This comment was posted to a show thread, but since it is of general debate (and of concern to me in my own crossover endeavors), I'm creating a new thread:
"I have some wonky feelings about critics posting on a blog no matter what paper they're from. It seems to me that they have their own forum (their newspaper) and should stick to that. There's something about posting on followspot that feels to me like a need to be more of a part of the theatre community, when I'd prefer my critics to be outside of that community, but trying to hold it accountable to a high standard through their criticism."
33 comments:
Really? I prefer my critics to be held in a box without airholes.*
Considering that half the posters on Followspot these days revel in donning their faux-critic press hats while puffing themselves into frothing bubbles of keen theatrical insight (see them rise gracefully into an indifferent sky before going poof without a discernable trace), who cares if the folks who get paid to endear themselves slum a bit on their off hours?
*Excepting those who like my work, of course, who are all witty, handsome, and brave.
And though Allison and Ben have used their real names, who knows how many other real-life critics/reviewers are lurking behind the anonymous posts, throwing out something they couldn't get into their official review?
With so much talk about opening up the process, why not have critics/reviewers at the table in all discourses -- pre- and post-review? Doesn't that just offer more opportunity for an interplay of ideas?
Whoa. I VERY much want the newspaper critics to post here, to raise the level of both community debate and their own writing. It's a no brainer to me.
I think this can be extended to people responding to shows they were directly involved in (I'm talkin' to you Mary Mac). I believe Theatre Vertigo has a policy in their company that members do NOT respond, good or bad, to posts and discussions about Vertigo shows.
Of course, if that's true, they'll never be able to correct me ;)
Would you prefer the local critics posted as "Anonymous," the way most of the rest of us do?
As a practicing actor AND critic, I can see what you're talking about. I think if I were reviewing theater in this town, my instinct would be to maintain a discreet distance from the more informal gatherings of the community, including this blog.
On the other hand, the kind of bitching and moaning that goes on in acting circles about reviewers, which occasionally takes on a very personal tone, is too often based in a kind of ignorant ojectification of the real people
behind the bylines -- what they do, the constraints under which they labor, etc. -- and anything that helps dispel that mystique is ultimately a good thing, I think.
To say "you can't come in here because of your professional role elsewhere" is a little like saying "I don't want to associate with her because I saw her play a yucky villainess earlier this year." The two functions or roles are separable, I think, or should be.
Caring what other people 'think' about you or your work. Whether it be a 'critic' or a peer is a shortcoming of the individual. Truly great artists- from any medium- honestly do not concern themselves with the opinions of anyone--except the very few within their personal circle whom they both trust and collaborate with....everything else is simply a haze corrupting your vision. So post where-ever and continue to argue points about the works of others...but if you let other's opinions(positive or negative)affect your work- you've already failed.
That's a sweet and noble notion, but I think, honestly, we all care, no matter how much we pretend not to. The critic that really matters votes with their hands at the end of a performance. With time, you learn to shrug off the stupid review, accept the accurate ones and grow from them, and good reviews--the really good reviews--they can never take away from you.
Truly great artists are also human. They are not iron forged statues of gleaming genius. They are people who make great art. They don't exist in a vacuum of their own greatness but in fact live in the world and, in my opinion, benefit from listening to the people living in that world with them. The truth is that great artists do things a lot of different ways. Some listen and respond to critics, some shut out everything except their own voice, some are sweet and humble, some are assholes.
;->!
"I'm talkin' to you, Mary Mac." I love this -- thanks for another perspective on responding to folks who respond to one's (OK, my) show.
I get all the good reasons to *not* respond -- certainly to not *defend* one's (OK, my) work when it is examined in public forum (or in the newspapers, for that matter). In this case, I beg compassion... I'm just so happy the community liked Address Unknown I couldn't stop myself from saying "thanks." But your gentle remonstration, Dear Anonymous, does make good sense.
As to whether I listen to critics, it's a simple equation for me: I can't glory in the good ones unless I'm willing to consider the gruesome ones. I also cannot ethically rely on reveiws as a critical part of my marketing mix, and disdain them at the same time.
And I certainly cannot grow if I do not evaluate the effect my work has on others, including folks paid to think about it.
I am keenly aware of the value of critics -- well beyond what I learn from their thoughts, of the time critics take to go to theatre; write their stories; serve their readers and their employers; take the heat from us; spread the word about the shows they review; and at the end of the day pick up a pretty skimpy paycheck for their trouble.
Sure there are the petty, the goofy, the barking mad. But who among us cannot say these words also describe artists on a bad day?
Anyway, thanks for the smile and the friendly words (I'm talkin' to you, Anonymous) and keep it up.
