I am referring specifically to today's review of The Cataract, which I can only describe as moronic. I mean, I had my problems with the underlying assumptions in Garrett Eisler's review, but at least he has some idea what he's talking about. Intelligent, principled people can disagree. But the NYT piece betrays a massive ignorance of any theater beyond what the average college sophomore may have encountered. I also take issue with the concluding line of Isherwood's otherwise boilerplate Humana review, in which he asserts that playwrights should not invent worlds, but instead only write about the "real" one - but anyone who reads this blog knows that I think Isherwood jumped the shark soon after "his ass was his fortune."
I am going to have a fairly high-profile NYC production in 2007, and I'm honestly contemplating asking the producers, in all seriousness, that the NYT not be invited to review it. I just don't trust them, and what's more, I don't trust their readership. How many times have I sat next to some irritating, armrest-hogging yenta who is highlighting NYT reviews and crossing off shows in the theater listings before the show, then proceeding to laugh at hackneyed jokes, sit on the edge of her seat at derivative, predictable nonsense - or, alternately, jeering at anything remotely experimental and leaving at intermission?
Well, twice, at least as far as the highlighting goes. But it was emblematic, dammit!
Anyway, this is not about old people. I like old people. It's not about rubes, or politics - theater is made by and for college-educated liberals. It's not even about city vs. suburbs, though there are echoes of that. It's about privilege, about expecting to be catered to like a theater is a fucking restuarant or a TiVo. Honestly, I have no idea how much control I have over it - the NYT has such marketplace clout that any producers may override me - but ANY review I get from the Times, good or bad, is likely to be dismal and misleading. And hey, The Wooster Group and LAByrinth don't invite reviewers at all, and look at them.
I am heartened by a Leopnard Lopate show from the other day. Leonard and his brother Philip (now a film critic and essayist), used to fulminate about the NYT's film reviewer, who reviewed films as "the tired businessman," as Philip put it. He got away with this for many years, until finally a pan of Bonnie & Clyde got him fired. And now, while James Agee and Pauline Kael are still remembered fondly, no one remembers who this guy was. I live in hope.
By the way, no offense to George or Rob, both of whom I think are good reviewers. Or Margo Jefferson, whom I tend to like. But I can't cherry-pick reviewers, and besides, you probably don't want your editors at the NYT finding out that I like your work.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I'd actually just cycled around to talking a bit about dismissive criticism of new artists on my blog right now. Thank you for the mention, by the way.
I wonder if asking not to have shows reviewed, however, would send the same message in theater as it does in film--i.e. don't come and see this because it sucks and you'll rip it apart and we really don't stand behind it anyway. (I read today that more films than ever did this in 2005.) I guess the difference is that theater doesn't have nearly the number of influential critical voices and it's too easy for one to become definitive.
Does LAB actually have a policy going forward now of not having any shows reviewed? I thought they had done that in a couple specific cases for shorter runs of plays that were designated as "workshops", but much of their other work has still been reviewed fairly recently.
Hey Jason,
You said it, brother. I have a longer bit about Isherwood on my blog... I think this column really encapsulates and clarifies for me everything wrong with that guy.
Which part of the Cataract review set you off? Was it that the only playwright they could think to reference was Tennesse Williams?
Mark, I could be wrong about LAByrinth, but I don't recall ever seeing reviews of their work. Which doesn't mean they don't exist.
I dunno about the reviewer-invite conundrum... I do think that theater is fundamentally different in that respect; it might make sense for a fil producer to avoid the expense of a press junket and such and try to recoup something on home video or syndication, but there is no comparable economic reason to disinvite reviewers from plays.
Isaac, you said it. What really set me off was calling the flower-in-the-eye bit, which I thought was visceral and brilliant, as "repulsively weird," and the stage metaphors as obvious. It might have been obvious were this a realistic play, but it wasn't. The Williams referent was just further evidence that this was some damn fool that they got off the street.
so what are you up to in 2007?
