Tynan's Anger

Labels: 99seats, adam thurman, community organizing, how theater failed america, local theater, mike daisey, obamaism, regional theater, revolutionary politics, scott walters, solonova, todd olsen

Image via WikipediaHOW TO SAVE THEATER CRITICISM

Lately there’s been a lot of rambling about the death of theater criticism. Michael Riedel has felt demeaned as an old stodgy covering theater, a far cry from the classic depiction of the theater critic. The Playgoer has wondered whether mainstream theater is now immune to critics in the same way that movies have gotten. On a guest post on The Critical Condition, Variety’s Sam Thielman saw the role of theater criticism deteriorating and scattering across the medium’s spectrum.

Over the next few days, I will give my take on the role of theater criticism and the critic in contemporary and future American theater. In Part One, I explored the differences in the theatergoing experience between the critic and uncommitted audience member. In Part Two, I explored the relevance of theater in a digital age. In Part Three, I conclude my discussion by outlining the role of a theater critic in the current economic and cultural climate.

---

PART THREE—What is to be done

If we are to save theater criticism—and I believe it is truly worth saving—we’re going to need to equip it with some tools for its own survival. Here’s my modest proposal for ways to ensure that theater criticism stays current and vital through the digital era.

Embrace the digital era
Forget the Algonquin; print media is no longer sustainable under any respectable business model. Print is not going to be dead in 2 to 3 years; it’s dying as we speak. There are some elderly theater patrons who still want print. Let them have their print for as long as humanly possible, but in the choice between going digital only and shutting down an entire publication, the former is better from both a business and human standpoint. Don’t think theater criticism can survive in print just because of the old theater attendees. If you want to obtain that under-30 crowd that every person in theater so desperately craves, digital is the only choice.

Ditch thumbs up/thumbs down, A-F grade, 1-4 stars, and all that
Some would say with the rise of sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, providing a numerical score is more essential. But theater doesn’t have an infrastructure like that yet on the web, and there’s no need to create one. Even the binary system of see it/don’t see has become obsolete in an era where the financial disparity between the critic and patron’s decision to attend theater has never been higher. Instead, provide a summary of what segment of your audience you think would like this production, and which one wouldn’t. No sacrificing of editorial standards is involved in saying that.

Cover any and every professional production
What is the benefit of online media if not creating an infinite platform for expressing one’s belief? Why should a theater section cater to the limits of print column space in their online coverage? I don’t care if it’s a 50-word summary of a show that no one would or should be seeing—every work of theater needs to be addressed by some publication or another. If a theater section is serious about being the voice of the theatrical critical community, it will leave no stone unturned. In the age of volunteer writing, this shouldn’t be such a financial risk, either.

Go national
I was shocked to open my New York Times Arts section a few months ago to find a front page review by Charles Isherwood of—gasp!—a Chicago production. It shouldn’t have to take winning a Pulitzer and Tony to have your work reviewed by the leading theater authorities if you dare to open outside of New York City. Now that no one has to struggle to find reviews from any publications from any location, the long-standing need to create a national theater discussion can be easily addressed. Call it the Terry Teachout model of criticism—if a regional theater is willing to have a major critic or publication review its work, why hold back due to geography?

Interact more with the artists
This is a dangerous proposition for any neutral critic—as Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Lester Bangs said about the artist/critic dynamic in Almost Famous, “These people are not your friends.” A detached, professional relationship is necessary, but in order to build a bridge between practitioner and critic, everyone must at least be courteous to each other. The responsibility is on the critic’s end as much as the artist himself. If you’re building a discussion about theater, it’s hard to maintain the current system where critic and artist are at each other’s throats.

Pander to the theater geek
In catering to a mainstream audience, most theater editors will beat the Brecht out of all their budding critics. But a market that hasn’t been tapped in the online press is the theater geek; one who can quote Carol Churchill plays and Rodgers and Hammerstein on a moment’s notice, and know every last detail of what’s been on Broadway for the last 15 years or so. I’m not saying every publication has to do this—this is just a huge side of the theatrical community that is currently lacking a real online voice, even as the film and music geek have found online outlets multiple times over.

Talk about theater in larger terms
It’s not enough just to focus on the theatrical community any more. It’s gotten too small, even on Broadway, for someone just to think in terms of what’s beneficial to theater. More talk has to involve how a particular play benefits society. The problem is that through theater critic lenses, it’s often impossible to think outside that prism. Well, get with it, boys and girls, because even today’s theater crowd cares about a lot more than just theater, as strange as that may sound.

Labels: Broadway theatre, critic/artist relations, how to save theater criticism, new media, regional theater, terry teachout