it gets considered at the top of the heap. Most other publications nowadays are pathetic shells of their former selves, and it is hard to consider any of them particularly legit. In terms of esteem, I'd place Michael Feingold at the top of the heap. Many/most of the putatively legit publications have critics who are too old, too ingrained, too male and too white to be taken all that seriously (unless of course that's what appeals to you). We actually have more theatrical reviewing accessible to us today than at any time in human history, much of it on the internet and not particularly enfranchised. I think I answered your question in my first post, and you are still looking for the answer to a different one. If all you want is a crutch, then rely of whoever seems to have the highest bona fides. Otherwise do as I suggest and walk on your own two feet."

Man, despite the many truly helpful people on this board, you'd think I'd know better after reading other threads than to ask a question.  Thanks for your input, Hogan. Not that I should feel like I need to defend myself, but I wasn't looking for any sort of crutch and I ultimately do make up my own mind.  I honestly can't understand why some people respond to things just to be demeaning. Move on to a post you think merits your time instead.  But thank you for the substantive portion of your answer.  

[At-the-glen]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 12:23am

Just want to mourn the loss of Linda Winer’s reviews, I nearly always agreed with her and she was always one for finding the heart and soul of a piece.

[DrowsyKaye]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 1:46am

Jesse Green at the NY Times and Sara Holdren at the New Yorker/Vulture are the only two critics I trust when it comes to NY theatre.

[BroadwayRox3588]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 3:02am

NY Times is my favorite, and The Wrap is my least favorite. Everyone else is kinda scattered for me.

[jbird5]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 3:09am

I tend to segregate them by group:
The establishment critics like NYT and other NY papers, Time Out, The New Yorker and the WSJ which I consider an outlier.

Then you have the out of towners like WAPO , LA Times and Tribune.

Then the Industry people like EW, Variety & THR plus the more Bway focused ones like BWW, TM, etc. I expect them to be less harsh because of their relationships with the subjects. Not always true but generally.

Then their are the internet/blogs which I read for a more layman’s view which might be closer to how I would see the show. They may be seeing the because they want to, not because it’s their job.

[ChiTheaterFan]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 3:26am

Being from Chicago, I have read the most reviews from Chris Jones and therefore usually read the tribune first (well, after the NYT).  It’s not that he’s the greatest critic ever (though he’s pretty good) or that I agree with him the most. But I find that by reading the same reviewer who has reviewed a lot of shows I have seen, I can usually get a sense of whether I’ll like the show or not from the nature of his criticism, even if I might not agree with it. So for example, he might not like something, but from the nature of his criticism I might know that’s an aspect of the show that won’t bother me. Or he might rave about things that I know aren’t a draw for me. 

 

I wish i had had time to read a wide variety of reviews for all the shows I might see, but I don’t (or I didn’t when I used to go to New York all the time anyway) so that’s my strategy.

As far as objectively who is respected most, I can’t comment.  But maybe you could check the pull quotes from well reviewed shows?  Obviously they’re going to pull the best soundbites but if they’re getting universal raves they might pull more from the more respected productions?  Just an idea. 

[Melissa25]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 5:34am

I love Show-Score.com because it allows me to follow other theater goers as well as critics who share my taste. This site provides a return on your investment of time when trying to prioritize which shows to see.

[coreman009]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 6:56am

Yeah I’ve become a huge fan of Show-Score because there’s wisdom in the crowd. The exact same reason I follow Rotten Tomatoes for movie reviews instead of any individual critic.

That said, the critics I tend to trust the most include Michael Dale of BroadwayWorld (coincidence I’m on these boards) and David Sheward of Backstage.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 7:39am

Nycat63 said: "HogansHero said: "The Times has the biggest megaphone so it gets considered at the top of the heap. Most other publications nowadays are pathetic shells of their former selves, and it is hard to consider any of them particularly legit. In terms of esteem, I'd place Michael Feingold at the top of the heap. Many/most of the putatively legit publications have critics who are too old, too ingrained, too male and too white to be taken all that seriously (unless of course that's what appeals to you). We actually have more theatrical reviewing accessible to us today than at any time in human history, much of it on the internet and not particularly enfranchised. I think I answered your question in my first post, and you are still looking for the answer to a different one. If all you want is a crutch, then rely of whoever seems to have the highest bona fides. Otherwise do as I suggest and walk on your own two feet."

Man, despite the many truly helpful people on this board, you'd think I'd know better after reading other threads than to ask a question. Thanks for your input, Hogan. Not that I should feel like I need to defend myself, but I wasn'tlooking for any sort of crutch and I ultimately domake up my own mind. I honestly can't understand why some people respond to things just to be demeaning. Move on to a post you think merits your time instead. But thank you for the substantive portion of your answer."

Don't waste your breath.  This is who Hogan has become...the expert of all experts, and fie on you if you don't lap up his wisdom.   

[Lot666]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 9:26am

dramamama611 said: "Nycat63 said: "...I honestly can't understand why some people respond to things just to be demeaning."

Don't waste your breath. This is who Hogan has become...the expert of all experts, and fie on you if you don't lap up his wisdom."

The "Block User" feature is your friend.

[Lot666]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 9:28am

Ben Brantley is one of the most pompous, pretentious critics I've ever come across. His commentary has virtually no impact on whether I will see a show.