MM
"ignorant objectification of the real people behind the bylines -- what they do, the constraints under which they labor"
wow, big words there!
if i hear one more critic whine about how tough their job is, i am going to have a shit hemmorrhage.
and ignorant objectification perfectly describes how many of them write reviews.
we don't give a toad's wart how tough your workplace contraints are or how little your pay is NO NO NO NO. we do not. what we care about is your godforsaken TONE.
YOUR TONE. YOUR EVERLOVIN' TONE.
THE ONLY WAY*** PDX theatre will EVER
get better is if the ART of theatre criticism gets better. and folks: NO INTELLIGENT person wants the job.
so we are saddled with folks who should not be judging others and with those who possess the skills but do not relish the job. both types are unsuited to the task.
the solution?
end the war in iraq.
***one of several "only" ways
Puh-lease!
Half the raves on this blog are from cast members. (cough*grease*cough)
It's theatre people. It's how we do.
That's why there will always be anonymous posters here - not because people are afraid to own up to their criticism - because all the actors want to be able to applaud themselves.
oh puleeze yourself!
it's way more than half!!
and it's not the actors who write the raves of themselves --- they get their friends to do it.
and, i must take you to task on two more of your precepts.
A) if you actually read the grease thread, there is PLENTY of negative stuff on there.
B) i certainly will only post my criticisms anonymously.
i don't want to fear any sort of of backlash from it.
notice i said "fear" any.
cuz it probably would not really happen.
i just don't want to worry about it.
and i can speak freely.
anonymous posting is FUN!
see above.
(the poster says that folks are "not afraid to own up" and THEN
posts anonymously anyway.
what a world, what a world.
melting, melting....
It’s a familiar Internet dodge to label a post from someone who disagrees with you as “whining.” That doesn’t make it so, however.
I never said critics’ jobs are incredibly tough; merely many actors don’t understand the constraints under which reviewers labor – just as many reviewers don’t understand the constraints upon actors.
If you want more respect from critics, you’ve got to prepared to give it. And earn it, too – which won’t happen with the sort of, well, over-dramatization in such claims like “I am going to have a shit hemorrhage” (clearly, you aren’t), and “no intelligent person wants the job” (which is also an absurd exaggeration).
As for the little foot-stamping performance of “we don’t give a toad’s wart . . . NO NO NO. what we care about is your godforsaken tone,” I have to laugh. I am not wild to defend the tone of many of the theater reviews written in this tone, OR the knowledge base from which the seem to be composed . . . but neither am I impressed with this little performance, or the tone, intellect, or knowledge displayed by a good many of the posts on this blog.
I used to think the Portland theater community was comparatively friendly, mutually supportive, and compatible. But a fair amount of the traffic on Followspot seems to support what some very fine actors who have moved here in the last three years have said rather ruefully within my hearing.
dear anonymous 10:38 am.
here is the only question you need ask yourself. how many years have the actors you are reviewing collectively (or what the hell, individually)
studied and praticed their craft?
NOW, how many years have YOU studied and praticed your craft?
do you have a degree in theatre criticism? have you studied face to face with a critic of note?
respect is something you earn baby.
Petty arguments about who is "righter," are the detriment of Followspot. I believe this blog has the potential to open a creative forum of intelligent discussion.
I am shamed that fellow performers sometimes resort to name-calling and ridiculous sarcasm.
It is sad, disheartening, and akin to television.
i'll bet half the critics working in portland today have never read a book on the art of theatre criticism.
hmmm... and how many actors have read a book on acting?
Anonymous 11:02
Well, yeah -- that's how journalism works -- you don't need to be an expert on anything, you just need to be able to write.
Not saying that's good or anything -- just saying that's the fact of life.
Take even a step higher -- look at the editorial board of the Oregonian, whose editorials carry significant weight on issues ranging from same-sex marriage to environmentalism to education to health care.
It still boils down to a person's opinion. Hopefully an educated one, sure, but not necessarily an expert's.
hey anonymous 10:41, i read all the above and while a i saw a little scoffing, i saw no name calling whatsoever.
can it be you are having a righteous knee-jerk response and just need to vent a little?
and as for you 7:44, i'll wager there are precious few actors in the world who have never read at least one book on acting.
clearly you don't know any real actors.
to act upon the stage and not study your craft both in an academic way and an "on your feet" way is akin to trying to be a car mechanic without study, practice or rudimentary skills.
and here is another troubling thought. how many critics who review musicals know anything about music? and furthermore, if they are musicians (selected by their editor for the job), do they know anything about theatre?
we, through cultural conditioning can't help but look to the printed word as all powerful and all knowing and guess what? IT AIN'T SO.
i was thinking about money the other day and how the cost of entertainment compares to other "needs" we have.
then i took a look at one of those inflation calculation web sites and found that while somethings cost what they should (a cd is the same cost as an LP when adjusted for inflation) others are way out of line. as you may have guessed, gas should cost 1.33 today.
and a by product of the high cost of gas (which moves product from place to place) is that things cost more that shouldn't.
movies should cost about 6.50.
last time i checked an eve movie was 9.50.
video rentals are another story.
when i rented "chinatown" back in 1978, it was $10 (plus a $50 deposit to assure the return of the tape) in today's money that rental would cost me $32 without the deposit.
as for theatre: a b'way show should cost $60.
and a local show should cost $21.
