Part II: Theater Reviewing in NYC

(updated to fix the link to Spearbearer Down Left)

A while ago, I was going to write a brilliant post about theater criticism today. And then I set out to write it, clicked over here and found out that George had already written the goddamn thing. But seeing as George has only written Part I and never got around to Part II, perhaps I shall do it for him.

George is absolutely right when he says we are facing a dearth of theater criticism. Theater reviewing, on the other hand, is alive and well. By “reviewing” I mean the simple practice of consuming an art object and reporting back for us all to see whether or not you thought it was good. This is essentially what almost all mainstream theater writing is today. Some people are especially good at it (Jason Zinoman, for example, or John Lahr) but most are decidedly not. I am going to attempt after the jump to discuss what I view as wrong with theater writing today, and what can be done about it.

The first problem is, of course, snark as embodied by John Simon, the Dale Peck of theater writing. Terry once wrote something along the lines of how easy it is to write a cruel review and say witty things that are mean and degrade people’s work. And it is very, very easy. Any blogger who writes with passion can tell you how simple it is to say something smart and insulting. This practice, however, does nothing to engage the issues at hand, nothing to expand the conversation, nothing (in other words) to improve the form of drama. All it does is show off the writer’s pithiness. It is not designed to help the audience with further understanding of anything, it is designed to make the reader think the writer is smart. It is thus both destructive and totally pointless, an ego trip whose ticket is paid for by someone else’s labor.

The second problem is starfucking. Thanks to our current producer’s love of stunt casting, reviews now center almost entirely around the famous people in the plays. There is one reviewer for a major publication who seems incapable of giving negative reviews to stars period. But any way you look at it, theater reviewing today seems so much more invested in a question like was Christina Applegate good in Sweet Charity? as opposed to looking at the production as a whole, with the lead actor as one part in it. Part of this is a result of the United States’ Actor Cult (more on that in a later post), but quite a bit of it is our lack of ability to resist the Famous, who draw us to them like moths to flames.

But perhaps the biggest problem is the total lack of a presence of theater criticism within theater reviewing. Theater reviewers today seem to view their jobs as just consumers and reporters, perhaps they are highly educated in their field, perhaps they just like theater. But any way you look at it, reviewers don’t seem to think of themselves as having anything to add besides thumbs up and thumbs down. So we hear that someone gave a “good” or a “bad” performance, with no investigation into what exactly that means. The staging a director develops for a play (which is what you spend most of the rehearsal time doing) rarely gets more than a one sentence “effectively staged by” or “efficiently put together by” etc. as opposed to writing about how specific choices changes the reviewer’s understanding of the play. The design is “pretty” or it isn’t. (Or, if you happened to have written this review the designers and director don't even merit a mention in the text of your review, as if the actors had created Two Gentlemen of Verona, and its set in an isolation ward.)

In other words, what we really lack here is the expectation that theater reviewing is something to be taken seriously. That the reviewer owes something to the work created that is an equal or perhaps even greater burden that what they owe their reader. Why? Because a reviewer makes his or her money on the backs of the artist, and all they give back is a simple quality assessment that may (or may not) boost ticket sales. This fundamentally exploitative relationship needs to be realized, and its consequences examined more closely by everyone in the theater business.

So here are some ideas for improving theater writing in America:

1) Recognize that the relationship between artist and reviewer is one of exploitation. I think it would be harder for reviewers to be snarky if they remembered that it was the bad play they saw that is putting food on their table, or that they get paid more than I do to trash my work. I am not asking for an end to negative or even harsh criticism, god knows, we need it. But what we need even more than that is considered, intelligent, thoughtful criticism that lays out reasons, arguments, analysis instead of “this sucks”.

2) Assume that the making of art is fundamentally noble. No one goes into non-profit theater for the money, and no one really goes into it for the fame any more. Or if they do, they’re idiots, because it’s almost impossible to get either. Let us assume the best intentions on the part of the artist, and try to simply take their work seriously. We’ll all get more out of it, and theater will be better off for it. (of course, the occasionally charlatan and plagiarist must be exposed, but for the most part people working in theater are hard working, decent, earnest folks who are trying to bring something meaningful and beautiful into this shitty little world of ours, and we should appreciate it).

