Which theater reviews do you read/follow?

[rdr112]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 8:37am

I'm curious which theater reviews (critic, newspaper, tabloid, online sites) you read and follow. Do the reviews influence your ticket purchase? Which shows did you love, but the critics hated and bashed?
For actors, playwrights, composers, lyricist/librettist, producers - which review carries more weight?



Updated On: 7/3/13 at 08:37 AM

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 9:45am

Love them or hate them, I read all the NY Times reviews. Personally,I really like Elisabeth Vincentelli of the NY Post.I will also read theater reviews of the USA Today. Since I don't get to NYC very often anymore, reviews may carry a bit more weight with me than most people on this board who go to lots more shows and can take more of a chance. I really liked the 1997 Jekyll & Hyde which was bashed by most critics.

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 11:29am

A reviewer’s opinion will not determine if I buy a ticket. If I want to see a show, I will see it, no matter what the critics said (and, lord knows, I have LOVED shows they have hated, and loathed shows that were critical darlings). However, I do read them to get a sense of a show (the feel of it, what the show is about, etc.) if I am unsure about seeing a show. In these cases, I don’t necessarily take the opinions into consideration, but rather try to get a feel for the show through the review (although, admittedly, it’s not always so easy to completely block out the critiques, but I do my best to withhold judgment until I see a show).

I read the NY Times; more for the fact that it holds the most weight and I am interested to see how this review affects a show’s success (or not). If it’s a show I am interested in or want to read more about, I will read others, but, I really love BWW’s “Review Roundup” (and the review threads on this board) – they really give me a sense of where the critics landed on a show and if there is any consistency among them.

The other reviewer I read pretty consistently and, probably my favorite reviewer, is Chris Jones (Chicago Tribune). I live in Chicago, so I can obviously appreciate his insights into the Chicago theatre scene, but I enjoy his New York reviews as well. I find that my reactions to shows have often aligned with his (although, not always) and appreciate reading further into why he feels he had a certain reaction – I have noticed that he is able to give the perfect words to how I felt about a show, but didn’t know how to express or couldn’t pinpoint why I felt a certain way. His reviews also always provide more insight into a production for me, which I love. I also get the sense that he looks at theatre as an ever-evolving thing: he will often offer up what changes could be made as a show goes on to have a life in other theatres as opposed to just writing it off completely. I particularly enjoyed his review for Goodman’s recent “Head of Passes” – he pointed out that the show has flaws and should continue to be worked on, but it was still worth seeing and important to see to foster this young, talented playwright. I so appreciate looking at theatre in this way.

I think there is an important place in the theatre world for critics. Some critics take advantage of their position and seem to just enjoy spewing off criticism at shows. Obviously, there will be some shows that reviewers find no worth in and that is fine. However, I prefer when, even if a critic didn’t like a show, the review is able to point out where it went wrong and create a discussion surrounding the choices made and such. There is nothing I despise more in a review than a blanket statement without examples or further discussion to support the opinion.

This discussion is, I believe, why I do like reading reviews. I often find new points of discussion or thoughts in reviews and I think this is why critics are important: It keeps people talking about theatre. Many things in reviews have served as a point of discussion for these boards and have created some interesting, intelligent conversations.

As for which shows I have loved that the critics despised (or the other way around), there are countless shows. Some of recent memory: “Book of Mormon” (critics loved, I did not), “9 to 5” (I found clever and entertaining, critics did not), “Kinky Boots” (critics were positive, I did not think it was worth much).

[tazber]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 12:07pm

WhizzerMarvinTrinaJasonMendel

NYT

WSJ (only because I subscribe, I generally disagree with everything Treachout says)

The Review Threads (which I guess includes pretty much everyone)

Updated On: 7/3/13 at 12:07 PM

[eperkins]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 12:22pm

I like the reviews on NY1's TV show, On Stage, which is on weekly (if you have Time Warner Cable). They also do a lot of great interviews with Broadway folk.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 5:06pm

None

[ARTc]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 5:15pm

I tend to read reviews after I've seen a show, or after I've committed to seeing a show. I am fascinated by theater deconstruction and sometimes the better critics offer insight into a production that helps clarify questions I have about said production.

I rarely use criticism as the basis for deciding what I'll see though. Well, maybe that's not completely true, as word of mouth is also a form of criticism. Mostly, I try and see everything that initially appeals to me. I rely on many sources - including here - to help make me aware of the offerings.

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/4/13 at 12:33am

I read, reread, and then read again the reviews of Grorge Jean Nathan, still the best ever NY theatre critic. What a joy to read someone of wit and intelligence, with enyclopedic knowledge of the theatre, and a brilliant writing style.

As for contemporary critics I try to avoid them as much as possible. When I have the misfortune of reading one, it's invariably with disgust.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/4/13 at 12:41am

Michael Feingold. Michael Feingold. Michael Feingold.

I read Ben Brantley mostly to laugh at what a horrible writer he is. If I have plans to see a show I will absolutely NOT read his reviews, not because they will have an influence on my desire to see the show, but because (as in his review of "The She Fell") he often gives ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING AWAY.

Scathing reviews have definitely helped me decide not to see shows. Life is short and my time is as valuable as my money supply is short. If I had the kind of life that could accommodate signing up for lotteries and hanging around for hours for the ticket draws or jumping through assorted to hoops to qualify for rush tickets, I still probably wouldn't do it.

When I was a theater reviewer I saw more than enough awful theater because I had to. Now I can use bad reviews to help me avoid wasting such time.