(more for a musical of course)
however, with so many companies around, the prices vary widely.
some companies charge $15 and some
charge $60.
the b'way shows that come through town charge just about what they would bring on the actual b'way stage.
naturally, it's a matter of convenience, not quality that justifies the price.
so, is local theatre a good bargain?
well yeah.
it's worth 3 times the cost of a movie because:
1. it is live (hence "dangerous")
2. it is live (it is hard work)
3. it is live (it is custom made for you and the others in the audience with whom you share the experience)
My experience is that the Portland theatre community is largely very supportive and compatible, helps each other out, goes to each others shows, etc. However, that doesn't mean that a lot of trash doesn't get talked at the bar post-show, and sometimes some of that comes out in these discussions. The anonymity of the Internet also allows people to say stuff they wouldn't say to your face, and I don't think the community is immune to that. So you get a bunch of bitching on Followspot, but put out a call for help on pdxbackstage, and you'll be overwhelmed with e-mails. Like any community, especially among artists, you have a few angels, a few pills, and a lot of folks whose mood depends on how their show (and life) is going. But Portland does have a wealth of truly decent people in its theatre community.
life is tough, then you die.
theatre is tougher, but at least you get a curtain call.
ads for non profit arts groups should be free.
the paper could use it as a tax deduction and the money saved could go towards the productions and the artists.
the oregonian makes millions every year and arts groups go bankrupt.
getting the mssg out about your show should be free.
they give free space to the united way, why not to the arts?
any responsible society knows that the arts make it better.
we are 47th in federal funding per capita.
let's go portland, let's do something clever.
free ads for the arts.
well said 9:17, well said.
saw this online today:
Just because you're odd
and no one understands you,
doesn't mean you're an artist.
Dear Anonymous 5/14/2007 08:25:00 PM:
Your questions are beside the point. First, they don’t apply to me because I don't review theater in Portland, I practice it. Second, I have practiced my craft as critic longer than the actors I mentioned (who I admire and respect as actors) because I’m older than they are -- simple as that. Third, you know as well as I do that a degree in anything does not guarantee quality work thereafter. Finally, I studied under literary critics who were known across the country, whose names were on the spines of the books many other colleges used as standard texts (e.g., the Riverside Shakespeare and the Portable James Joyce).
But again, this is all beside the point, because I mentioned those very fine actors above due to the fact that they surprised me by lamenting the failings of the local theater community, not the reviewers.
I am just as disappointed in the quality of reviewing in town as anyone else. I don't believe I've ever seen a good review of a show I've been in. And by "good," I don't mean in the typical sense of "positive"; there have been plenty of those. I mean good as in thoughtful, well researched, informative, acute. The reason I defended critics above was merely that most visitors to this blog are far more familiar with the woes of actors and techies, and are therefore knowledgeable and biased in that direction.
The problem for most of the critics in this town is that they are not only critics. They have to work on features, breaking news, calendar items, etc., instead of enjoying the luxury of being able to concentrate on criticism. It would be a little like your having to rehearse two or three different shows, and participate in several staged readings, all in the same week.
dear 2:50
"The problem for most of the critics in this town is that they are not only critics. They have to work on features, breaking news, calendar items, etc., instead of enjoying the luxury of being able to concentrate on criticism"
how many actors in this town do
NOT have day jobs.
precious few. we all have excuses.
"most visitors to this blog are far more familiar with the woes of actors and techies, and are therefore knowledgeable and biased in that direction."
how do you know?
instead of trying to get at each other, 2:50, let us be constructive and use our energies to propose solutions.
clearly we need a paper who will pay folks to be critics full time and hire those who are qualified and motivated.
portland is in that netherworld wherein it deserves to be treated like the big time, but because it clearly is not, no one really wants the job. no one is willing to write home to mommy and say "hey i got the gig in portland!"
regarding the person who said that ads should be free to non-profits arts groups...
They absolutely should not be free, any more than an actor should be required to work for free.
Theater is not a charity case, or a welfare endeavor. It is a respected art form and a noble profession.
