followspot@hotmail.com
January 12, 2006
Over on the Cold Comedy Connection thread, there’s interest in a discussion of the role of theater critics and criticism -- and the ways in which it can offer more constructive feedback for theater artists. Check the Followspot archives for a brief discussion in August; then share your thoughts here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
this in an ongoing discussion on pdxbackstage as well
A few more Internet bookmarks on the topic ...
THE CRITIC DILEMMA
by David Liebman
http://www.upbeat.com/lieb/Feature_Articles/criticproblem.htm
Yuri Shevchuk in conversation with Paul Schrader
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ufc/pages/our_events/schrader.htm
Differences between Film Reviews and Criticism
http://library.csumb.edu/instruction/howto/filmreview.php
Bill Gale, Andy Smith & Vaughn Watson: The difference between critical and newspaper writing
http://www.projo.com/words/tip0105.htm
Well, I'll say my bit: I think critics can, and sometimes do, play a huge role in the arts (and general) community. But in Portland -- especially lately -- the major media outlets are sorely lacking in terms of thoughtful, incisive, knowledgeable criticism. Lately I go to blogs for the most interesting discussions (like followspot, or PORT, or urban honking), and I get more and more frustrated when I pick up the Oregonian and see long, vaguely positive articles about the Lion King. I mean, come on! Build some excitement! Search out the good work! Tell me what is exciting about PORTLAND! Because one of the things I love about Portland is how many random people I meet who are doing really fascinating things. Just yesterday I met a woman who makes small, beautiful objects that fit into tiny boxes-- when you open the box, you see a whole world. Amazing!
Anyway, I'm going on an on and on (way over 50 words) but good criticism is the main thing I feel is lacking in the Portland arts scene. Well, other than funding.
I have long felt that any reviewer...is like a person who has put on a full suit of armor and attacked a Hot Fudge Sundae or a Banana Split.
Good criticism is every bit as enjoyable and necessary as good theatre.
Good criticism helps open the horizon and access an artist's work. Good criticism should play a huge role. To say critics (good critics) don't know anything is simple anti-intellectualism.
A critic with years of experience and training can watch a show and then help you understand where it fits across all kinds of spectrums - regional, aesthetic, stylistic.
Again, we are not talking about arm chair critics ("I walked in off the street, paid $10 and saw some stuff and here is what I think"), we are talking about professional ones who have devoted themselves to excellence.
It would great to see more higher level criticism in this town. Not just reviews of a specific show, but analyis of trends, styles, subject matter etc. If you had to summarize Portland Theatre in the last few years, what would you say? What styles, trends, subjects are working? What is new? What is worn out? Is there anything special about Northwest theatre? Is there a distinctive Northwest voice? What does it sound like?
No doubt we are all exposed to plenty of unsatisfying criticism daily. The tempatation is to respond "Off with all their heads!" But the real thing when we are lucky enough to find it can be magical.
"Make voyages! Attempt them... there's nothing else."
Regarding media critics/reviewers … I think we have to also acknowledge that what may be constructive criticism for those working in theater (especially if one wants details rather than general observations) may be less helpful for the layreader/consumer -- and vice-versa.
This is a little off-topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread to pat myself on the back ... but I did want to mention that this site now has had over 25,000 visitors since its inception some 18 or months ago.
For those of you who run a theater company or can speak from the box office side of things:
From strictly a business point of view ... How much does a Portland media review (good, bad or indifferent) really affect attendance?
Actually, I've been mulling that over since your last comment regarding the different needs of a company or artist, vs the needs of an potential patron. After all, reviews generally serve the function of "go see it," or "save your money." A reviewer will give audiences reasons why they didn't enjoy a show, but they can be as simple as "if you don't like blue, you won't like this show."
I think it's sad that the discussion about a show ends promptly when that show closes. It ties into the anonymity question I realize, because I might have a lot of interesting criticism about a show that just opened, but not want to say it for fear that it will hurt attendance.
So, you see, our loyalties become a little bit divided. Do I have a responsibility to tell the theatre community NOT to go see a show that has some problems? Or do I have a responsibility to all of my friends and hard-working actors and technicians that will have to deal with the unbearability of miniscule houses if their show gets terrible reviews? Even if you KNOW the show you're doing isn't the greatest, it's terrible when nobody comes...
