What does it take to be a theatre critic? — Page 2

anyone who has any interest or curiosity about the world of the theatre critic, you really need to watch the ATW "Working In Theatre Seminar" which focuses on their very unique place in the industry. the panel discussion they conduct is a stroke of utter genius and a valuable, entertaining-as-hell asset to the better-informed thearegoer. it's a great opportunity to see some top critics as actual human beings and to realize that they do (mostly) have souls, consciences, and a (generally) a great love of theatre. otherwise they wouldn't go through all the BS that comes with being in their position.

the biggest thing I learned from this video is something I already knew but needed to have confirmed for me. I've always hated statements like "critics hate theatre" or "they're all failed actors/directors/etc" but mainly because they are such clear generalizations they couldn't possibly be true.

now that I've watched this video a good 10 times, I can confidently state this generalization as true:

anyone who seriously says and believes things similar to those phrases is

A) bitter about a review that they disagree with
B) bitter about their questionable taste
C) so dangerously out of touch with theatre in the real world, they can't handle the thought that someone, even an expert, might have a different opinion

no one ever says you need to agree with the critics, and they never claim to be giving anything more than an opinion. and that is all it is- an opinion. it just happens to be an informed, educated, clearly-articulated opinion- as opposed to what it would be if they were to say that, oh I dunno, "Everybody who enjoys this show is a moron" or "The people who pay to see this show more than once obviously hate intelligent art." I mean, that would be totally out of line and useless. Know what I mean? or should I be more obvious?

when it comes down to it, Theatre Criticism is an extremely important service that the theatre needs. sure there are bad critics out there and no, a review shouldn't be the be-all and end-all for a show. but when every one of them is able to agree on something (Good Vibrations for example), it's a good sign for most of us that our money could be spent better elsewhere.

theatre is a unique experience and nowadays is also a very expensive one. so more than ever, reviews and critics are necessary and I honestly wish there were more of them. a critical eye, something to measure and analyze and study a work, is absolutely essential in order for the art form to survive at a high enough level where it is worth the sacrifice it takes to keep it going. once you throw standards out the door and stop respecting the educated analyses of the experts, you wind up with the motion picture or pop music industries. bad music and bad film is fine, at worst it's a little embarrassing. but bad theatre has the ability to end civilizations.


"Critics" video at ATW

---

Updated On: 3/30/05 at 11:18 PM

well Frank Rich actually is bad for theatre, but that's another story. people like Clive Barnes and, yes, Linda Winer are a true credit to their profession. it has nothing to do with what their taste is, it has everything to do with their personal relationships to theatre and, thus, their motivations and individual approaches to criticism. a great critic isn't one who always picks the best shows. a great critic is one who dedicates his career to helping theatre stay as high quality as possible in as many areas as possible- with "quality" being defined by the individual in whatever terms they can clearly articulate their criteria/biases. remember, no one is in it for the money or the popularity.

---

thanks justme, and you bring up a great point. the critics haven't changed, they are simply doing their jobs the same as always. but at what point did the public become so dependent on their opinions being spoonfed to them? if there is a problem in the system these days, it's the astounding lack of independent thinkers or those who aren't embarrassed to have a separate opinion. so the review which used to be a single voice, is now potentially able to dictate what should run and what shouldn't. of course that's changing too with Broadway current trends. so who knows really?

riedel isn't a theatre critic, he's a gossip columnist who focuses on theatre. sort of a less-classy version of Musto. the Post has Barnes and Scheck and someone else to write reviews.

---

Linda Winer actually addresses that in the seminar. She talks about the odd lifestyle of the theatre critic and how she finds it important to maintain as much of a connection with the real world as possible. it's impossible to live completely in the real world and still see all those shows. if they were to have term limits, it would definitely be a good influence on certain aspects of review. but I feel like the presence of lots of other critics cycling in and out would just further complicate this little system that has somehow set itself up- particularly where the Times is involved. I mean, it's like society is trying to turn a discipline so based in immeasurables into a scientific formula to predict and/or dictate success. now if this stuff didn't cost so damn much, it wouldn't be such a big deal whether you see a bad show or not.

