Tynan's Anger

Image via WikipediaToday, I wake up mad and with a chip on my shoulder, feeling bitter towards all of theater criticism, and thinking that New York critics are even more thinned-skinned than the artists they mock for being ultra-sensitive. I realize that I liked the Broadway revival of American Buffalo more than most people. I may have overlooked its shortcomings in my review, I admit, but that's only because I thought the play's social timeliness and display of Mamet's greatness was more important than any of the lackluster elements in the production itself. Furtermore, those shortcomings not nearly as egregious as Ben Brantley and others made it out to be. Rooney's review at least I could relate to, but when I read Brantley's review, I felt like I had simply seen a different show than him. It turns out, Brantley and the lot of New York critics may have let a botched press reception cloud their judgment—and as a result, American Buffalo is closing way too soon.

The New York Observer told the story of a lunch reception last Friday meant for critics was canceled without critics being warned. The lunch had been put together haphazardly; I received an email at the last minute, and couldn't make it anyway. But if that wasn't enough, the opening night reception was closed to critics. Except that it wasn't, and the publicists gave mixed signals:

"This is fucking moronic on their part! They don't have the right to ban anyone. I would have invited you. It wasn't closed because Michael Musto was there," Mr. Kornberg said, referring to the Village Voice gossip columnist. "Would you please forward me that email right away, so I can show it to a producer that is holding on the other line. I can't wait to show these people!"

So yes, there were multiple publicity screw-ups with this production. That's a mark against the publicity team. Fine. But my question is: is that the fault of the production itself? Should the actors and directors be punished by critics who are pissed off by how they were treated by publicists the production team had nothing to do with? More to the point, should audiences be punished by receiving false information about a show they may enjoy without having to deal with any publicity confusions?

If you read Brantley's review with the idea that his feeling may have been hurt, the review seems especially pouty, drama queen-ish and retortive. It would be one thing if Brantley was slighted by an egregiously awful production. But while this production may not have been perfect, it was not, by any normal standards of a flop, as bad as that review indicated.

The publicity team for a show has nothing to do with the show's audience and everything to do with its critical reception. This is another area where the showgoing experience is fundamentally different between audience and critic. But if critics did their jobs, they would look past incompetent publicity and give the production a review while their critical judgment was not compromised by how much (or how little) publicists pampered aided them.

What were the major complaints? It didn't establish a proper father-son dynamic? John Leguizamo wasn't vicious enough? Fine, those are legitimate complaints, but they don't make an epic failure of a flop in my mind. Furthermore, as even the pans were willing to point out, Buffalo is a much better play than Speed-the-Plow. Speed-the-Plow, need I remind you, didn't get the universal glowing reviews everyone liked to claim it received after Buffalo came out—that is if you read someone other than Brantley. So how much did critics hate on this production simply because they weren't invited to the cool kids' party? Unfortunately, we won't have enough time for the play to build an audience to know—an outcome no doubt influenced by Brantley's irrational slamming. Thanks, New York.

Related articles by Zemanta

• American Buffalo Goes Extinct on Broadway
• Arts, Briefly: Return of the 'Buffalo'
• Theater Review | 'American Buffalo': A Junk Shop Breeding Best-Laid Plans

Labels: american buffalo, ben brantley, broadway, david mamet, drama queenery, public relations, theater criticism

I can't believe we have to go through this debate all over again. For the third summer in a row, the Chicago theater press is at odds with established companies over whether critics should be allowed to review summer workshop productions. In 2006, a negative review of the Stages Festival by Sun-Times critic Hedy Weiss prompted an enormously overblown controversy. Last summer, critics fought back by what they saw as an overly harsh response by refusing to let critics see a production of While the Messenger Was Hot, which was was weeks away from a New York run. Now, Weiss and Trib critic Chris Jones are under fire for reviewing a work at the Steppenwolf's First Look Rep—the same program at the Steppenwolf that eventually let critics see While the Messenger Was Hot after backlash last summer. If that wasn't ridiculous enough, the controversy is over completely benign critiques of the First Look shows by Jones and Weiss.

This debate goes back to my earliest blogging days, and the fact that it's still around is an incredible annoyance. But let's open up the can of worms again.

First off, let's consider the critic's perspective. If a show is significant enough to report on, it's the critic's responsibility to do so. He'd be a bad critic if he or someone at his paper didn't report on it. Whether that means a full blown review or more of a feature piece is up for debate—there's often a fine line between the two. No, critics should not be critiquing a workshop with the same standards of a full-fledged production. The onus is on the critics to be careful in that regard. I think we can all admit that the Weiss review of the Stages Fest in 2006 was not as careful as it should have been. But debating how critics address a workshop production is not as important as recognizing that it's the critic's job to report on a workshop if it is significant enough, even if it's not completely finished.

To that end, it's the theater company's job to make sure that the critics know what they're in for, to be honest with them and to respect their duties. In too many cases, Chicago companies have failed embarrassingly. It's exceedingly bad form to let critics into a workshop without complaint one year but complain the next year when they don't like a show (especially when you enticed them with PR releases and press comps). It's even worse form to ban them outright, or to deceive them about just how finished a product the show is. But all these problems stem from the fact that some of the less mature theater professionals don't understand and respect the fact that critics have to do their jobs.