[VotePeron]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 9:32am

coreman009 said: "Yeah I’ve become a huge fan of Show-Score because there’s wisdom in the crowd. The exact same reason I follow Rotten Tomatoes for movie reviews instead of any individual critic.

That said, the critics I tend to trust the most include Michael Dale of BroadwayWorld (coincidence I’m on these boards) and David Sheward of Backstage."

I couldn't agree less with this comparison - ShowScore is built of fans and people who don't need any credibility to post, while RottenTomatoes is comprised solely of vetted professional critics.

I never trust ShowScore, especially if you're looking to take a risk on something. In my experience, you will always trod the safe path with SS.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 10:23am

re Show-Score, I was referring to the critic column, not the reader column. The problem with the latter is that, as I said before, getting to know the taste of the person writing is how I process reviews I read and that is a tough chore with these reader reviews.

re me, first of all, this board is not about me. Second, I was not being demeaning, nor was I holding myself out as an expert. I stated my approach and made a point about the alternative. I expressly said that might not be the path the OP was interested in following. It mystifies me why that would be viewed negatively: I do not think the purpose of this board is for responders to simply agree with what OPs propose. We all benefit from an open discourse. Third, if you want to block me, be my guest. 

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 10:36am

I too have become a fan of Show Score this past year and for the reason that the members need no "credibility" to post. But they enjoy the theatre so It is nice to read all of the different opinions.

I will read just about every review that comes out for a show but I don't decide on seeing a show based on reviews. If it is a show I am interested in seeing, I will see it no matter what the reviews are. My thought is why let someone else make the decision for you if it is a show you wanted to see before the reviews come out? JMO

[Nycat63]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 11:32am

First of all, thank you to everyone who has provided their opinions/information - it's been very helpful, particularly seeing who people think are the more reputable critics vs. less so from a journalistic standpoint.  Again, I may have asked my question in a less articulate way than intended, so that's on me if I confused anyone.

Hogan, I'm not the blocking type and will only say one more thing on this (I know, I know...), but part of your initial response was, indeed, demeaning and condescending (as they often are to others as well).  You are more than entitled to have opinions, but you also leaped to the conclusion - based on nothing I even implied in my post - that I was looking for a "crutch" to pick what I see or couldn't make up my own mind.  In your second post, you say you " do not think the purpose of this board is for responders to simply agree with what OPs propose."  I wasn't even proposing anything - I asked a question. You made some negative assumption based on nothing in my post about my intentions for asking the question - and then proceeded to look down your nose at me.

I live in the Midwest and can only get to NYC to see so many shows a year based on cash flow, time away from work, etc.  I tend to fill up every slot I have in the few days I have with shows, but I can only see what I think might be a "can't miss"; also, being outside of NYC, other than by reading message boards, etc., I don't get the benefit of word of mouth as much as a local would.  And, taking theater trips from here requires a lot more research, planning and buying tickets (often at full price in advance) than it does for locals.  So while I don't consider reviews a "crutch," I certainly have to rely partly on them. However, just as an example, despite the horrific reviews about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I still went to see it and actually had a great time (possibly because I went in with zero expectation that I would).  There are plenty more examples in all directions (went despite poor reviews; didn't go despite raves; bought tickets before something even opened).  So, I can and do make up my own mind at the end of the day, thank you. Indeed, you will never see a post from me entitled "what should I see?" (not that I think there's anything wrong with those) even though most of the time, I have too long a list and have to whittle it down.

Ok, rant really over, but I felt it needed to be said. You and some others on this board do it to so many people over the silliest things.  Isn't the world nasty enough?

Thank you, again, for everyone's comments - they were very helpful.  After the NYT and a couple of others, I can't always differentiate one publication from another in terms of journalistic integrity, experience, etc. 

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 11:44am

@Nycat let me just ask that you reconsider what I said: "If all you want is a crutch." I respectfully suggest that everything you see as negativity depends on ignoring the word "if." There is no assumption or conclusion in the subjunctive. 

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 12:06pm

 I too, liked to read Linda Winer's reviews. I have never liked reading Ben Brantley's reviews in NYT, but I did always liked when we talked about shows on Theater Talk...maybe he's better without a thesaurus? 

Jesse Green has always been my favorite critic, because he and I almost always agreed. Or, at least when we disagreed, he could (I felt) elaborate on why he didn't like something. 

The most useless newspaper to read is the Wall Street Journal. Terry Teachout doesn't like anything (again watch him on Theater Talk). He never The reviews read to me like " I didn't like it. I didn't like her, I didn't like him. Did I tell you I didn't like it?" It always seems like everything is beneath him. Too sobby.

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/5/17 at 12:19pm

HogansHero said: "@Nycat let me just ask that you reconsider what I said: "If all you want is a crutch." I respectfully suggest that everything you see as negativity depends on ignoring the word "if." There is no assumption or conclusion in the subjunctive."

Do any of the critics use IF a lot. If so, you might want to skip those... "If the idea of seeing a live-action version of a Nickelodeon caroon intrigues you..." Why is this critic pretending to know that intrigues me?! It doesn't intrigue me! "If you like your social commentary with a sly wink through the fourth wall.." I do not like that, why does this critic assume I do?!?

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 12/6/17 at 8:07am

I liked Elysa Gardner who used to do reviews for USA Today but she left the paper in 2016.