Should a Reviewer for the NYT have some theatre background?

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 12:41am

Lately, I have been getting frustrated reading Ben Brantley's reviews. I wonder to myself why he sees shows so differently than I do. I have a degree in Theatre, I have worked in theatre my whole life...35 years..... as an actor, a published playwright, a voice teacher, an audition coach, a rehearsal pianist, an acting teacher at a very reputable College in NYC, a Director .... I wondered what his theatre background was so I Googled his Bio. He has none. He has a Bachelors degree in English. Before he joined the Times,  he was a writer working for Women's Wear Daily and Elle and Vanity Fair. He has worked for various other magazines and news outlets.

I find this troublesome. I think a reviewer of theatre (Especially for the NY Times) should have some history of working in the theatre... Some personal knowledge and experience of how the process of creating theatre works.

Yes, he is a good "writer". All his punctuation is in the exact right places. And yes what people like about a show is subjective. My Aunt Rita is a GREAT writer and she has an English Degree as well. I wouldn't want her writing reviews for the NY Times.

I don't mean to sound snarky or bitchy.  I really don't.  But.. Now it all makes sense to me.  He's nothing more than an English major who got all A's in his classes at Swarthmore College. I know this because his bio at the Times says he Graduated with "High Honors" and is a Phi Beta Kappa. wow! It's embarrassing they even had to put that in his bio.  I am now convinced he really doesn't know what he writing about. He has never created theatre. He has never been through the creative process. 

He is no more qualified than my Aunt Rita to be writing reviews of theatre.
 

[Sunny11]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 12:58am

No, like you don't have be be a mechanic to drive a car. Creating theatre and reviewing it are different skill sets.  

[rodrigo_ca]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 1:19am

I don't think so, but I do think it is a plus for the job.

Also, if they hire someone who has absolutely no idea what they're talking about, their reviews will get less and less consistent with the general public, and after a while, nobody will take it into consideration. It's their loss, actually. It takes a lot to build a reputation, but so little to make it fall.

[Hackasaurus_Rex]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 1:23am

good point.  I'm not sure there are any food critics who are chefs.  And I don't believe Jon Stewart ever ran for political office.  "Doing" and "disecting" are two very different skill sets, as Sunny11 said.  

And honestly, I think people who are too "inside" the business tend to have a very miopic viewpoint as to what is "good" and "bad"... just look at some of the critiques on these boards. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 1:26am

It's a valid point. But, with all critics, it is only their opinion.    Sure, I think they need to know a background, but I think if you see enough theater you learn what is good and what is bad, etc. 

[A Director]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 1:38am

The only New York Times reviewer who had a background in theatre was Walter Kerr.  The best NYT reviewer was Brooks Atkinson.

Critics who had/have a background in theatre were/are: Harold Clurman, Robert Brustein, Michael Feingold and John Lahr.

[haterobics]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 2:03am

They're writing predominantly for people without theater backgrounds, as well...

[hork]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 2:45am

Most (almost all) film critics didn't go to film school or work in the film business. You don't need to have created something in order to judge it. The point of a critic isn't that they have some arcane knowledge of their subject; the point is that they have an opinion and know how to express it well. Anyone with an interest and an ability to put words together can be a critic. I'm sure Aunt Rita would make a fine critic.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 9:09am

Generally, practitioners make bad critics because they are not open-minded, and filter things through their own "rules." With Kerr, perhaps, this defect reached its pinnacle as the significance of (especially) the evolving musical eluded him entirely.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 9:13am

"Lately, I have been getting frustrated reading Ben Brantley's reviews. I wonder to myself why he sees shows so differently than I do. "

 

Just curious, what particular reviews frustrated you. Actually, I think I have seen more "positive" reviews from Brantley in the last couple of years than ever before. 

[lujoc]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 10:16am

FWIW, Tony Scott had no background in film and virtually none even in film criticism when the Times hired him, and he has worked out pretty well. Whatever frustrations you may have with Brantley are not directly traceable to this cause. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 10:27am

"not directly traceable to this cause"

agreed. he's neither a great nor a compelling writer but not because he was not taught some catechism. 

and unmentioned so far of course is that Frank Rich also had no background as anything other than a theatre-lover when he became a compelling if sometimes controversial read.

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 10:57am

Sunday is the Park with George was written after Merrily We Roll Along.  I don't think that was an accident. Sondheim was clearly bruised by the bad reviews and takes on critics who don't really know what the process of creating "art" feels like in Sunday.  I used Ben B at the Times because he is the biggest target. It might apply to any reviewer at a larger newspaper or publication. 

Also... I don't believe that ANY person who works in the theatre is capable of writing reviews. Using examples of theatre people on this board bitching is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a thoughtful, intelligent, capable person who is both a good writer and has experience in theatre.  Theatre is a process that often takes years of hard work by dozens of people before a show opens. Being a part of that process might give a reviewer a certain empathy that they would not have otherwise. And Empathy is important.  That is not to say that every show should get a great review.  I go to the theatre quite often. I always go with love in my heart. There is no place I would rather be in the world than in a theatre when the lights go down and the show is about to start. I want the show to go well and be wonderful. That's where I start from. On the other hand there are shows I would not recommend others to see. I'm not a fool.  It works in reverse too. There are some shows I think are terrible and they get a Critics Pick from the NY Times.

