I used to hold the Critic's Pick seal at the New York Times in rather high esteem. An honor rarely held for shows of the highest caliber. But it seems these days like it's now a rarity for a show not to get Critic's Pick label.
This week alone, Bernhardt/Hamletand The Nap, two shows that I (and many others) thought were meh to whatever, both garnered the seal. Earlier this summer, Straight White Men did as well. Carousel was a rather controversial one in the spring, too. I could go on.
So, here's my question: do you personally consider the NYT Critic's Pick seal to mean anything significant? Did it used to have meaning for you and its since lost it? (Alternatively, am I just too critical and do these shows really deserve high praise?!)
Clearly, it still means something, but it does seem weird that more and more shows that aren’t all-around acclaimed (by fans and critics) are getting the seal. I know it always comes down to taste, but I agree that recently, it almost seems like a crapshoot in terms of what’s going to get it and what’s not.
In fairness to Carousel (which I didn’t much like, save for Joshua Henry), Brantley seemed to really, really, like it, with the exception of the latter part of act 2. The critics pick for that one seemed entirely justified.
I can’t speak to the others you listed as I haven’t seen them.
Don’t agree with him on CAROUSEL and STRAIGHT WHITE MEN but yes on THE NAP. Haven’t seen B/H. Agreed with him on many stamps of approval... but for some, not so much.
Goes to show the beauty of theatre, and art for that matter.
"When the audience comes in, it changes the temperature of what you've written." -Stephen Sondheim
The strange phenomenon you all are describing is called "personal taste" a.k.a "subjectivity." Yes, it's a crapshoot, because you can't predict how a single human being is going to react to a show. Hell, I can't even always predict ahead of time whether I'M going to like a show or not, let alone a person I don't know.
The problem here is that critics are expected to be the voice of the audience, but that's just impossible. IMO we should lean further into the other direction; have reviewers be open about their own biases, and emphasize their own personal reaction to the show. I really admired how Jesse Green started to do this in one of his recent articles.
The seal itself has never meant anything to me, personally, and I don’t pay attention to which shows get it. I am always interested in the actual review, though.
Generally I don't take Critics as the end all and be all. But I do like their input.
I see a lot so I make up my own mind. But if many critics say the same thing I generally take heed.
Michael Feingold of the late lamented VOICE came closest to sharing my personal tastes. But I never think ANY critic can take the place of my own view.
That has never meant anything to me. I've always thought of it as a lazy man's review. Reviews themselves can sway me ...but I see about 75-80% of what opens regardless.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
I saw Agnes last week, which is in the smallest space at 59E59. It was a Critic's Pick and it was one of the best things I've seen all year.
I think Brantley and Green go into the Broadway and the bigger Off-Broadway productions with too many prejudgements based on the past work of the people involved or their expectations of what the play should be.
It's worth noting that Show Score is pretty much useless as well. You have to be truly terrible to get anything below an 80 or a 75.
JBroadway said: "The strange phenomenon you all are describing is called "personal taste" a.k.a "subjectivity." Yes, it's a crapshoot, because you can't predict how a single human being is going to react to a show. Hell, I can't even always predict ahead of time whether I'M going to like a show or not, let alone a person I don't know.
The problem here is that critics are expected to be the voice of the audience, but that's just impossible. IMO we should lean further into the other direction; have reviewers be open about their own biases, and emphasize their own personal reaction to the show. I really admired how Jesse Green started to do this in one of his recent articles."
^this. The rest of this thread is just a pretext for telling everyone where your taste falls in relation to someone else's, which is an intellectually meaningless conversation.
I'm sure opinions on this change if you're involved with a show that gets one, but between the nap and bernhardt hamlet both mediocre, while the critics may have liked them, they don't seem worthy of a seal. That should be saved not for raves, or positive reviews, but for extraordinary, special theatrical experiences. Like Cursed Child, or South Pacific, or The Ferryman, etc etc (random ones I know but just examples)
For me, ideally, a critic shouldn't be the voice of the audience. They should be more informed and better educated about the artform, something that it is not reasonable or even desirable to expect from the audience. I think it's possible to not like something and still acknowledge it is a well-made piece of art or vice-versa.
