The point of reviews/critics?

[jovie27]

Posted: 4/22/11 at 12:15am

After reading very highly negative reviews for High and amazing reviews for Jerusalem, I started to think...was there ever a time that a show opened and a the producers DID NOT invite critics to see the show...has a producer ever wanted to just use a word-of-mouth and marketing to advertize their show without negative/positive reviews to promote it? So, again, what's the point of critics?

Discuss!!!

[backwoodsbarbie]

Posted: 4/22/11 at 8:41am

David Merrick was famous for not inviting critics. However, they came anyway.Its not as if critics are commissioned by the producers to promote the shows.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 4/22/11 at 8:48am

The point is for them to meet in a lair and decide what the common people will think.

Some of us, though, of course, can see right through that ploy.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 11:54am

The critics are a necessary evil.

The first thing to remember is that it is only one person's opinion and opinions vary. Just look at any board on here.
"I loved Memphis"... "I hated Memphis."

Some critics are filled with so much self importance. They think of themselves as Kings and Queens of what we should or should not like.

Some are so self important and angry that they have no talent that they pretty much dislike everything.

Others have very low self esteem and are overly benevolent and like everything so people can like them at parties and say nice things about them.

If a show gets good reviews, the producers jump on the good reviews and plaster them on ads both print, radio and tout the show and sell tickets,

If a show gets bad reviews, the producers look through the reviews with a microscope and find the good things they said, plop them in print or radio so they look like good reviews and sell tickets.

Sometimes reviewers get it right: The Book Of Mormon for example which in my opinion was brilliant. They are only right because they match my opinion.

Sometimes they get it wrong. The called last years "Next Fall" the second coming of plays. I found it tedious and fell asleep.. They got it wrong because they did not match my opinion.

Opinions are like assholes .. everyone has one.
But some assholes are nicer and more intelligent than others, while others have low self esteem.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 12:32pm

I would think the joy of being a critic would be to call attention to the value of something that would otherwise be dismissed or abandoned. Prime examples being the raves given by Frank Rich to the otherwise coolly received DREAMGIRLS and SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 12:36pm

Exactly. I don't write much anymore, but when I did, nothing made me prouder than to be able to use the very powerful written word to support something I believed in. It is much easier to write a mean-spirited and clever bad review. It is much more rewarding to write a good review.

I think the thing about criticism that bothers me the most is that some critics seem to have lost site of the second fold of their job. Yes, they are supposed to write a report on their opinion of the show. But their job is also to try to match a show with its audience. Who would like it, and why? I've become disillusioned because so much of it has become about who can be the wittiest in their bitchy comments. Too many critics are writing for themselves these days, and not for their audiences. It's more than the "look at me, look how clever I am!" contest that it's become.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 12:42pm

Borstal Boy.. you got it right.
The joy of being a critic SHOULD be to call attention to something that deserves it.

Alas.. the critics would rather be bitchily witty
or overly benevolent.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 12:43pm

As a writer, I have gotten to know quite a few PR people and on several occasions we've had conversations about drama critics. Most of my PR friends feel that the value of a drama critic is moribund. Nowadays, people are sharing their opinions of shows during intermissions of the 1st previews of shows like SPIDERMAN and HOW TO SUCCEED... They also site the growing influence of theatre message boards in making a show popular. One PR gal said that with print newspapers struggling for survival, it's only a matter of time before they let go of their drama critics.

[hyperbole_and_a_half]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 12:48pm

Critics perform a common good: warning potential audience members not to spend $5000 for a ticket to an unqualified disappointment. You might as well be asking why we don't just disband the FDA and let free-market capitalism take care of salmonella.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 12:49pm

If someone is thinking about spending $5,000 on a ticket to a show, they need more help than a critic's review.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 12:52pm

Yes... but CRITICS always have their own agenda.

And what qualifies someone to be a critic. The former critic for
The Sun Sentinel was a sports writer. They suddenly had an opening.
He was the critic for over 8 years! Do you really think a sports writer is the best choice for a critic?

There are no degrees or qualifications for critics. There is
no quide and so many just want to write bitchy witticisms and out do the other critic.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 12:52pm

Yes... but CRITICS always have their own agenda.

And what qualifies someone to be a critic. The former critic for
The Sun Sentinel was a sports writer. They suddenly had an opening.
He was the critic for over 8 years! Do you really think a sports writer is the best choice for a critic?

There are no degrees or qualifications for critics. There is
no quide and so many just want to write bitchy witticisms and out do the other critic.

[canmark]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 1:48pm

In perhaps a partial defense of theatre critics...

I remember an English professor at university (teaching a course on drama) saying that while part of a drama critic's role is to make a critical analysis of a piece of drama (just as a book reviewer is making a critical analysis of a book), it's also their job to be entertaining. A review is not the same as an academic paper and should not just be a dry assessment of the play or musical, but offer some rewards to the reader for reading the opinion of that particular reviewer (because, of course, we could read any number of reviews from professionals and amateurs alike).

So, witty retorts are not necessarily a bad thing--presuming they are being used to praise the praiseworthy or put down the deserved drivel. And if used in the spirit of the show itself, can be quite entertaining. I mean, I quite liked Brantley's title for his Anything Goes review: "A Glimpse of Stocking? Shocking!"

