The Critics Say...: 57 Theater Reviewers in New York and Beyond Discuss Their Craft and Its Future by Matt Windman Page B
Authors: Matt Windman
Ads: Link
from his or herself, which is harder than it may seem. There’s a certain selflessness to it. The greatest reviews are driven by the work itself, and not by your own issues. It’s a delicate dance.
Michael Riedel: Critics should enjoy being a bit of a showman and attracting attention to themselves. They should have a thrill for the kill and should not be afraid to put the knife in. There’s no place for someone who doesn’t take strong opinions. I really don’t believe in temperate criticism. I don’t believe in thoughtful “on the one hand, on the other hand” writing. To really engage the reader, you have to either make a case for something or tear it apart. It’s a waste of everyone’s time if you just say, “It was kind of alright” or “They tried, but it didn’t work very well.” That’s boring to read. With Frank Rich, you either lived or died. He got behind it and sold it, or he dismantled it, and that makes for lively reading.
John Simon: He should be absolutely fearless. He should not be afraid that readers will hate him, or that his editor will be uncomfortable with him. That is a very rare thing, partly because reviewers depend on their livelihood. I have great doubts about critics who start out as publicists and still have a publicist’s mentality. I could name names. There is something about a critic being born rather than made. It’s something in your nature, in your perspective, that makes you a critic. It’s innate. It can be furthered. It can be polished. It can be developed. But the germ, the core, has to be innate.
Helen Shaw: Some of my favorite critics are the ones that get pissed off, like David Cote. When he is angry, David writes some of the best stuff you will ever read. He is so impassioned and thrilling when he is mad. On the other hand, Scott Brown is someone who is never angry, even when he is reviewing something that is absolutely appalling, and can write with crazy, intense generosity.
Don Aucoin: The ability to be moved is important. Matthew Gilbert, the Globe ’s TV critic, once told me, “You have to be willing to fall in love.” What he meant was that if something like The Sopranos comes on the scene, you can’t be so jaded by all the crap that came before it that you miss its greatness. You have to recognize that something pretty momentous has happened. Without being a pushover, a theater critic has to be receptive to the occasional miracles that can happen.
Howard Shapiro: You can’t pull punches. This is harder for people who work in regional theater. In New York, you are unlikely to walk down the street and run into the people that you’re reviewing. It’s quite different in Philly. You’re covering stuff from people you see on the street, so you need to have a thick-skinned temperament.
Rob Weinert-Kendt: I’ve known good critics of all temperaments. The thing that unifies them is courage and independence of thought—to be the kind of person who has the fortitude to go against the grain. A bit of a contrarian streak is helpful. I’m not saying you should be an asshole, but a critic should speak up for their point of view.
Matthew Murray: Critics must be able to withstand fatigue. Theater reviewing looks easy, but it’s a huge time commitment, especially if you have to hold down another job to make ends meet (as I do, and as many reviewers do). In super-busy months, like November and April, it’s not uncommon for shows to open on top of each other for weeks at a time. As I’m writing this, we just had something like 14 shows open in two weeks, with multiple days where two or three shows opened at once. For organizations that don’t have an army of reviewers at their disposal (meaning, basically, everyone except the Times ), in these periods, you are seeing and writing about shows during literally every free moment you have, and that can wear on you physically, emotionally, and intellectually, and can cause your personal life and non-theater
Michael Riedel: Critics should enjoy being a bit of a showman and attracting attention to themselves. They should have a thrill for the kill and should not be afraid to put the knife in. There’s no place for someone who doesn’t take strong opinions. I really don’t believe in temperate criticism. I don’t believe in thoughtful “on the one hand, on the other hand” writing. To really engage the reader, you have to either make a case for something or tear it apart. It’s a waste of everyone’s time if you just say, “It was kind of alright” or “They tried, but it didn’t work very well.” That’s boring to read. With Frank Rich, you either lived or died. He got behind it and sold it, or he dismantled it, and that makes for lively reading.
John Simon: He should be absolutely fearless. He should not be afraid that readers will hate him, or that his editor will be uncomfortable with him. That is a very rare thing, partly because reviewers depend on their livelihood. I have great doubts about critics who start out as publicists and still have a publicist’s mentality. I could name names. There is something about a critic being born rather than made. It’s something in your nature, in your perspective, that makes you a critic. It’s innate. It can be furthered. It can be polished. It can be developed. But the germ, the core, has to be innate.
Helen Shaw: Some of my favorite critics are the ones that get pissed off, like David Cote. When he is angry, David writes some of the best stuff you will ever read. He is so impassioned and thrilling when he is mad. On the other hand, Scott Brown is someone who is never angry, even when he is reviewing something that is absolutely appalling, and can write with crazy, intense generosity.
Don Aucoin: The ability to be moved is important. Matthew Gilbert, the Globe ’s TV critic, once told me, “You have to be willing to fall in love.” What he meant was that if something like The Sopranos comes on the scene, you can’t be so jaded by all the crap that came before it that you miss its greatness. You have to recognize that something pretty momentous has happened. Without being a pushover, a theater critic has to be receptive to the occasional miracles that can happen.
Howard Shapiro: You can’t pull punches. This is harder for people who work in regional theater. In New York, you are unlikely to walk down the street and run into the people that you’re reviewing. It’s quite different in Philly. You’re covering stuff from people you see on the street, so you need to have a thick-skinned temperament.
Rob Weinert-Kendt: I’ve known good critics of all temperaments. The thing that unifies them is courage and independence of thought—to be the kind of person who has the fortitude to go against the grain. A bit of a contrarian streak is helpful. I’m not saying you should be an asshole, but a critic should speak up for their point of view.
Matthew Murray: Critics must be able to withstand fatigue. Theater reviewing looks easy, but it’s a huge time commitment, especially if you have to hold down another job to make ends meet (as I do, and as many reviewers do). In super-busy months, like November and April, it’s not uncommon for shows to open on top of each other for weeks at a time. As I’m writing this, we just had something like 14 shows open in two weeks, with multiple days where two or three shows opened at once. For organizations that don’t have an army of reviewers at their disposal (meaning, basically, everyone except the Times ), in these periods, you are seeing and writing about shows during literally every free moment you have, and that can wear on you physically, emotionally, and intellectually, and can cause your personal life and non-theater
Similar Books