---

Updated On: 3/31/05 at 12:00 AM

Exactly. It's no big deal in taking a chance on a movie for $10, but when shows cost $100 (or even $50 at TKTS or through discounts), critics perform an invaluable service to the general public, sifting through the many choices we're so fortunate to have here in NYC, distinguishing the "good from the bad," the "must-see" from the "don't bother." As many of us know, it's VERY expensive to go to a lot of theatre, even with plenty of options off-Broadway and off-off-Broadway in the $15 to $40 range. It all adds up.

I remember the 60 Minutes interview with Frank Rich about 15 years ago or so, entitled "The Butcher of Broadway," done at the height of his power at the Times. Few, if any theatre critics have ever been as powerful as Rich was at the Times, in part because by the time he came along, there were very few dailies left in New York (in Brooks Atkinson's days, there were two dozen daily papers, so, while he was respected, he wasn't the only game in town).

In the profile, several producers and other theatre professionals weighed in on whether Rich had too much influence and some said he should be "nicer" and less critical in his reviews and maybe give some flawed shows more of a "pass" for the good of Broadway and the future of theatre in NYC. His response? It wasn't his job to temper his reviews for the sake of producers and playwrights and the possibility of actors losing their jobs (which he made a point of downplaying -- if a few paragraphs from him were enough to close a show, then the show and the commitment of those producers to it must be fairly lacking in the first place). He said that his ONLY responsibility was to his readership, the people who were going to pay outrageous prices for tickets, hire babysitters, pay for parking and overpriced meals before the show, and shell out hundreds of dollars solely on the basis of his opinion of a given show. It would be a betrayal of them for him to be anything less than honest in his critique, and while he didn't wish for anyone to lose their jobs over one of his bad reviews, he felt that that "power" was far overrated anyway and he cited several shows that he panned that still ended up running for years. He also questioned that wouldn't it be better for a bad show to close, so that a good one -- which also would be employing dozens of people -- could take its place?

Bad theatre doesn't help anyone and is a detriment to the future of the artform, because if those people in the audience don't feel as if they haven't gotten their money's worth, they might be more hesitant the next time to spend hundreds of dollars on a theatrical night out and instead choose some other entertainment option. Critics serve an important function in helping consumers to make choices. Perhaps they are too harsh or even miss the boat at times, but all in all, with ticket prices at $100 and beyond, reviewers like Rich are desperately needed.

Frank -- PLEASE come back......

---

I don't agree.

Last year I saw 85 shows in New York (nearly all of the major Broadway and off-Broadway shows as well as many of the notable off-off-Broadway shows and offerings at places like BAM) and at the end of the year I had a hard time coming up with even ten or fifteen shows that weren't flawed in some significant way, IMO. There were, to me about seven of eight shows that were beyond reproach in every department, another half dozen or so that were mostly wonderful with some minor problems, another dozen or so that I enjoyed, but if I were being honest, had major issues as far as dramaturgy, direction or casting, and then there were several dozen others which ultimately didn't work and were so disappointing in one way or another that I, in good conscience, couldn't recommend to others to pay money to see.

Trust me, Brantley and his colleagues don't NEED to go out of their way to pan a certain relatively high percentage of shows in a given year -- the fact is that most shows are mediocre to barely average. If you don't believe me, PLEASE, spend one year attending 80-100 shows in New York and you'll see exactly what I mean. There are months that you just want to slit your wrists rather than go to another well-intentioned, decently-cast and directed play that has no original ideas, has nothing new to say, is barely interesting for the first act, but completely falls apart by the second or is nothing more than premise (that's marketable for one reason or another) but hasn't been well-executed and needs another draft (or ten) before it rises to the level of a real play. That's not even taking into consideration the misguided, misdirected, miscast and misconceived revivals that pop up on a regular basis.

For a critic or just a regular theatre-goer like myself, you only get an experience maybe every month or two that makes all of this incessant theatre attendance worthwhile -- maybe one in ten shows are completely first rate, if you're lucky. In between it all, there's an astounding amount of disappointments, misfires and unredeemable crap to sift through, which makes the occasional gem all the more special when you discover it.

Between the HUNDREDS of constant, almost daily major Broadway and off-Broadway productions that occur, good luck EVER seeing a dozen good shows in a row (has that EVER happened in the history of New York theatre?). If it ever DID happen, I can't imagine ever feeling the need to trash a few to maintain your critical reputation. A dozen (or even five) in a row? In roughly 30 years of theatregoing, I've NEVER seen that happen.