3) Give more column inches to theater reviewing. There is simply no way that Terry Teachout or the reviewers for Time Out NY could possibly write a complicated analysis of a theater piece with the amount of space they have to do their jobs. I believe this is one of the reasons why Teachout started About Last Night, because there were a lot of more criticism-type thoughts in his head that he couldn’t put in his column. But perhaps I’m putting words in his mouth.

4) There is no such thing as a Platonic standard of what is good. There is your opinion about it. You are not God, and you are not St. Peter judging what art gets through the pearly gates. You are one well-educated person who is writing about how you feel or think about something you’ve seen. And there are plenty of other well-educated people doing the same thing who disagree with you.

5) Stop writing feature articles about Hollywood stage novices who are doing plays. It simply reinforces a vicious cycle and leads to star fucking. They didn’t pay their dues, and they’ve done nothing to earn their column inches. For every gigantic profile on whatever film actor is condescending to appear in front of us, you could be writing three columns on people who actually stuck it out in New York. Considering that the Sunday Times allots (essentially) one page for theater profile pieces, they could use that space to help cultivate theater starts instead of encouraging stunt casting.

6) Theater artists need to suck it up and deal. I don’t think that theater artists want reviewers who are also critics, because I don’t think theater artists want to have to take anything the press says seriously. I am referencing here specifically the removal of Margo Jefferson from the New York Times theater reviewing beat. Jefferson was a passionate and intelligent advocate for theater, who had very specific opinions about how theater was being made and was not afraid to express them. Her review of Suitcase (directed by a friend of mine at a theater I’ve worked with often, just so we all know what’s going on here) in which she lamented the lack of plays about serious subjects got her into trouble, but I applaud her for it. Regardless of whether I agree with her or not, she was laying her cards down on the table, and saying what she believed needed to be happening with the art form. And the review that got her canned, in which she said that she found the director Daniel Sullivan’s staging to be inorganic and filled with predictable use of props was so offensive to theater artists precisely because it was perceptive and specific (again, not saying I necessarily agree here). But we didn’t really want that, we instead complained about her “professorial” manner. Because being a theater artist takes a thick skin, and part of developing that skin is ignoring criticism as founded on a sea of bullshit. You can’t do that if the writer is actually a thinking, serious critic. I think we needed her.

7) Why can’t theater artists review plays? Authors can do it. John Updike reviews books for the New Yorker, why couldn’t Edward Albee review plays for Harper’s? I’m not sure the answer to this question, but I know that no one really wants to do it. And that’s a pity, because we have a rich tradition of theater artists giving theater criticism as well (Shaw, for example). On top of that, we have both an empathic understanding of the difficulty and value of theater and a heightened sense of deconstruction about it.

For an example of one writer’s attempts to grapple with all of this, I would point you to diego-rep.html”>this review of King Lear by Spear Bearer Down Left. Now, SPDL can write this anonymously, which helps. But here we get to read a theater artist grappling with trying to write a specific, critical review of a work he didn’t particularly like while still treating that work with respect. It’s hard work, and the length of the writing bears this out. But if more of our theater writers could strive to have such respect, and take such time to really focus on the work and the art, we’d all be better off for it.

Update: Wow, my hit count has gone through the roof. Thanks to those of you who are linking to this post (esp. Terry and George!). This site, if you haven't been here before, is Parabasis. The name comes from the moment in Greek Comedy when the lead chorus members addresses the audience, explaining the political point of the play and pelting said audience with sweets in order to curry favor with the judges. Pretentious, I know, but also appropriate. I'm Isaac Butler, a theater director living in NYC, and this site is dedicated to issues in arts and politics. Over the weekend, I have three guest columnists, Abe Goldfarb who writes movie reviews, Rob Grace who chronicles his experience of being a playwright and actor who has recently transplanted to LA, and Buckminster, a pseudonomous theater director friend of mine who makes his living dealing in an underground poker club. I hope you'll find much here that'll entertain you and bring you back. Enjoy!

Comments

[alkali]

Two thoughts:

1. "Stop writing feature articles about Hollywood stage novices who are doing plays. It simply reinforces a vicious cycle and leads to star fucking. They didn’t pay their dues, and they’ve done nothing to earn their column inches."

