What does it take to be a theatre critic? — Page 3

When it comes down to it, theatrical criticism is only an average theatregoers opinion of a show, which is hopefully substantiated to some extent. The problem comes when people start believing a particular critic's words are gospel, and then that reviewer and his paper uses their power to promote and market particular composers and performers, or brainwash the public into believing their own paranoia. The result is a sort of wannabe snob cult and an ever widening gap between what an "average theatregoer" would like an what the elitists want.

Take Brantley's recent column on the American Idol-ization of broadway. On ATC and here, people really really bought into his garbage, but in my opinion, noone took the time to THINK for themselves.Is singing on broadway, with the exception of say Brooklyn, all that much different from the way it always was? I really dont think so...theres always been belters and showstoppers in shows and people have always reacted the way they do. And btw, to me, the real issue should be whether a performer actually knows how to "belt" rather than the screaming that so often passes itself off as belting nowadays..Brantley has his favorites like Rebecca Luker and one-note Chenoweth, but apparently holds belters to a much, much higher standard. Does every belter have to be another Ethel Merman to catch his attention...or be black? Does Brantley favorite Rebecca Luker have all that much more personality than Sutton Foster? And honestly, in the average musical, there might be one or two belting numbers. But Brantley tends to blow this all of out proportion.

Critics are only human and have their favorites. However, when they start losing all sense of objectivity, then its time for retirement. Frank Rich was tough, but he was also mostly fair and objective.

"don't generally claim to be all knowing"

Neither do critics.
They are just expressing their opinion.
They are not saying that their word is the end all and be all.
It's their job to express what they think and to critique.

---

Well said robbiej

A BWW reviewer chiming in here -

And I deliberately call myself a "reviewer," not a critic, because I see my job as informing theater goers about a show in ways that may help them decide whether or not this particular show is of interest to them.

Here's what I try to do when reviewing:

1. Help the audience see, hear, and feel what I did when sitting in the theater.
2. Give a synopsis so that people can know what the play or musical is about.
3. Convey what the audience around me was experiencing.
4. Express a relative level of quality of the performances using what I hope is a fair standard. Then, back this up with illustrations from the show.
5. Really praise if I think something is exceptional or pan (sorry) if I think something is truly inferior. Again, I try to apply a fair and equitable standard.
6. Provide balance in the review proportionate to my experience. Dwelling on one aspect more than it deserves (either positive or negative) can be misleading and confusing to a reader.
7. Provide a summary statement at the end that more or less conveys whether or not I thought the experience was worthwhile.

As for my credentials - well, I have had a passion for theater since the age of 5 when I first saw PETER PAN on TV (the original broadcast, folks, on a 12-inch screen). My first LP (remember vinyl?) was the score from MY FAIR LADY. I was seven. My first role was Martha in A CHRISTMAS CAROL when I was 12 - I had one line: "No, never, father." I was hooked.

Ever since then I have been involved in theater in one way or another as an actor, director, producer, nail-pounding slave, writer, and, most importantly, audience member. My experiences, not my degrees, are what matter. By day I run a pr and marketing firm. I'm the chief copywriter. By night, I devour as much theater as is humanly possible - and then write about that.

I can't speak for other reviewers. Some I read and respect. Others I don't. I can tell you that my hero was Elliot Norton. He was a true dramaturg and lover of the art form. Actors, directors and playwrights all sought him out for advice when trying out a show in Boston. He was no frustrated wannabe. He was an expert in his chosen field.

Bottom line? I certainly don't base my ticket-buying decision on a thumbs up or thumbs down from any one "critic." I read between the lines of several reviews - and I read the boards! - to determine what appeals to me. I humbly advise everyone else to do the same.

But that's just my opinion! :)

jmn

If nothing else, can we at least have a general consensus that on the Broadway side of the Atlantic we have "theater" criticism? ...I didn't realise that so many Britons were favouring us with their theatre insights