Should a Reviewer for the NYT have some theatre background?

Lately, I have been getting frustrated reading Ben Brantley's reviews. I wonder to myself why he sees shows so differently than I do. I have a degree in Theatre, I have worked in theatre my whole life...35 years..... as an actor, a published playwright, a voice teacher, an audition coach, a rehearsal pianist, an acting teacher at a very reputable College in NYC, a Director .... I wondered what his theatre background was so I Googled his Bio. He has none. He has a Bachelors degree in English. Before he joined the Times,  he was a writer working for Women's Wear Daily and Elle and Vanity Fair. He has worked for various other magazines and news outlets.

I find this troublesome. I think a reviewer of theatre (Especially for the NY Times) should have some history of working in the theatre... Some personal knowledge and experience of how the process of creating theatre works.

Yes, he is a good "writer". All his punctuation is in the exact right places. And yes what people like about a show is subjective. My Aunt Rita is a GREAT writer and she has an English Degree as well. I wouldn't want her writing reviews for the NY Times.

I don't mean to sound snarky or bitchy.  I really don't.  But.. Now it all makes sense to me.  He's nothing more than an English major who got all A's in his classes at Swarthmore College. I know this because his bio at the Times says he Graduated with "High Honors" and is a Phi Beta Kappa. wow! It's embarrassing they even had to put that in his bio.  I am now convinced he really doesn't know what he writing about. He has never created theatre. He has never been through the creative process. 

He is no more qualified than my Aunt Rita to be writing reviews of theatre.
 

I don't think so, but I do think it is a plus for the job.

Also, if they hire someone who has absolutely no idea what they're talking about, their reviews will get less and less consistent with the general public, and after a while, nobody will take it into consideration. It's their loss, actually. It takes a lot to build a reputation, but so little to make it fall.

It's a valid point. But, with all critics, it is only their opinion.    Sure, I think they need to know a background, but I think if you see enough theater you learn what is good and what is bad, etc. 

They're writing predominantly for people without theater backgrounds, as well...

Generally, practitioners make bad critics because they are not open-minded, and filter things through their own "rules." With Kerr, perhaps, this defect reached its pinnacle as the significance of (especially) the evolving musical eluded him entirely.

FWIW, Tony Scott had no background in film and virtually none even in film criticism when the Times hired him, and he has worked out pretty well. Whatever frustrations you may have with Brantley are not directly traceable to this cause. 

Sunday is the Park with George was written after Merrily We Roll Along.  I don't think that was an accident. Sondheim was clearly bruised by the bad reviews and takes on critics who don't really know what the process of creating "art" feels like in Sunday.  I used Ben B at the Times because he is the biggest target. It might apply to any reviewer at a larger newspaper or publication. 

Also... I don't believe that ANY person who works in the theatre is capable of writing reviews. Using examples of theatre people on this board bitching is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a thoughtful, intelligent, capable person who is both a good writer and has experience in theatre.  Theatre is a process that often takes years of hard work by dozens of people before a show opens. Being a part of that process might give a reviewer a certain empathy that they would not have otherwise. And Empathy is important.  That is not to say that every show should get a great review.  I go to the theatre quite often. I always go with love in my heart. There is no place I would rather be in the world than in a theatre when the lights go down and the show is about to start. I want the show to go well and be wonderful. That's where I start from. On the other hand there are shows I would not recommend others to see. I'm not a fool.  It works in reverse too. There are some shows I think are terrible and they get a Critics Pick from the NY Times.

Theatre is not just the end result, it's an art form. I want someone who understands that what they are looking at to write reviews. Look at a show like "Dancing with the Stars"... the judges are all very experienced dancers/coaches who understand the technical aspects of dancing. They are able to see things that I cannot see (as a non dancer).  The dancers' hand positions, etc. Someone (like me), with no experience in dance at all might be able to give their opinion but how valid would it be? The same with the judges on American Idol and The Voice. And yes, these are tacky television shows but I think I have more respect for their judges than I do for someone reviewing theatre who has never participated in it.

There are people on this board who will argue with you if you write the Ocean is large.  I was looking for a thoughtful discussion of the question I posed. Some of you are doing that.

Updated On: 3/20/16 at 10:57 AM

Thank you for your post HoganH.  I had a feeling when I used the word "empathy" it might be misunderstood. I understand it could be a slippery slope. But I still contend that having personal understanding of the process makes someone a more appropriate reviewer.

I wasn't inferring that theatre was a competition the same way that Dancing with the Stars is. I was trying to point out that the people assigned to "judging" them... which is really what a reviewer is.. a judge.... should at least have some expertise in what they are judging.

 

Jesse Green of New York Magazine (and Vulture) is my favorite critic. Even if i happen not to agree why him about something, he always has good reasons as to why he thinks a certain way, and he's so interesting. In addition, he seems to have a depth of theater history knowledge. I don't even know what his background is. I'll try to do more Googling when I get home later. 

"having personal understanding of the process makes someone a more appropriate reviewer."

If by "personal understanding" you mean someone who has been trained/worked in a theatrical discipline, then I couldn't disagree more. If you mean that the person should have a substantial depth of knowledge of the subject they are reviewing, then sure. And by the way, on that basis, Brantley has probably seen more plays over a broad spectrum in the last 20 years than most anyone and has an enormously deep knowledge base from which to write. That, of course, doesn't mean he is a great critic. But he certainly has a more open mind to the art form than any of the people that have been mentioned in this thread with approval. 

No.  A theater reviewer should not have experience in the theater.  A review should present the audience experience, not the expert opinion of a theater insider.  

And this is true in all fields. The best critics and commentators from restaurant reviewers to sports writers are good writers and good observers.  Insiders rarely have the objective view to accurately capture the experience.

Some of the best baseball managers never played the game. (or were very bad when they did)

CurtainsUpat8 said: "Theatre is a process that often takes years of hard work by dozens of people before a show opens. Being a part of that process might give a reviewer a certain empathy that they would not have otherwise."

Whether people have labored over something for month or years, or how many people it took to get everything up on that stage... it either works or it doesn't. I doubt anyone is unaware how long it takes before a show lands on Broadway. Whether anything other than the end result MATTERS is the issue.