I would back off that just a bit. To take one example, Sean ("P. Diddy") Combs has probably been on stage more than most members of Equity. He is not going to start in New York theater as chorus boy #3. He could probably get seven figures for doing a johnny-handgun-type movie. If he wants to take a stab at serious theater instead, and he does a credible job, then wish him well and don't begrudge him a few articles. (Feel free to bash the journalists for ignoring the more deserving veterans, however.)

2. I would add that theater reviewers seem to have pointlessly long memories. It is lovely that a reviewer has been seeing two plays a week in New York since he/she was 8, but even a sincerely held belief that a production is not as good as the version you saw in 1965 starring Ralph Richardson is not, not, not a sufficient basis to pan the production. It's live theater, for Pete's sake; I can't go down to Kim's and borrow John Gielgud or Ethel Merman to see their version. The production your review shuts down today may be the last production I'll be able to see; think twice before shooting.

[Fred Friedman]

Hate to be negative but I dont think there's nearly enough negativity in theatre reviewing (or is it criticism)? I am just a casual consumer of theatre. When I read the unanimous chorus of praise for "Art" or "Doubt" and then go to see these utterly insubstantial, vacuous (and in the case of "Art" annoyingly pretentious)tripe, I'm thinking "Emperor's New Clothes"--isnt there anyone writing for a recognized paper, magazine or blog who will just call these plays out or is everyone cowed by their aura of seriousness (read "snob appeal")or just reluctant to depart from the consensus view?

[Lydia Steier]

Hey all. Great article. Thanks for tackling the subject.

A huge problem in American theater (and indeed society) right now is a functional inability to call shit shit. There are dumb ideas and policies. There are scripts, sets, actors, choreographies and all varieties of conceptual masturbation (or total forfeit thereof) worthy of the vitriolic hate poetry which, until sometime in the last decade or so, was the honor and obligation of print criticism.

In terms of theater, this "I love you...just differently" mentality has infected training, pedagogy, academic writing and quasi-qualitative debate, in addition to criticism. I would argue that part of this issue stems from Isaac's 2nd Axiom, that the nobility of artists should be accepted without question.

Artists, and theater folk in general ARE handled with inarticulate "kid gloves" in New York. As Fred said, this is part of the problem.

Why do we deserve this? While there is the occasional NfP dramat who's clawed his way out of abject Appalachian poverty to take his place within the hipster poverty of the downtown scene...I, and most of the artists I've met in NYC come from cushy suburban backgrounds...set apart only by the fact that no-one around us had the sense to tell us that a starring role in a high school play + mild bisexual tendencies does not an Olivier make.

Quality isn't about where we've been or the journeys we're undertaking. And thank god. Noblity aside (and YES I include that other favorite nobility...the art created by and/or for and/or about anyone other than straight white men), IT HAS TO BE ABOUT QUALITY.

Was the hour-and-a-half you gave up of your life worth it? Do you want it back? Are the "two or three cool moments" adequate justification for the cornea-broiling inanity of the other 874?

Oh, for the days when a heaping dose of critical vitriol could close a show on opening night, leaving investors moaning, contracted performers and crew wailing and New York's theatrical firmament buzzing with gossip. Oh for the days when we buzzed with something other than frustrated self-pity...

Listen, I don't think we care if a show's been mounted by a first time dilettant who doesn't know Chekhov from his asshole, or the world's longest-suffering starving artist/performer/songwriter (or a troupe made of Medicins sans Frontiers or even convicted child molesters). If it's engaging, provocative, aesthetically bold, and makes me glad to have spent $80 rather than only $10.75 at the AMC...then write about it. Sing it from the rafters.

But if it's not...let me wipe the bile from that page in Arts & Leisure.

C'mon Brantley. Open up and say Ahhh...

[Art]

I really enjoy the comments here from artists and theatre goers.

I agree with some of what Lydia says. In fact, she makes such a great argument that she falls into just the sort of thing she is taking issue with.

While setting up her argument, Lydia says, "While there is the occasional NfP dramat who's clawed his way out of abject Appalachian poverty to take his place within the hipster poverty of the downtown scene.."

