Thursday, March 07, 2019
12 Times The Critics Were Absolutely Savage (But Not Necessarily Wrong)
Theatre Nerds: As dutiful Theatre Nerds, not even the most cynical among us should root for a Broadway show to fail. I mean, what’s the point? First of all, there’s already enough negativity in this world… And, second of all, the closing of a show puts good people out of work — not to mention all the money that it washes down the drain. Yes, sure — buying a ticket entitles you to an opinion (how loud you decide to scream that opinion is totally up to you). But, frankly, when a show doesn’t work it’s just plain sad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You hate to read negative critiques about shows you love so dearly, because you do take it very personally, but it's also wildly entertaining to hear a critic unleash as many negative colorful adjectives on the simple design of a show. Sometimes you'll see a photograph of a critic and you'll say to yourself, 'Oh, they look nice enough.' Except their critique tears apart every piece of your work, from every aspect, as if they came into the brain of each and every cast and crew member, and highlighted all their insecurities. I found myself, as I was reading this article to both reel back and think, 'is this too harsh?' while also taking the time to laugh at, 'wow they really took this production down.' Some critics choose to use every word they can get to take down their most primal thoughts and observations, while with the critique of 'Lennon' the writer chose that sweet, short and simple was the way to go. I have to applaud some of these critics, because it must take the talent of a true artist to make two sentences the most cruel and downgrading statement you've ever read.
Today I learned than Ben Brantley and Frank Rich are savage. This was not a fun article to read, and not exactly what I expected either. I suppose I was expecting more of a breakdown of the shortcoming of past productions, maybe why the critics said what they said, some kind of analysis… any kind of constructive content. But that is not what I found. Instead, I got a compilation of brutal, sometimes cruelly entertaining, but in my opinion useless commentary.
I have a fundamental problem with critics. I don’t understand the point of them, really, especially when it comes to negative review. Okay, for some reason people value this person’s opinion of theater, so if they say something good about my show, people will come, and if they say something bad, people won’t. But where’s the good in that? If they are some high authority on what makes good theater, then tell the bad shows how to be better. If this is such a waste of your time, then tell them how they could have not wasted your time. So much of this industry is built on giving and taking criticism but critics are not even criticizing, they are just bashing in these cases and there is zero productive reason for that.
I think this article made an interesting point that no one should ever hope to see a show fail, which is why I, like Iana, have a hard time with critics. If someone follows a critic and listens to many of their reviews, if they see a bad review they will inherently want that show to fail because they will want this critic they were loyal to to be right. And I don’t see the good in that at all. I think critics are a weird dynamic because sometimes shows are meant for a specific audience and that critic is often never the intended audience. And even shows that are for everyone, that means everyone can see it and the different backgrounds people bring will all give them a different interpretation or feeling about the show. I think reading negative reviews before seeing something will put subconscious thoughts in your head to tell you not to like it. I am of the opinion that all art deserves to be seen, and I think neutral descriptions of shows are the best way for people to decide what is best for them to see instead of very skewed critic reviews.
I do not think that scorchingly awful reviews have an appropriate place in today’s world of theatre. I do believe that constructive criticism and negativity can be helpful, however, this idea that a critic must “roast” a show that they do not like must come to an end. I think that is especially important in our ever-connected world today, as the possibility for improvement and change is always open after receiving criticism. I think that critics have largely become irrelevant for things such as performance art and video games, as both of these things have the ability to adapt to criticism. However, I believe that it is still relevant for permanent and fixed art, such as much visual art and movies, which do not have the ability to be modified after release. I think that both theatres need to adapt more to criticism, and critiques need to adapt more to the world in general.
Post a Comment