And the respect for our profession in this community will be raised only when we stop acting like borderline homeless people expecting handouts from every direction simply because we hung out a shingle and said we were a theater.
WE need to take responsibility for generating our own audience, for budgeting as much time and money to finding the right audience as we do to finding the right actors.
Paying for ads demonstrates the stability and worthiness of our work. It says that we are serious about what we do, and we expect people to pay full price to experience it. It also directly supports the critics we want to nurture, allowing us some leverage if we are dissatisfied with what we are given.
Right now our opinion on the state of criticism is irrelevant because our loss (and the loss of coverage for our artform in the paper) would not impact the paper at all.
In fact, doing away with the section alltogether would save them money, not lose it.
And the Oregonian is not making millions- its hemorraghing cash.
More importantly, advertising just plain works. Several companies in town have increased their ad budgets this year and have seen an increase in audience- more specifically an audience made up of non-friends and non-relatives of the cast. Regular Portlanders, in other words. The kind of people we most hope to reach with our work.
Few of us were trained how to handle the business side of our profession of course, and most of us carry around a deep suspicion of companies that are "business-like" and succeed financially. Yet we'd all like to be earning that kind of money from our own art.
Its as though we've internalized such a deep self loathing and sense of unworthiness about our profession that we are convinced that the only way to get audience is through begging and giveaways.
If we want to be taken seriously, and raise the level of criticism in Portland, we are not going to do it by (metaphorically)standing on a street corner with begging bowl in hand, saying "Please suh, could you spare us a little ad space?"
We'll do it by demonstrating the purchasing power and influence of the theater community. We'll do it by paying to reach the audience we deserve. And once we have acquired that paying audience, we will manage that increased revenue wisely, investing as much back into acquiring new audience as we do into acquiring new lighting equipment.
That's great, you might say, but where does all this magical money come from?
I can nearly guarantee you that if you took any one production in Portland this season (for argument, lets say the scottish play), and tallied up the money spent by cast members on post show drinking and you'd have enough money to run at least a 1X3 ad in the Oregonian or the Willamette week for the duration of the show. If ten companies started running little 1X3 ads during the run of their shows, the section would have to expand and people would stand up and take notice of this community.
Gosh, they'd say, the theater community has really grown. I should check one of these guys out.
We're all very proud of what we can accomplish on a shoestring, but "make do with less" can be a trap, and it never leads to the kind of abundance and opportunity that we all crave.
So wouldn't we rather be accomplishing the same stuff on a trapeze...? ie- all the panache and seeming risk of dangling by a shoestring, but with something firm to grasp and a net beneath us?
Nobody's gonna hand us that net, kiddos. We got to build it ourselves. One shoestring at a time.
hey 3:07
i would like to start out by saying you appear to be delusional, but i don't want to sound extreme, so i'll just say that apparently i hit a nerve!
there are so many things wrong with your argument, i hardly know where to begin.
technically 501c-3 theatre companies are charities.
the oregonian may be losing money but the corporation that owns them sure isn't.
they continue to make $ while theatre companies continue to disappear.
not only didn't they have $ to invest in ads, but they needed the revenue good ads would have made at the box office.
the READERS of the paper would not know that the ad was donated so your feelings that we look like beggars makes no sense whatever.
the idea of paying for ads with beer money is ludicrous.
an ad the size of your hand runs $3,000 per issue.
do ads work? yes and no. they garner sales, but in the history of my experience, they have never once paid back the money invested.
not once.
hence, if they were free, they would be a winning effort.
studies show that a consumer must be exposed to an ad 7 times before they act. that's $28,000.
most small companies (where the best work is done) don't spend that on the entire production.
doing away with the arts section would save papers money?
i doubt that severely.
ads rates are based on circulation and circulation is stimulated by the paper offering info folks want and they want guidance where entertainment is concerned.
so, in sum, i'd have to disagree with every single thing you said.
but i still think you are a nice person.
i really enjoyed the chance to see "chicago" at the keller.
it is in a pre-broadway run -- warming up here in puddletown. the reason i am glad i got to see it is that it was not very good.
i had the pleasure of seeing broadway rose's production a couple years back and it was FAR superior in nearly every way.
the sound system of the keller show and the band were better than any musical produced locally BUT
the sets, costumes, lights, dance, acting, singing and direction for the B'way rose production far outshone this incarnation.
if local theatres can just start spending more on sound and musicians, they will truly have arrived.
you guys are missing out on a very funny play "wonder of the world"
which closes june 30.
what up?
"wonder of the world" was very funny and the author is a pulitzer prize winner.
the O did not review it and neither did this blog.
hmmmmmmmm.
what does this say about us?
zombie prom is a scream.
very funny.
Post a Comment