"Reviewing" first or very early previews

I have just finished reading Matt Windman's book The Critics Say:57 Theater Critics in NY and Beyond, so I post this feeling a bit more educated about theatrical criticism and related issues than I did before I read it. The book is long, but as the author himself says, it's written in a form that makes skipping around easy and intended. One of the issues that came up (in the context of Spider-Man primarily, was the review of early previews.

So this post is primarily intended for Whizzer, not in any way antagonistically but it a way to encourage discussion. The fact is that I look forward to his reviews. I find them on the level of many professional critics--thoughtful, well written and knowledgeable. And I recognize that unlike professional critics, he pays for his tickets and thus is completely within his rights to post anything he wants with respect to what he's seen. But the question I raise is should he?

Here is the issue: First previews (or very early previews) are often not the show that eventually opens, they are productions in a state of flux and have not been deemed ready to be reviewed by the producers who will schedule press previews once the show has been frozen. During the preview process, the director is our there taking extensive notes, and everything going on is being discussed among all the creatives and the producers. As a recent example, Whizzer reviewed the second preview of The Encounter, which he wrote was far too long and apparently there was agreement on this point as someone who saw the show recently mentioned it was down to 1:45 when he saw it.

As I see it, the "problem" is only a problem when a review of an early preview is negative. If the review is positive, it won't deter anyone from wanting to see it, but a poor review (again, to a work in progress) might well have the opposite effect. So is that right or fair. To me, it seems unfair. I think that the people who are putting on the show should have a right to have it reviewed when they deem it ready.

So my question is: should an effort be made to see the shows in previews during the press preview stage when the show has been frozen before these type of "civilian" reviews are posted, good as they may be?

There are no preview prices on Broadway. If they're going to charge us $145 (for example) for a preview, we have just as much right to talk about a show if we paid for it. Most shows do not indicate AT ALL at the box office or online the difference between a preview and a post opening show. We are under no obligation to them.

I say this as a person with many friends who are theater artists, and many who are journalists.

If you get a comp ticket to a first preview, that's another story.

Updated On: 9/28/16 at 01:01 PM

I really think previews are nonexistent nowadays. Now that we have tracks and and more complicated set designs it's harder to write new material for a set piece that was created for another purpose in the show.

Whizzer doesn't write "reviews." (Nor does anyone else on this site.)

Whizzer merely expresses an opinion in writing to be shared with a finite group of like-minded individuals.

This ultra-significant distinction makes the original question moot.

They aren't now, so there's really no point in the argument?

Our posts on this board are not reviews, nor are we members of the press. This board is not even an informal blog. It's just a space to share opinions. These are just opinions of people who see shows. If the producers of a show don't want people to have opinions before the show ready, then they shouldn't begin performances until that point. Of course, you might argue that it's different because it's on a public online forum. But it's honestly not that different. The fact that these opinions are on an online forum only means that the information will travel faster. As it happens, I think most people do NOT make their show-seeing decisions based on Whizzer's (or other posters'  opinions, but even if they do, it doesn't change much. If someone is determined to make their show-seeing decisions based on word of mouth from early previews, they can do so with or without the aid of the internet.

And as others have said, both in this thread and past threads, a preview period can rarely save a bad show.

EDIT: I took a while to type this post, and in that time I see others have made similar points as I did. Sorry for the repetition, but consider this my agreement with those points!

Updated On: 9/28/16 at 01:26 PM

"his comments are referred to as 'reviews' on this board by virtually everyone."



Right, but they're not literally professional theater reviews, as understood by virtually everyone including yourself. So again, I'm not sure there's a debate here.

I think that the acting of the cast at the start of previews should be view optimistically since that almost always grows over time.

Performers who are inexperienced at stage acting, like those who came in as mainly professional singers or hollywood actors, are likely to be the ones who improves more over the course of their run but are also more likely to be rough at the start.

Updated On: 9/28/16 at 02:45 PM

I heard Mike Nichols say that every show he ever did the average theatregoer would not notice the difference between the first preview and opening night. I was surprised he thought that.

I also read The Thin Man musical and a pair of Al Pacino plays at Circle in The Square got in trouble for not advertising they were in previews with The NY Commissioner of Consumer Affairs. Historically shows used to have discounted preview prices. When did that practice change?

Everybody who buys tickets to a preview knows that its work in progress, thats the entire purpose of them, to polish up the production.

You can't buy a newborn puppy and then complain that it hasn't had its shots or been neutered.

You can if you're paying the same price as you would for a puppy that HAS had its shots and been neutered (I actually don't know how that whole process works as I'm not really a pet person, but that seemed to be the logical response within the metaphor)

JBroadway said: "You can if you're paying the same price as you would for a puppy that HAS had its shots and been neutered (I actually don't know how that whole process works as I'm not really a pet person, but that seemed to be the logical response within the metaphor)

"

It's really a terrible comparison tbh. Also if you buy a puppy that's sick or has undisclosed issues you can receive some or all of your money back.

This board is really more of a case of word-of-mouth than of reviews, albeit accelerated word-of-mouth. And i agree with what people have posted: full-price tickets make sharing one's opinion a perfectly valid thing to do, not just legally but ethically. Here in my city, there are a number of local theatre companies that do actually charge significantly discounted prices, e.g. either half price or sometimes even lower ($10 or $20) for a few preview shows, and then they switch to their regular pricing. I see that much less often with Broadway shows. A few seem to have some kind of gimmick pricing (e.g. $15.95 for a show set in 1595, etc.) for a few shows, and in that case i really would treat those performances more like protected developmental stages than the ones that are already charging the public full price.

Personally, i only read reviews or discussions on this board if i have already seen a show and am curious to see if others reacted similarly to how i did, or if i have decided that i won't see it due to uninteresting subject matter, or if i have never heard of it before and don't know what the thread is about. In the latter two cases, i sometimes read discussion boards or reviews in case there is a general consensus that something great is happening, in which case i might change my mind and decide to go see it after all. If i already know that i want to see something either because of the creative team, subject matter, or performer(s), then i don't want to know what anyone else thinks until i have formed my own opinion first with a minimum of extra information. I have ended up seeing shows that i wasn't planning to see after reading about them on here (sometimes without even having heard of them via any other channel). But i have never decided not to see a show that i was already planning to see.

Social media allows shows to find more of an audience by amplifying word of mouth beyond the reaches of just local theatre-goers or the occasional tourists who happen to know other tourists seeing shows in NYC. Shows tend to stay open longer now than in the past, causing more theatres to be occupied with long-running shows than 40-50 years ago, and ticket prices have increased faster than inflation over that time period, so producers/shows seem to be benefiting from the widespread word of mouth that the internet provides. But the flip side is that if many people don't like the show, people may hear about that too. But without the internet, many shows used to close quickly without finding an audience, even if they were well-liked by those who saw them. At least now such shows have more of a fighting chance for people who might like them to actually hear about them on time.