Yes, artists are naturally inclined to hate critics, especially in a smaller world like theater where press coverage is already relatively rare (though not in Chicago). But people like Ed Sobel at the Steppenwolf blog completely miss the point when they try to box critics out of the discussion on theater:

First Look is a developmental process culminating in public performances, for which, yes, we charge admission. But we are trying to create a relationship with our audience that is not purely transactional, i.e. money in exchange for product. Instead, we are seeking to engage them in the process of making a play, an endeavor much more difficult to describe within the current model of “reviews”. First Look requires innovation and imagination from both the artists and audiences. How can we stimulate a similar sense in our critics?

Sobel then launches into a ridiculous explanation about how critics shouldn't be reviewers, and somehow blames Roger Ebert for giving Chicago a "thumbs up thumbs down" focus for the focus on "reviews" rather than "criticism."

This shouldn't warrant a response, but I'll give one anyway: Isn't it the job of critics to look for innovation and imagination? Haven't they seen more plays and know what to look for more than the average audience member? Would you trust a lawyer from Andersonville to be a better judge of theatrical innovation than someone who sees a play just about every night, whose paycheck depends on their ability to analyze a work? Have you ever read a theater review that didn't explain it's strengths and weaknesses? Also, isn't that part of the critic's job anyway? If you're charging $20 per ticket, who are you to tell someone to see your show even if they're not going to like it? Don't they have a right to an informed, external source of information?

Back in 2006, after Weiss' review was published, I leaned toward the side of the theaters. But the response by some Chicago theater professionals has been so childish, so irresponsible, and so inconsiderate of theater's impact in the Chicago cultural community, and, by extension, their own audiences, the balance has swung significantly.

P.S.: Chicago theater pros, if you still don't know what the theater critic's job is, do yourself a favor and listen to this podcast of critics explaining it for you. A lot of the podcast should be obvious to anyone who work at a theater company, but apparently some people didn't get the memo.

Labels: chicago theater, chris jones, critical backlash, drama queenery, hedy weiss, steppenwolf, the chicago theater critic wars, theater criticism, theater reviews

There's only so much time to post links, so here's the storys that have been getting my attention lately:

• My first major 6th grade crush turned Scientology robot Katie Holmes is headed to Broadway to star in All My Sons, in a role that awkwardly praises her legs. Sure enough, the YouTubes have already beat the future Joe Keller (John Lithgow) to it.
• Mel Brooks hams it up for an interview with the Los Angeles Times in honor of Get Smart. Best line? "You're Greek, Andreas. We don't start sentences with 'or' in America."
• While were on the topic of Mel Brooks, unless there was a Bialystock and Bloom-esque accounting scheme, those 23 year old Broadway starlets of Glory Days I blogged about have cost their producers several millions of dollars after a grand total of one performance before closing. They seem to be handling it in the manner I would: lounging about their apartments watching bad sitcom reruns
• Theater people are doing what they do best—being dramatic—over this year's Drama Desk awards. The domination of Broadway in this years awards has led to resignations, accusations, counter-accusations, and counter-counter accusations. I lost track of all the complaints by the second paragraph, but it seems the primary complaint was removing someone from an email list in a fit of anger. Leave it to theater people to see having less email clutter as a source of outrage.
• Michael Feingold at The Village Voice has an excellent article on the resurgence of the musical in recent years. No snarky remark here, just damn good commentary to be found
• Finally, The Guardian has a post up on the theatricality of Barack Obama's speechmaking, echoing W.J.T Mitchell's commentary in my Theories of Media class this winter. Sometimes I wonder if I would be supporting Obama as strongly if I hadn't seem his 2004 Democratic Convention speech live, but based on my demographics, it'd be a miracle if I wasn't an Obama supporter anyway.
  

Labels: all myy sons, barack obama, drama desk awards, drama queenery, get smart, glory days, john lithgow, katie holmes, links, mel brooks, musicals, village voice

It never ceases to amaze me how theater companies across the nation, even those as prominent as the Tony Award-winning Guthrie Theater, simply cannot take their lickings from the press. I understand that theater, which is more limited in appeal than movies or television, has a harder time recovering from negative reviews than other media. But that still doesn't mean that they're not in a position of public exposure, and subject to the exact same criticism as anything else in public exposure.

In the latest case of critical reactionary drama queenery, a full page ad by the Guthrie was placed in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune after the paper gave their most recent production a negative review. While the ad had been "planned for months," the content, decided upon after the reviews came in, feature a near-exact copy of the positive review from the alternative weekly CityPages. The Guthrie's former Broadway marketing guru Trisha Santini had this to say:

"There was something about the way [CityPages critic] Quinton talked about" the show, Santini continued, "that I think spoke to audiences trying to make a determination. There was a way in which he framed it which was in sync with what we hoped for."

Yes, because it was the lone good review after all the other major papers' reception to the play could politely be described as sub-par?

Santini denied that the ad was out of sour grapes: "This is not getback; it's not a retaliatory strike of some sort. We don't have the luxury of doing that. And even if we did, we wouldn't do it." This is what we in the media biz call "horseshit," especially after you talked about how the CityPages critic "spoke to what you were trying to do." Ultimately, this is a black eye for the otherwise respectable Guthrie. They've turned a mild slump—one that every theater goes through—into a credibility issue. That's Broadway-level marketing right there.

Labels: critics, drama queenery, guthrie theater