Stay tuned, Anon!
Dude--you were totally talked about as an "emerging young talent" and a "rising star" at this New Play Forum at The Magic theatre on Saturday. Were your ears burning?
Margo J. can be inexplicably cruel and stupid too. Her mild review of Living Out prevented a ready-to-go Broadway transfer. Ditto a Lynn Nottage piece.
You know, Enrique, I've already completely forgotten what Saturday was like. I play it off as an absent-minded professor thing, but really I'm just very burnt. I sent out a lot of emails, I think.
And we cooked a cilantro chicken dish! Thanks, Lorraine!
But hey, thanks for the note. Awesome!
And, Not Lisa, you're probably right about Jefferson. It's just that she's never pissed me off before and I wanted there to be *someone* at the NYT that I like. But I guess there isn't.
Not Lisa,
What's inexplicably cruel about a mild review? That it prevented a Broadway transfer? Are you saying she knowingly stopped a Broadway transfer for personal reasons or something?
HI-I chanced upon your blog through The Playgoer's, and I'm glad I did. I'm sick of reviewers. My most abiding problem is that though they can be very astute about the little things--little imperfections or defects, they often fail to notice the overall effect of the play on the audience, which can be something quite different from the sum of those defects. It makes me angry when I see a play and can tell that the audience shares some big, moving experience from it, and then read a finicky review complaining about the stage furniture or how some half-page scene wasn't played exactly "right"...Don't invite the Times. fight the power!
Larissa, I think there are actually quite a few good critics out there, even working for the Times - Elvis Mitchell, for example, is excellent (though I don't think he's there anymore). Frank Rich could be a bastard but he had a clear and consistent point of view and was intensely knowledgeable about his subject. Among current theatre critics, I don't always agree with David Cote, Alisa Solomon, Rob Kendt, George Hunka, or Charles McNulty, but admire their intelligence and take what they say seriously. For me at least, it's not about the NYT critics' meanness, but their incompetence.
I don't know what the answer is to the NYT power--no paper should have that much power. I think it will shift eventually, perhaps into the hands of the bloggers, or maybe that is wishful thinking.
But at the moment they do have the power and I don't know that it behooves you to ask them not to see your show.
I think reviews are important (heck, being a reviewer myself, I'd have to, no?). HOWEVER, I don't think the individual review is of much validity. I read this great book by James Surociewski (The New Yorker financial page columnist) called "The Wisdom of Crowds" which stresses that the best form of intelligence is group intelligence, which is part of why this whole blog network is so important. What we need is a Metacritic for theater so that someone like Isherwood isn't the end-all-be-all, and so that it's clear when a critic (even a big one) is by far the minority on a subject.
HOWEVER, I take issue that a critic should have to be sensitive to an audience's reaction. You aren't there to talk about what other people thought: you're there to talk about what you FELT. If, for example, I found the odor produced by the flood in "The Cataract" distracting and couldn't concentrate, I *SHOULD* write about that (I didn't, by the way; I loved the show). Those picky little things CAN ruin a show, believe me, and if you didn't understand the show the first time through, you shouldn't be expected to pour over a script trying to "get it." The average theatergoer certainly wouldn't.
I think this discussion has taken on a life of its own, but just to be 100% clear about it, I'm not anti-critic - I think that people like Eric Bentley, Robert Brustein, Todd London, Charles McNulty, Alisa Solomon, and many others have proved to be invaluable. I'm just very uncomfortable with a single institution having so mucyh power, especially in light of the shocking laziness and careerism of the NYT critics (Isherwood being the worst offender, of course).
As I've mentioned before, I think a lot of it has to do with the cutlure of the NYT under Arthur Sulzberger. The scandal of the arts section is really nothing compared to Jayson Blair's plagiarism, the trial-in-the-media of Wen Ho Lee, the dutiful repeating of government lies by Judith Miller, or the flabbergasting as-kissing of Bush by Elizabeth Bumiller...
Post a Comment