The Faster Times: " Are Theater Critics…Critical?"

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 7/25/10 at 11:31pm

http://thefastertimes.com/newyorktheater/2010/07/19/are-theater-critics%E2%80%A6critical/

[newintown]

Posted: 7/26/10 at 9:35am

Critics (or more appropriately for most, reviewers), aren't really worth discussing. Very few know anything the average enthusiastic theatre-goer doesn't. And none of them outside the major cities have the slightest expertise (or can write a coherent sentence).

Their sole productive purpose is to assist in publicizing the art form about which they write. To let their opinions influence yours is woolly-headed folly.

John Simon, the English-as-a-second-language-lowest-of-the-low, calling bloggers "vermin" in this article, is pitiful.

[homeimp]

Posted: 7/26/10 at 10:57am

I never pay attention to the critics. They have a vested interest in making audiences believe that only with their help can the good shows be determined. I far prefer to form my own judgements. Critics don't know me. I don't know them. How can they possibly recommend shows or discourage me from going with any accuracy? They are elitist snobs. I do agree about bloggers being vermin. Everybody these days thinks they are or wants to be the center of the universe.

[castlestreet]

Posted: 7/26/10 at 11:41am

Many of todays "critics" are lacking the knowledge of the theatre's history. As many times as I didn't agree with his opinion, at least someone like Frank Rich had a wealth of knowledge to fall back on.

I know Brantley takes a beating, and sometimes it is not deserved, but for the most part his reviews do nothing for me. In the last 5 or 6 seasons it seems like what the critics like and what the general public like have very little in common.