Why?
Apparently the theatre blogosphere is united in its dismissal of this experiment in theatre criticism. Matt Freeman, Matt J, Isaac, and a host of others have dismissed, with few words of explanation and lots of eye-rolling and sniggering, the use of customer recommendations that, at places like Amazon.com and Netflix, have successfully provided a useful and important aspect of the broadening of readership and viewership. So I have to ask what there is to object to in this case. Is it as Erica says in Rob Kendt's comments: "I'm not sure how anyone who isn't intimately familiar with the creation process of a show can be an useful critic." Really? Only insiders have the right to have an opinion about the theatre, and to have that opinion heard? Or is it more the "don't try this at home" objection: real critics are trained experts, and the unwashed masses should simply shut up and listen?
Are these reviews going to reach the heights of Kenneth Tynan, Robert Brustein, and Stanly Kaufman? Of course not. But when I am looking at a book at Amazon, I find the insights of those who have read the book before me, no matter what their background, very helpful in my evaluation.
And good God, given the quality of theatre criticism we are confronted with every day in the media, can these really be that much worse?
Are these reviews going to reach the heights of Kenneth Tynan, Robert Brustein, and Stanly Kaufman? Of course not. But when I am looking at a book at Amazon, I find the insights of those who have read the book before me, no matter what their background, very helpful in my evaluation.
And good God, given the quality of theatre criticism we are confronted with every day in the media, can these really be that much worse?
Comments
There seems to be an understanding, amongst those who are completely enraged about this, that regular reviewers are being replaced by these people.
I think I read the article closely, but I didn't get the feeeling that that was what was going on. It seems like it is a feature.
Maybe others have more information, but if they are not looking to replace regular, experienced reviewers, then I am with you, Scott. What's the big deal?
Amazon has Editor's reviews with excerpts from legitimate reviewers.
The Times has Reader's Reviews, some of which seem to be very well thought out.
However, if Broadway.com is dispensing with experienced critics in lieu of this new experiment, then that is a different story.
It seems that this publisher has had an idea to form the same type of thing. To be honest, I'm not scared of this type of discussion at all.
As a theatre professional, I understand that I've got a certain level of training (which I am constantly striving to expand), but I can't expect my audiences to have that same training or understanding. My job (as I see it) in the theatre is to make sure that the story is told so that audiences will understand it. Will everybody get it all the time? Of course not. However, I do think that an open dialogue with "non-theatre" people can be very valuable.
We are going to talk about this on our podcast, The Inexplicable Dumb Show in an upcoming episode. Would you be interested in doing a phone interview on this topic with us?
http://theatreconversation.blogspot.com/2006/10/official-word.html
Broadway.com is officially discontinuing their regular reviewers in lieu of the new feature.
This not an ideal situation for the audience or the theatre community.
I love the kind of reader reviews that have been developed through the New Media, but I believe that the only way that this can work is through the balance of consitent and regular critical voices as well.
Scott, you may want to check out soemthing Don Hall wrote in response to a post of mine.
He talks about the difference between the theater community and the theater audience.
http://mirroruptolife.blogspot.com/2006/10/don-hall-responds-don-hall-wrote.html
Playing Devil's Advocate, I would ask, what's the good of doing "threatening" theatre if there's not going to be an audience out there to watch it?
I'm not saying there's no place for it, but theatre is a business and that is not ever going to change. I do believe that there is a balance that comes into play. Not every play that is produced can be "threatening" (and to whom, is the further question). Theatres must balance the edgy, thought-provoking (and yes, even "in-your-face") theatre with something that is produced for the masses. A majority of theatre goers in this country don't like to go to the theatre to be assaulted--whether or not they agree with the point being made by the piece.
It's a very simple model: do the shows that will bring in the audiences (and their money) so that you can afford to do some of the more avant garde, edgy, less traditional theatre.
Just because a story doesn't "threaten" someone does not make it less of a story.
Anyway, I just want to invite all intelligent bloggers to see the new show at the Culture Project, called DAI (enough), and to write about it.
Just email wythe@cultureproject.org for press tickets.
Hope to see you soon,
Wythe
The Culture Project
www.cultureproject.org.