Monday, November 21, 2011
Stephen Sondheim: who needs critics?
The Guardian: After a rotten review, you don't remember the good ones. The only pleasure you have is to reiterate, both to yourself and to anyone who'll listen, the bad ones, which you can quote in exquisite detail. Moreover, you have to come to terms with the truth that no matter how doggedly you try to deceive yourself to the contrary, if you're going to believe your good reviews, you're going to have to believe the less good ones as well, unless you're deeply self-delusional.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think this article makes a really good point about the way criticism has changed now that the internet is so encouraging for people to post their opinions on something so easily, and this opinion is so easily accessible. It definitely gives more weight to the idea that "everyone is a critic." I am glad that this article also addresses awards, something that in my opinion has been given more weight that it should. It is important that people can take criticism, but not take it too seriously, and the same with awards. It is a nice honor, but nothing incredibly spectacular (besides some exceptions which the article addresses) or, hopefully, nothing that is too discouraging and crippling.
I hate critics. I think they should exist, because people who have some knowledge of what they are talking about and can write should be able to form opinions and share them with the world. But I do hate that the general public take critics word as the word of God. My mother will not go to a movie unless it has gotten a review by a newspaper that she deams to be reputable. This mentality is very limiting. I have seen plenty of movies and plays that I have thoroughly enjoyed that critics have hatted and just because you agree with a critic most of the time does not mean that you are going to agree every time. As Sondheim states critics also hurt artists, and makes them either question or think too highly of themselves.
I rarely agree with critic's assessment of movies, so I generally ignore them. Sometimes they have insightful information, but I have also seen critics leave half way through a performance and then give it a bad review. To me, that is unfair to everyone, those involved in the performance and those who are thinking of going to see it. I tend to have rather eccentric tastes and like to make up my own mind about performances. Occasionally I will take the word of a good friend about a performance, but a critic? Just no.
Sondheim makes an interesting point here that if you believe the good news, you have to believe the bad as well. I've worked with several actors and directors who didn't want to read or hear anything about reviews until after the show closed, if at all. They all claim that they don't matter. Like Sondheim, I'm also doubtful of this claim. When reading reviews, I've personally found it helpful to learn as much about the reviewer beforehand as you can. For example, some reviewers just hate musicals, period, always have, always will. Others may have a certain dislike for a content area, or a particular person. Becoming familiar with who the person is who is writing the piece can greatly inform what it is they are actually saying.
I actually really like reading reviews written by critics. I often don't agree with them, but I like to get their take on it anyway. Even if I don't agree whether something is good or bad, critics can often make you think about a work in a different way and challenge your initial view, or, if you haven't seen the work yet, give you something to think about as you see it for the first time. I also think that as much as they can be hurtful and discouraging, bad reviews can also be an incentive to do better. If you can get past the disappointment, which is admittedly hard to do, you can pick out what could have made it better, and use that in your future work, which can be extremely helpful.
Post a Comment