It often seems that people don't like reviews when they disagree with them, but like them when they agree. In the end, a review is just a guide to help you decide whether you want to see this play or that musical or this movie or that book or this restaurant or whatever... and you should use them in combination with your own judgement and word of mouth from people whose opinions you trust. If you don't trust Brantley or Isherwood or whoever--don't read them. If you only want to read raves, just read the show's PR materials.

Updated On: 4/23/11 at 01:48 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 1:52pm

I think there's a difference that you aren't accounting for between what people mean by "witty" and what they mean by "mean-spirited." Wit is fine. Wit is good and it makes people want to keep reading. But when it goes to excess to be mean, I think that's another story. Yes, some people find that funny, especially when they agree and it's a show they also think is crap. But when the desire to create that kind of humor overtakes what I think is the critic's real job, then that's a problem.

And I think you give people who are critical of critics' work far too little credit to assume the dislike is only because of disagreement with their opinions.

I defend the profession. I really, really do. I just don't defend the way it's headed.

Updated On: 4/23/11 at 01:52 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 3:11pm

This is the trend of all critics...not just theater critics. Look at American Idol and the like. It's not just there to be informative anymore, it's to also BE entertaining.

We have totally become shadenfrude stricken -- we love the misfortune brought to others -- why else do so many watch the audition process of the performance based shows that serve as nothing else but to make fun of the less than talented?

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 3:19pm

I work as a critic here in the UK and love that job, however i also own a very succesful fringe theatre production company and write or direct most of our productions. Even i sometimes think i would rather not have critics there lol

[Dollypop]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 3:22pm

>>>"I mean, I quite liked Brantley's title for his Anything Goes review: "A Glimpse of Stocking? Shocking!"<<<

Most of the time it's the editor who titles an article, not the author.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 3:26pm

There are drama critics. And there are theater reviewers. And on the bottom of the totem pole, there are stage chatters.

An actual drama critic looks at something and shows you where it falls on the theatrical continuum from the dawn of the ancient Greeks through today, lets you know of its antecedents and whether or not it brings anything new to the table. Does it advance the form? Does it fill a different cultural purpose? There are very few people left who perform this service.

Theater reviewers tell you if they liked it, if the audience liked it, if it was "fun." Very little acknowledgement of theatrical history save previous productions if they're reviewing a revival.

Then there are the chatterers. Somehow Michael Riedel has managed to carve out a paying gig in these horrible times for print journalists doing nothing more than that.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 4:11pm

I think ultimately theatre goers decide what they gravitate towards in any given season. Critics have little impact today.

I love what Jeanne Tesori says in SHOW BUSINESS, "it's all about alchemy, and timing and the emotional temperature (love that expression) of an audience in the moment they see the work. You have to throw the spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks."

What works one season might not fly another. Book of Mormon was a groundswell hit before the critics even got near it. The buzz was palpable and it wasn't the critics talking. It was sold out in previews.

HIGH was never selling, with or without critics. GREY GARDENS couldn't sell with raves and Tonys.

It all comes down to the audience and what they are talking about. GOOD PEOPLE felt like a show audiences were loving and telling people about. It was selling out because audiences loved the characters. People weren't going to see Frances McDormand, although Im sure she didn't hurt. People did not show up to see Kathleen Turner, Julianne Moore and even Robin Williams.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 4:30pm

Well it does seem that critics have less and less impact.
Only 10 years ago, a bad Times review would close a show.

The Times and others panned Wicked but word of mouth made that a hit!

The Times panned Memphis and it floundered at the box office for a while but word of mouth was good, the Tony helped and it is now having a successful run.

I am sorry to see High go as I would have liked to have seen it.
Poor advance and critical drubbings apparently were too much for it but critics are indeed having less and less of a say thanks to blogging, internet and discussions like this one.

[jovie27]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 6:58pm

"David Merrick was famous for not inviting critics. However, they came anyway.Its not as if critics are commissioned by the producers to promote the shows."

So, then even if they came, does a big paper like say the NYT have to post something about it?

A prime example...SPIDER-MAN, the producers asked critics to come when ready....but they refused and came when they thought they should come and posted a review about it. Now, the producers were mad saying that they were asked not to come and they did anyway...and posted something about.

[jovie27]

Posted: 4/23/11 at 6:59pm

"The point is for them to meet in a lair and decide what the common people will think."


To me this seems more like an assumption and its never ok to assume!

[goldenboy]

Posted: 4/24/11 at 4:35pm

Well there does seem to be an
unspoken concesus. Not sure they met in a lair but it does
seem fashionable
to not like Wildhorn and Rob Ashford.
to like musicals with nuns
to like anything by Tom Stoppard or from Britain.


Look out for Wildhorn's Bonnie and Clyde.
I predict that will change his bad reviews.
Great theatre piece-- different and in some ways better than
the film.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 4/24/11 at 5:21pm

Is a theatre critics job to write a good review for a show he/she likes or what they believe there target audience will like?

A good example of this is the late 'Clive Barnes' who was chief drama critic for the 'New York Times' then moved on to the same position for the 'New York Post', now would Clive write the same review for the Times/Post because he liked the show, or a different review for the Times than the Post as they have a different audience?

[Fanb]

Posted: 4/24/11 at 5:23pm

Actually, the Spider Man producers tried to get away with not inviting critics . . .