In direct response to Rumba's question, I think the effect of media reviews differs from company to company, because there are companies whose patron base is largely theatre folk, (Vertigo, defunkt) and companies whose patron base are mainly civilians (Profile, PCS). Obviously there's overlap, I'm not saying exclusively. But I think, as far as being discouraged from seeing a show because of a review, yes, I think it makes a difference to the patron that feels they generally agree with a particular reviewer. There is so much to see in Portland. Much that is mediocre, and much that is good and nobody working in the industry has the free time to see everything, no matter how hard we try. So reviews make a difference.
Go see Love of the Nightingale.
"Do I have a responsibility to tell the theatre community NOT to go see a show that has some problems?"
I think this is where we tie it back to annonymous postings. I have always felt that there is an "unless you have something nice to say, don't say anything" attitude when theatre artists talk about theatre, and the only way around it is to not sign your name. There have been numerous times that I have not commented on a show because I didn't want to "get in trouble", but then the lack of comment will undoubtedly be taken negatively, so you're kinda screwed either way.
Do we have a responsibility to get butts in the seats regardless of quality? I think so; because even if that audience member doesn't like the show, they'll remember the show, and remember that they went to a show, and remember that the dinner they had beforehand was pretty damn tasty, and why not do another evening out on the town again? And that can only be helpful in the long run.
Agreed! But what about the other side? Do we also have a responsibility, or at least an opportunity, to tell companies what can be improved upon, or even just generate interesting discussion about different kinds of problems with staging and interpretation and the whole lot? That's what I love about this forum, and why I think it's so popular amongst the theatre community.
It's the battle between private and public faces ...
"Do we also have a responsibility, or at least an opportunity, to tell companies what can be improved upon, or even just generate interesting discussion about different kinds of problems with staging and interpretation and the whole lot?"
If the critique is invited (at a talkback, or just someone asking for your honest opinion), then yes. But if you offer up a critical or negative view without solicitation, you might find yourself to be labeled an a-hole. Unless it's your job, and then, well, all is forgiven...almost. Then you're just the reviewer who "didn't get what we were trying to do".
Well, then what is the point of a blog that allows you to read and respond to criticism? So we can all agree with good reviews, disagree with bad ones, and other than that keep our mouths shut? This forum invites us to critique, and if you are coming here to read about your show, hadn't you better be prepared to face criticism, and, as Matt Z. suggests, learn and improve from it if possible? I would hope that anyone who is checking in on what is being said about a show they're doing, or have done, is not just doing so for the ego boost of all the people who didn't "not have anything nice to say," but because they recognize the feedback of their community as valuable.
Yes. And peer feedback is valuable and helpful when the criticism is thoughtful. For some, blogs become a venue for simplistic value judgments. If a blogger fails to go past phrases like "I loved it" or "Waste of time" then there really isn't anything to learn. But if they go into more detail as to why they feel the way they do, citing specific examples and the like, then yes - we have much to learn. This forum seems to be a place for both. So as some have suggested - take from it what you will, anonymous or not - I still don't like it (anonymous!), but the point is taken.
As for professional critics - we fail to understand that in many cases critics are writing a form of entertainment for their particular audience. We are immersed in a culture that finds "bitchy" vastly entertaining. Critics often live up to those expectations, but I feel belittle their work by doing so. A good critic can truly help a theatre community if he/she is focused on the work. But when a critic is more concerned with pleasing the reader or his/her own ego - he/she is like the anonymous blogger saying "that sucks" or "best thing ever".
As for box office...there seems to be no pattern unless the critic gives an overwhelming "go see it now!" - like the ultimate "thumbs up!" Sometimes there is a bump. More than anything, I'd say it's not so much what the Portland critic says, but how large the article is and where in the paper it's placed. The papers here devote so little space to theatre, the mere appearance of a large article is enough to remind people that we have theatre here - regardless of whether the critic liked it or not. And sometimes that reminder is enough to get readers off the couch.
An experiment: run theatre reviews in the movie ad section. Even if small, I think this placement - and the mixing of entertainment choices would prove most beneficial to box office.
Matt Z
Isn't that sort of what the PATA play-date is doing?
one thing critics/reviewers do, for better or worse, is open the dialogue.
and, fortunately, most readers are probably smart enough to take everything anyone says with a grain of salt.
i always wonder, though, should the public conversation be so much a deconstruction of a work's technique rather than an analysis -- or at least reaction to -- the play's actual message?
Post a Comment