Please, I don't mean to be niggling, but why make the distinction, Lydia? Somebody from Appalachian poverty has no more right or talent to create art than one of the Bush Daughters would. Which is exactly your point in your next paragraph.

I like your comment about High School Drama. It makes me think of how, in sports, after about three or four years of little league most people know, somewhere inside, how their natural abilities measure up. Because sports are so results oriented you can identify and improve the weak areas. And, in some cases, people can improve immensely and actually go on to shock the world. (Michael Jordan.) However, people who strike out all of the time, (or can't block anybody at all on the football field,) can rarely proceed through organized sports for any length of time under the complete delusion that they are great.

Alas, the inflated egos of us Artists sometimes have no such puncture mechanism, save the negative review. I was one of the lucky ones. My first public review of one of my produced plays was a savage drubbing, so bad that I cannot think of one positive thing in it. Later that week, the same play then got a very positive review. (Interesting, I can almost recite the whole negative review from memory, but I can't quite remember even one whole line from the positive review. No Kidding.) It built my character

I think a fascinating by-product of the antagonism of theatre artists is the rejection of serious theatre criticism by many in the theatre community. Sure, they read the local reviews and such, but do they really pick up copies of books by Robert Brustein, John Heilpern, or Tynan, etc. My own experience is that most don't.

On the side of the artists, I do feel one of the down-sides of vitriolic criticism is that it is like zero-tolerance management style. It gives the impression that either something is a masterpiece, or it is a piece of junk that should not have been attempted. The true snark has no time or patience for mediocrity, which is actually the arena where the instructive nature of criticism should be excercised most vigorously.

Most of what we see on stage is just average. One of the problems is that we actually have to make a pilgramage to see most of this mediocrity. This exerted effort to see some thing cultural/entertaining is usually reserved for Picasso and Monet exhibits, but for the theatre lover, parking, mass transportation, high ticket prices, directions etc, are just an average day at the office so to speak.

There is something about that exertion that builds this tension of boom or bust. In other words, something that is so hard to get to and enjoy, can either be life changing or a disappointment. We can order an OK movie from Netflix and not sweat it one bit as we turn it off half-way through and decide to watch The Apprentice. But when we contort ourselves with axle grease and a shoehorn into seats made back in the days of stunted growth, and pay 90.00? Well, it so much harder to say, "that was OK." And the critics, if they take the position of our advocates, know this. So the mediocre play or production shifts from being a key subsitute player, to being somebody who should be traded.

These dynamics, unfortunately, are something that we cannot change. In fact, they are going to get worse. The regional theatre boom turned out to be, instead of a massive laboratory in which great drama is created, a willing participant in perpetuation of mediocre drama.

There are cracks of light here and there, but it is disheartening when LORT theatres keep insisting on producing the mediocre works of even great dramatists, and accompanying those productions with dramaturgy that spins, like a political pundit, reasons why it is an overlooked masterpiece. It reminds me of my software marketing days, which were spent spinning ridiculous direct mail copy about the capabilities of certain products, while customers kept calling in, screaming about serious defects in the applications.

But then again, as Andrew Taylor, the Artful Manager, says, "Remember, you are selling the promise of an experience, not the actual experience."

[Review the Reviewer]

Great points. We are very much in agreement. In Toronto we're responding to bad critics with our own reviews of their work.
www.critickle.blogspot.com

[Ethan Stanislawski]

Funny what googling theater criticism will result in for someone who agrees with you more or less on the points of theater criticism vs. reviewing. Of course, since this post was written, the hopes for more column space for theater criticism have become a pipe dream, but thankfully the blogosphere has opened up for some regard. The question is, can they highbrow old media normally associated with theater criticism content with the lower brow new media. I wish everyone on the internet was as elegant as a Kenneth Tynan or John Heilpern, but that's a pipe dream as well (which pipe dream is more unrealistic is actually debatable). But the internet does increase discussion, and unlike blogging about, say, sports or kittens, theater bloggers generally tend to know what they're talking about more than most bloggers.

[christian louboutin]

haha...It is so useful imformation for us to read...gogo..