Theatre is not just the end result, it's an art form. I want someone who understands that what they are looking at to write reviews. Look at a show like "Dancing with the Stars"... the judges are all very experienced dancers/coaches who understand the technical aspects of dancing. They are able to see things that I cannot see (as a non dancer).  The dancers' hand positions, etc. Someone (like me), with no experience in dance at all might be able to give their opinion but how valid would it be? The same with the judges on American Idol and The Voice. And yes, these are tacky television shows but I think I have more respect for their judges than I do for someone reviewing theatre who has never participated in it.

There are people on this board who will argue with you if you write the Ocean is large.  I was looking for a thoughtful discussion of the question I posed. Some of you are doing that.

Updated On: 3/20/16 at 10:57 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 11:32am

Curtains,

Empathy is a slippery slope, but it does not require a technical mastery of any aspect of the art form being judged. What we want in a critic is someone who appreciates what they are reviewing as a form, and an honest broker (which also is a two way street). You want empathy from people who have backgrounds on the creative side? Good luck with that: the nastiest people I know who opine on the theatre are practitioners. 

A theatre review (any review) is not a technical assessment. Theatre is not a competition (except for the awards and that's a totally different discussion), and what any criticism should be aiming for is a discussion of whether the piece resonates for the reviewer, and how. Plenty of times we see technical proficiency in the service of something that bores us to tears. And what one person finds proficient is not always the same as what another person does. The most educated/trained writer/composer/lyricist etc is usually the one nobody wants to listen to. 

 

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 11:47am

Thank you for your post HoganH.  I had a feeling when I used the word "empathy" it might be misunderstood. I understand it could be a slippery slope. But I still contend that having personal understanding of the process makes someone a more appropriate reviewer.

I wasn't inferring that theatre was a competition the same way that Dancing with the Stars is. I was trying to point out that the people assigned to "judging" them... which is really what a reviewer is.. a judge.... should at least have some expertise in what they are judging.

 

[Dave13]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 11:54am

No.  Most of the readers do not have theater backgrounds.  Critics are writing to the audience, not the industry.  However, I think critics need to educate themselves with theater before becoming a critic. 

 

I dont have a theater background other than school plays, but I have also seen my fair share of shows.  Am I an expert? No. However, I can tell you what's good and bad. 

Updated On: 3/20/16 at 11:54 AM

[macnyc]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 12:05pm

Jesse Green of New York Magazine (and Vulture) is my favorite critic. Even if i happen not to agree why him about something, he always has good reasons as to why he thinks a certain way, and he's so interesting. In addition, he seems to have a depth of theater history knowledge. I don't even know what his background is. I'll try to do more Googling when I get home later. 

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 12:25pm

Not a Green fan. He likes to stick the knife it, twist it, kick the hell out of a show and than draw and quarter it. He is not content with not liking it. He has to be vicious. He also, like many critics, has a bias against an actor or composer.He has , many times, made up his mind on a show before even entering the theater.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 12:25pm

"having personal understanding of the process makes someone a more appropriate reviewer."

If by "personal understanding" you mean someone who has been trained/worked in a theatrical discipline, then I couldn't disagree more. If you mean that the person should have a substantial depth of knowledge of the subject they are reviewing, then sure. And by the way, on that basis, Brantley has probably seen more plays over a broad spectrum in the last 20 years than most anyone and has an enormously deep knowledge base from which to write. That, of course, doesn't mean he is a great critic. But he certainly has a more open mind to the art form than any of the people that have been mentioned in this thread with approval. 

[indytallguy]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 12:35pm

I don't believe so for many of the reasons others have noted, but I have enjoyed additional reviews/commentary by other reporters who bring a special lens to writing about a particular aspect of a show.

I'm thinking about when the dance reviewer wrote about An American in Paris, and I think an architecture critic wrote about David Rockwell's sets once.

[lunch]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 12:44pm

No.  A theater reviewer should not have experience in the theater.  A review should present the audience experience, not the expert opinion of a theater insider.  

And this is true in all fields. The best critics and commentators from restaurant reviewers to sports writers are good writers and good observers.  Insiders rarely have the objective view to accurately capture the experience.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 1:01pm

Indy, 

Oh I agree those "insight features" are great

[Tom5]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 1:07pm

Some of the best baseball managers never played the game. (or were very bad when they did)

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 1:30pm

Tom5 said: "Some of the best baseball managers never played the game. (or were very bad when they did)"

I'm all in favor of baseball references but you don't have to go that far to make the point. Most of the best playwrights can't act, most of the best composers can't sing and most directors can't act their way out of a paper bag.

 

[haterobics]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 2:23pm

CurtainsUpat8 said: "Theatre is a process that often takes years of hard work by dozens of people before a show opens. Being a part of that process might give a reviewer a certain empathy that they would not have otherwise."

Whether people have labored over something for month or years, or how many people it took to get everything up on that stage... it either works or it doesn't. I doubt anyone is unaware how long it takes before a show lands on Broadway. Whether anything other than the end result MATTERS is the issue.