The critic's pick thing is just a fancy tl;dr and an easy sign of approval. They may as well just put a thumb's up emoji. It's no different than a critic providing easy pull quotes in their review (which critics often intentionally do- or not do).
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
I have never once thought of critics as representing the "voice of the audience." Criticism is inherently subjective -- if there was such a thing as an objective opinion, there wouldn't need to be dozens, if not hundreds, of critics. If you use criticism as a way to determine what you will or won't see -- and I don't necessarily recommend that anyone do this -- the best thing to do is to find a critic whose taste, as evidenced by their reviews, aligns with your own. Just because Ben Brantley or Jesse Green write under the banner of The New York Times doesn't necessarily mean that their particular, individual tastes will represent your own. And it doesn't mean their writing is better than any other critic writing for a less prestigious publication. Reviews are an extension of the discourse around theater that includes criticism, message boards like this and personal conversations among friends.
"You travel alone because other people are only there to remind you how much that hook hurts that we all bit down on. Wait for that one day we can bite free and get back out there in space where we belong, sail back over water, over skies, into space, the hook finally out of our mouths and we wander back out there in space spawning to other planets never to return hurrah to earth and we'll look back and can't even see these lives here anymore. Only the taste of blood to remind us we ever existed. The earth is small. We're gone. We're dead. We're safe."
-John Guare, Landscape of the Body
we have show-score, which aggregates and displays an even more exact "star" system, and makes much more sense as a guide than any one review. The idea of a review is not, as others have said, to report on the audience consensus, but to give one person's opinion, hopefully within a frame of reference developed over time. I gain as much or more from reading a review of someone with whom I routinely disagree as I do from reading the review of someone who has a taste profile similar to my own. Individual ratings, whether stars, big gold check marks, or whatever, are just an editor's shorthand for the ADD set, never something to get worked into a tizzy over.
NOWaWarning said: "The seal itself has never meant anything to me, personally, and I don’t pay attention to which shows get it. I am always interested in the actual review, though. "
Same here. And no matter what the reviews are, if it is a show I am interested in seeing, I will see it no matter what the reviews are. "Hot Feet" always comes to mind!
Since living here, I usually see shows before opening night so reviews are not out. I usually pop on here to read Whizzer's and others first preview thoughts but they don't sway me. I do keep them in the back of my mind when I see a show sometimes.
I usually never read reviews, I just see the threads and see if they are negative, mixed, or positive.
I usually take what people say on the boards if I should see it or not. Some people hate everything, but others like Whizzer give a fair and honest review, I also see the preview threads to see if the overall thought is negative then I should Probally skip it.
"Why was my post about my post being deleted, deleted, causing my account to be banned from posting" - The Lion Roars 2k18
Re. Hogan, it's still helpful sometimes to know where the critic ultimately stands on the show. When I'm reading some of Brantley's reviews, all I'm trying to figure out is the answer to one question. Did he like it? (Cue Ken's advertising pitch).
zainmax said: "Re. Hogan, it's still helpful sometimes to know where the critic ultimately stands on the show. When I'm reading some of Brantley's reviews, all I'm trying to figure out is the answer to one question. Did he like it? (Cue Ken's advertising pitch)."
yes, I did not mean to suggest otherwise. My point is basically that where he stands ultimately is only meaningful if it is set within a general sense of his taste and how it is likely to align with your own. I could say the same thing about (to pick someone with whom I am most often in disagreement) Terry Teachout. The specific question, however, is not about that alignment but about the editorial decision to make something a critic's pick.
Bwayfan292 said: "Does the general public read reviews though? Or do they just go cause a show looks cool?"
There isn't a yes-or-no answer, and I think it's very different with a play than with a musical. Smaller shows or shows without stars rely on rave reviews (and, later, Tonys) to stay alive. Look at The Humans, Band's Visit, Oslo, Fun Home,Come From Away, and even Hamilton (though that was also the audience reception). Then there are the shows that didn't recoup, but the reviews helped them in the beginning (Dolls House 2, Hand to God, Groundhog Day, Carousel).