"... Your job is to nurture the theatre. If you had taken a criticism class in college you would know that. Get a book about what you are being paid to do and read it. Try to know at least as much about theatre as those who are actually doing it. ..."
26 comments:
I'm not sure I really understand the nature of the complaint, here. So reviews should read, "Well, considering they don't get paid as much as New York actors, this was a pretty good show,"? I mean, is the author of this letter suggesting that critics shouldn't be as critical because it's harder to be an actor in Portland than it is in New York? 'Cause not only is it NOT easier, but do we really want to say we need a different standard? It is the same thing that occured to me when I read the complaints about out-of-town actors taking home Drammy's. "Sure, they may have put on a better show, but what do you want from us...we're only PORTLAND!"
How is it the critic's fault that Portland actors don't get paid enough? How is it their fault that companies don't have the resources to put up a month's worth of previews? And, sheesh, if we had a full month of previews, would there be any theatre-goers left for the actual run?
Now, while you're comparing the luxuries of New York with poor little Portland, think what it's like to be one of the, what, maybe dozen critics of this city. I bet half the critics in this town don't get paid for the time they take to go see a show. Most of them have to go to at least 3 shows a week. Most of them aren't even on staff anywhere! Several people writing reviews, it's true, probably know very little about theatre. But is that their fault, or is it the paper's fault for not caring enough about theatre to find qualified and interested people to write reviews?
A critic's responsibility is to tell the truth and inform their readers, period. It's not to stroke anyone's ego or hold anyone's hand. Though I don't always like or agree with many reviews I read, I have known every publication currently operating to give positive recognition to good theatre at one time or another, and to strongly encourage audiences to check out the works that they endorse.
What's with the speaking for everybody? "Here's what WE think..."? F off! I could care less if a review is critical or just their opinion, even if it does take me out back and beat the crap out of me.
Is the author suggesting that, because of the luxury of previews and pay, the critics don't have to nurture in NY? And does thin apply to other arts? Are Ebert and Roeper supposed to nurture the movie industry? Is The Times supposed to nurture restaurants?
As long as a negative can be backed up with substance, let the critics say what they will. And do we let positives go undefended because they are positive?
One Man
Stop caring so much about what "critics" think about what you're doing...geesh. The critics in this town are just as "small time" as the rest of the city---what they think is about the most irrelevent opinion one could seek---an artist does what they do because they need to do it---stop worrying so much about what others will think and focus on perfecting your craft so that you can truly find your own voice. Every critic I've met in this town is under the age of 30 and nothing is more annoying or pointless than a "know-it-all" twentysomething---many of the theatre artists in this town are also under thirty--babies in artistic evolution. It takes time and patience to become a master of ones craft and you don't become so because some blowhard tells you that you have.... Stop seeking validation from others and learn to be aware of your own process in life and art.
"If New York jumped off a bridge, would you?"
And why is it we never get compared to Clevland, or Toronto, or even LA? It's always New York this and New York that...
-j
I love this letter. It's a cry of enthusiasm and profession of love coming through the frustration of, perhaps, feeling 'misunderstood,' which is sometimes fair, sometimes not.
Hey "Followspot," I didn't know that you got "paid" to do anything :) Seems to me you, yourself, do a fine job of nurturing.
I would have to say as well that you shouldn't depend on a review to validate you. Be strong and confident in what you are doing. Theatre, and any art is subjective. What one person thinks is amazing the person next to him may think is a piece of crap. I have done theatre in many cities and I will tell you in Chicago ( might I add not such a small theatre town) does not do 40 previews try maybe three and (not sure if he still writes for the Chicago Tribune) Sid Smith was not dubbed Sid Vicious for no reason. Does that hold Chicago back. NO!!!!
What about Followspot? What a fantastic, wonderful site this is, where in 50 words it can ignite 1000's to join in.
Now, what is getting my goat is this "We are only Portland" "Small town Portland". Why are people doing that, saying that? How does Portland expect to grow if you keep saying its only Portland?
I have only been here for a short time and you know what I think? Portland is exciting. I think it is a city bubbling with artistic. However, if the mentality is "it's only small town Portland" then it becomes "Only small town Portland" heartbreakingly it is never going to grow.
How about the thought that this could be the new Chicago, NY, L.A.? Those cities started out as young at one point. How exciting to have companies like Miracle, A.R.T., Third Rail,(just to name a few because the list is large) a huge tax cut for film makers. It's only Portland. geeze.
As for the baby critics. What ever. If you are so upset, and you have a theatre background why don't you see if you can write some reviews?