---

Updated On: 3/31/05 at 04:26 AM

If anyone is interested in learning about writing critiques for the theatre, one should read G.B.Shaw's theatre reviews (yes, critic turned playwight) and the writings of Harold Clurman (directorial master).

Barnes, Rich, and those who have come after, aren't even on the same league.

Let's sum up the arguments of the critic-haters:

Critics are bitter and hate theater for no apparent reason.
Critics are bitter because they're failed actors/writers.
Critics slam shows for no reason.
Critics slam shows when they should be more gentle so people can keep their jobs.
Critics don't have any real power over box office, anyway.

Am I right so far? No contradictions there, of course.

In my opinion, when people scream about critics it says more about them than about the critics. Do you think it's coincidence that ATC makes a sport of pointing every typo that appears in the New York Times? Now I could start making generalizations like "people who hate critics are jealous because they don't get paid to see shows," but something keeps getting in my way- the simple fact that human motivations can't be neatly labelled and put in a box for your convenience.

Because wouldn't life be so much simpler if the expert who failed to see the wonderfullness of your favorite show was just jealous or stupid? That might mean your show was perfect after all, and you could indulge in the self-satisfied preening of someone who knew it all along.

Updated On: 3/31/05 at 09:48 AM

Since I'm in no way modest, I'll share my thoughts. As someone who has received only two negative reviews in his life (one from a reviewer in the sticks of PA and one from John Simon that I wear as a badge of honor), I can't say I have any problem with critics.

What I DO have a problem with are A LOT of folks on sites like this. Honestly...when people show up to review a first preview and feel free to dimsiss, or worse, eviscerate it, I have to think that these people have never opened a professional show, either in this city or anywhere else. It's why I've decided that I will only 'review' things on this site if it's mostly positive. I was not a fan of PIAZZA, and I've had discussions on here with folks about what I didn't like. But I, in good conscience, feel like I can no longer dedicate a thread to my own beliefs of a show if it's negative because, in the end, I've been there. In good and bad shows. In front of the NY Times and the Post and Variety, et al.

There are those on here (such as Margo) who have a breadth of knowledge and who also see EVERYTHING, which gives a person excellent perspective. And even if Margo doesn't like something, "she" describes her experience in a respectful way.

I have much less concern about paid critics than I do about the easy access to bad word of mouth posted on here by people who may or may not have any sort of ability to assess a piece of theatre with any intelligence or insight.

---

What's ASTONISHING to me is the very people who decry that everyone should go see a show to make up their own minds, critics be damned, are the very same people that will post 'Thanks for letting me know its bad' and 'I guess I won't be seeing that one' after one of our posters rips apart a show in previews. For all we know, that poster could be a 12-year-old. And no offense to 12-year-olds, but they certainly have not seen enough to form an educated opinion.

---

I saw 120 plays and musicals last year (there were a few operas and a ballet in the bunch) and have seen 19 productions this month alone. Going to the theater is like food to me, and yes, there are times that I say to myself, "What the hell were they thinking?" But I wouldn't be a successful critic because though I can write rather well and (hopefully) express my opinion clearly and succinctly, I have a high like/dislike ratio. I actually like the majority of the plays I see, and I'd say more than half the time I leave the theater thinking, "That was really good." If Margo and I were to attend the same plays, Margo would be giving a lot of thumbs down and finding fault with plays that I thoroughly enjoyed. That's why Margo would have more "credibility" as a critic than I would. Perhaps I'm just not intelligent or perceptive enough to find the lack of originality or poor execution that Margo does in the plays Margo attends. Still, I'm glad to be leaving the theater happy to have witnessed that performance (as I do say 80-85 percent of the time) rather than only looking back on one or two positive theatrical experiences per month. (So if I post a good review on this site, please remember that I'm easy to please.) :)

robbiej...you are not accusing me of.....

"What's ASTONISHING to me is the very people who decry that everyone should go see a show to make up their own minds, critics be damned, are the very same people that will post 'Thanks for letting me know its bad' and 'I guess I won't be seeing that one' after one of our posters rips apart a show in previews"

are you? I assume you are speaking of the many others on this board, as I never take anyone's review of any work as the final say! I have a mind of my own.

---