Critical Questions
Posted by Edward Sobel on 8/03/2006We practitioners in the theater often bear an uneasy relationship with one of the other members of our community: the arts media – a.k.a. critics. Our First Look Rep presents particular challenges. On the one hand, we certainly want the city of Chicago, and the theater community nationally, to be aware of the work we are doing. That is part of the point of the program – to bring these plays and writers to general attention and foster productions of their work. On the other hand, First Look Rep is a process, rather than product, oriented program. The plays are presented in an advanced stage of development, but not necessarily in their final version. On the other hand, (at Steppenwolf we always juggle with three hands - it is a job requirement) we are presenting the work publicly and charging admission. Critics may feel a responsibility to “review” them.
This conundrum led me to some provocative questions, which I will share in a later posting, but for the moment, I’d like to ask your opinion. To what extent, if any, do critics matter to you? Do they help you interpret a work you see? Do you go to see a play based upon what critics say? If so, do you follow or trust one particular critic, or is it more when opinion reaches, if you will forgive the pun, critical mass? Are there factors that are more important, both in your transactional decision (buying a ticket) and artistic one (your opinion or interpretation of the work)?
I’d be grateful for any thoughts you care to share.
August 4th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Plays have the handicap of lacking the machinery that is available for promoting movies and television shows. So what do we, the theatre going public, have to work with? The company’s own description of the production, and the various critics’ descriptions and opinions. I personally have less interest in the critics’ opinions than their description - I just want to know if something *might* appeal to me. I’ll make my own opinion when I see it.
I think even early works by new writers should get reviewed. Critics should obviously adjust their standards accordingly but they are part of the whole process and writers need to get used it.
August 4th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
If you’re charging than it’s product.
If it’s product I want to know what a critic thinks.
I only have so much pocket money, and if I can get criticism, word of mouth, etc. I’ll use it for my decision process.
Critics shouldn’t adjust. A critic is letting me know if it’s worth the money.
Critics adjusting ? That’s like saying analysts should go easy on investment advice for new companies. No way. Money is money and I’m not wasting mine.
August 5th, 2006 at 7:31 am
“That’s like saying analysts should go easy on investment advice for new companies.”
No, I said “adjust”, not “go easy”. First Look is not the same as a full blown production on the main stage. There is no point in judging a Volkswagen by Ferrari standards - unless they cost the same amount of money. You adjust by judging according to what is being charged and what is being attempted. That is simply a tenet of good criticism - something often in short supply in the theatre.
August 6th, 2006 at 10:22 am
I disagree.
If you’re an actor, you’re not going to do a half hearted adjustment in your committement to the script, just because your using a box in place of a leather couch. If you’re charging money, it is a production.
If I’m putting down my money, that means I’m purchasing a ticket for a professional production. Regardless of the production values, it should not factor into the quality. I wonder how much Off Loop theatre you support ? I’ve seen better theatre for 15 bucks because the artists understand that if they open the doors, if they charge a price, they MUST guarantee quality. You can pay over a hundred bucks and see a crappy version of LESTAT on Broadway with all of the bells and whistles.
I want a critic that is going to give me information that is accurate, not adjusted. If the people putting up the play have the attitude of putting up an “adjusted” play, than save me the time, money, and my patience. Don’t put it up.
August 7th, 2006 at 10:24 am
There’s a difference between doing good theatre on a cheap budget (which is what I do myself), and offering audiences the opportunity to be a part of the process of developing a play by attending a workshop like the First Look series.
If a theatre decides to charge admission to attend these workshops (some do and some don’t), then the audience should be aware that they’re paying for a look into the rehearsal and creative process, and not a “professional production.” That doesn’t excuse shoddy acting, directing, or anything else - but it is a different environment than a finished production, regardless of production values.
I don’t think critics should go easy on public workshops, and I don’t think audiences should either - it’s important for the playwright and the theatre to get honest feedback, positive and negative. I do think, though, that both critics and audiences need to understand and acknowledge that it’s a work in progress, and not a finished production.
It’s not as simple as “if you’re charging money, it is a production,” but I will agree completely that if somebody’s doing a half-hearted presentation of a play in process or a full production, it’s not going to be worth whatever they’re charging for admission - even if it’s free.
August 7th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Nathaniel -
I think that’s what I was trying to convey, you just put it more succinctly.
Thank you !
August 11th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Whether or not I pay attention to what critics say about a play (and whether it encourages/deters me to see it or not) depends on the critic, the publication the critic writes for, the playwright in question, and the producing theater.
I know that’s kind of a lot of variables, but I’ll try to provide a few examples.
There are a few Chicago critics at the smaller papers that I set no stock by (I’ll be nice and not mention names) because I know they are failed playwrights with an axe to grind, and therefore they have certain biases. However, I will always pay careful attention to reviews by Chris Jones, for example, or Mary Shen Barnidge, or Jonathan Abarbanel, because they are generally very fair in their critiques and also have helped “discover” some major new Chicago works and playwrights. I’m occasionally suspicious of Hedy Weiss’ reviews of political plays because she lets her own political biases cloud her judgement at times, especially on those plays dealing with American foreign policy and the Middle East.
I’ll also pay attention if a certain play is getting either universally panned or universally lauded. If every critic who has seen a work has come to basically the same conclusions about it, you can usually trust that most of them are right in their assessments of its quality/lack therof.
When reviews are mixed for plays running at smaller theatres, I’ll usually go see it, because it often means that something risky and interesting is going on. When reviews are mixed at larger, more expensive theatres, I’ll often take a pass unless I know the playwright personally. (As an artist and far NW-suburban-dweller, I have to choose what shows to spend my $$ on in the city carefully)
Lastly, the biggest factor on whether I see a show for me, as a playwright myself, is the quality of the script and the playwright being produced, not necessarily the actors or director or the set/technical elements. I go to the theatre not only to be entertained but also to develop my playwriting craft, so that’s what drives my decision more than anything. If a critic has spent a lot of time in his/her review on the qualities of the script, I will pay attention.
I also have purposefully gone to “bad” plays for the sole purpose of learning what doesn’t work onstage. There’s something to be said for that as well.