Let's face it: there isn't the capacity for "critics" in this town -- there's no pay, there's no incentive, there's no ink for criticism -- and no one but us cares. What we got here in Portland are reviewers and like their editors mentioned at the PATA meet-the-press event in May -- they are beholden to their readers, not us. Just like we have to generate the buzz to get the coverage, it is also our responsibility to generate true evaluation and discussion of our work. Right or wrong, the review in the newspaper isn't where that is going to happen. I think we have to stop leaning so heavily on print media and find more creative ways not only to promote our work, but to communicate our message -- to the point where even if our latest production doesn't work perfectly, the subsequent discussion (and I don't just mean another talkback) is so valuable, that the overall experience as a whole is still positive and enlightening.
"they are beholden to their readers, not us."
We are the readers of the theatre reviews. Making them beholden to us. Certainly the general public doesn't give a shit about theatre reviews... but I agree.
Nuture Kindergartners. Not me. I can take care of myself.
If you can't handle negative reviews, you definately should not be doing theatre ... you've not chosen wisely. You should get out now. Theatre is not for the thin skinned.
My other question: Meaning no insult to Followspot...Why did this person send this letter to follow spot? I always thought this was a Drammy members blog.
Slateface: This letter came in an envelope addressed to "Theater Critic" at Just Out (www.justout.com), which carries excerpts from this blog in its theatre listings. It implies it was sent to all theater critics in town.
Trish&Harold: That's about right -- For the record -- this site generates no revenue, not even when excerpts appear in Just Out (I do receive some remuneration for other theater writing that appears in Just Out, e.g. previews and profiles -- but not reviews.) Of course, I am grateful for all the comp tickets; they are certainly valuable in themselves.
Upon subsequent readings, it seems the letter's author isn't really against "bad reviews" per se, but would just prefer them to be constructive rather than, say, dismissive or mean-spirited. Can't argue with that, but like LTI implies, the academics of why something was successful or not may be less interesting for readers who aren't in the biz. And there have to be some, Slateface, right? I mean, otherwise why would for-profit businesses like newspapers run them? Or is it all just a charade to make ourselves seem more cultured than we really are?
No offence folks but I think that the intent of the letter was to illuminate the fact that people who know nothing about theater - period - in this town are the ones tasked with reviewing it. I personally object to that. I have frequently been skewered for 'on stage antics' that referred to stage directions in a script; the "reviewer" was so poorly educated that he assumed that the role was me and I was the role, which I guess is a good thing if you think about it objectively - seriously, I was in a run of Greater Tuna for a while here in town, and the "reviewer" that wrote me up had "never even heard of this play".....doesn't that speak for itself? Then this poor child didn't realize that "greater" was a geographic reference, as opposed to a descriptor : yes, he thought that "Greater" in "Greater Tuna" meant "better"; it's a bit sad really. I would be embarrassed.
Again I think that the point of the letter is why don't the children at the trash mags put someone on the theater reviewing job that actually know something - anything at all I mean - about theater? I mean, we could all crank about Steffan's reviews but honestly, he did know a little something about theater. Sadly he thought that his review of Cirque de Soleil would actually influence an audience, not realizing that Beaverton-ites don't read P-town trash rags, and no one but people in the biz do read theater reviews, and they have no impact on ticket sales, per an ex-Producer friend of mine that ran the most successful theater company in town for 14 years.
I don't asked to be nuttured either, but I do ask that if you skewer an actor or a director, you should know what the difference is - between acting and directing - what direction is, what stage-craft is, what acting is. If you don't, please, stick to reviewing adam sandler films that you are capable of comprehending. Isn't that fair?
The letter was indeed sent to other reviewers. We got one at Willamette Week.
What bothered me most about the note is that it was anonymous. If someone takes issue with my writing--whether or not I care about their oppinion--I'd prefer they be honest and upfront.
As for nurturing the art, even a negative review is more likely to bring in viewers than no listing at all.
I don't do this job for the money, and I don't do it just to hand out free publicity. I do it because I love theater.
I'm all for academic criticism, but that's not what most of our readers want. They want to know if the show is worth the $20 (or $45, lately) ticket, in 100 words.
To Anonymous 10:01,
Does this mean you're volunteering for the job? (And I assume you mean nurtured, not nuttered, although I don't know you so maybe you are asking to be precisely skewered vs. a vague nuttering.) :)
well, mr. t, you may be right that the letter is critisizing the ignorance of reviewers in this town, at least in part, and it wouldn't be the first time we've seen members of this community accuse reviewers of ignorance simply because they got their nose bent out of shape by a review.
to me, this comes back to the question of who reviews are supposed to be for. Everyone keeps saying they don't matter, or that they're only ever read by the theatre community anyway, and don't have any effect on ticket sales and never reach a non-theatre community. i say, poppycock!
if a reviewer comes to a show they've never heard of, isn't it still possible that they can write an insightful review for potential patrons who may also have never heard of the show?
Guys, if the reviews are causing you so much heartache, stop reading them. They're not for you. Just wait for your friends after the show to tell you you were wonderful and leave it at that. Get "nuttured" all you need.
To the previous poster in particular, PLEASE stop calling people stupid and ignorant just because you don't like what they have to say. This is the 3rd time you've done it in recent memory and it's not productive. If a reviewer didn't like what you did, it doesn't matter if it was stage directions or a director's terrible decision, or anything. It doesn't matter if the author of the review has a PHD in theatre or just wandered in off the street. They didn't like it! IT'S AN OPINION!!! You will not improve as an actor if you don't learn how to use criticism constructively.
when i said, "previous poster" i was referring to not-so-anon 10:01. i took my sweet time...
anon 12:50
I still don't get why the "News Flash" part was included in their letter. I've read it a dozen times or so, and that part is the sore thumb. What do we have to do with the New York theatre scene?
Personally, I'd rather Portland be compared with cities like Minneapolis, that are similar in size and composition and doing some amazing things.
Regardless of what one thinks of the letter or its author, I find it reassuring that it did not go unnoticed by at least Just Out, Willamette Week and the Mercury. The author may or may not have had any real impact, but has at least demonstrated -- as did the recent meet-the-press event presented by PATA -- that the lines of communication between artist and media are open.
where was it referenced in the WW? I saw the rather sarcastic reference in the Mercury, and I assume the Just Out acknowledgement is this thread??
Ben Waterhouse reviews for WW and he commented here (see above).
As a sometime actor AND critic, I found the passion of the letter impressive, but not the thinking in it. I DON'T believe reviewers are supposed to nurture artists, of whatever stripe. They might choose to nurture good art, but it's not going to help anyone to hustle audiences out to plays that are empty, frivolous, poorly-staged, etc., in the long run.
True, some reviewers in this town appear to have a spotty knowledge base with regard to theater history, acting, and scripts, but that in itself does not make a poor reviewer. I think it's entirely possible to write a useful and, yes, nurturing, review just about any work of art, given that many of your readers will be coming from roughly as shaky or nonexistent a knowledge base. There's always a danger that if the interests of the critics and the actors become too elite, too interested in the cutting edge, they could alienate the audiences they so desperately need (and ought to entertain as well as challenge and educate -- Storefront Theatre, anyone?)
Let me ask a devil's advocate question here: Have any of you had the experience of seeing a reviewer praise a show you were in, or a particular aspect of it, a particular performer (even yourself), when in your considered opinion that praise was NOT merited? Or are we all presuming too much about our objectivity with regard to everyone but ourselves? -- Quixel
Richard Wattenberg gave me what I considered a "mercy review" for a lead role I did a couple of years ago, when I first started acting. He didn't do it by giving me false praise--since if you read between the lines you probably saw I wasn't up to snuff--and he refrained from hitting me with criticisms that I wasn't experienced enough to use. But, he did manage to give the audience plenty of warning of how the rough the show was without gratuitious insult to the cast To this day, I love him for it.
That said, until recently I've not shown such tact myself, when reviewing shows on my own blog. I've since reformed.
I've gotten bad reviews for bad shows I was in, and I felt the reviews were merited.
Some of those bad shows were a lot of fun to do, but I wouldn't have wanted to watch them.
I personally don't remember getting bad reviews for shows that I thought were good. Although I've seen shows over the years that were pretty terrible that got great reviews and even won Drammies. Some of those I'll never figure out.
It never ceases to amaze me that no matter what the topic is being discussed, the majority of actors who post here somehow find a way to blow sunshine up their own pooper. Who needs critics to nurture the actor when they do a fine job of it themselves?
Your fear of a bad review comes from your insecurity, plain and simple. Get over your ego, work hard, and put on a good show. Repeat.
oy vey! nurturing yourself VS being nurtured by another is like the difference between masturbation and intercourse.
one gives you a reason to get up in the morning and one gives you a reason to live.
(and if you had been paying attention, it is not fear of a bad review, but fear of an unintelligent review that is the topic here....)
Post a Comment