Tynan's Anger

I love Brighton Beach Memoirs. I believe it is a sincerely underrated play dismissed by snooty old/dead theater critics who consider Neil Simon a sitcom writer.

I have exceedingly fond memories of the play; performing monologues from it in the 7th grade was the highlight of my acting career.

I was thrilled when I heard that David Cromer, the best director in American theater, thought the same about Brighton Beach Memoirs. I was thrilled that Cromer's Broadway revival got excellent reviews.

But if its failure causes Broadway producers to stop pandering to the blue-haired crowd with straight plays, it may be the best thing to have happened to American theater in decades.

Labels: american theater, brighton beach memoirs, broadway, neil simon, old people, Producers, theater criticism

Image via Wikipedia

So Tony Kushner a world-class playwright, wants the chance to develop a play like any workshop theater playwright can. He wants to do it at a major regional theater, in order to build up for the Broadway debut it deserves. The Guthrie mishandles its press release to critics. Some critics are already so pissed at the Guthrie that they will take it inevitably out on Kushner and everyone working on the show (they won't ever claim to if they do). Why are they doing that? Because the critics' jobs may be on the line if they don't cover it at the Guthrie.

This is how things work in 2009. Even in theater, the one medium where you can't hide behind a computer screen.

Kushner to critics: Please don't review my new play; Critics to Guthrie: Thanks for mishandling this [Minneapolis Star-Tribune]

Labels: Drama, guthrie theater, new media, Playwright, public relations, theater criticism, Tony Kushner

Watch this episode of Theater Talk very carefully. Michael Riedel, the instigator of most of the conversation, is not treating the death of theater criticism as a "what if" question. He's treating it as a given. If the aforementioned death hasn't happened already, it will, in Riedel's viewpoint. Very subtly, he manipulates the conversation to talk about the death of intelligent theater criticism and suggests that the rise of celebrity gossip, outrageous blogging (never mind the outrageousness of his column), and an A.D.D. culture will make the likes of Kenneth Tynan and Clive Barnes obsolete. There's a reason he's doing this: nothing would benefit Riedel personally more than exactly that kind of death.

The panel he assembled includes two critics who are in his pocket; Mike Kuchwara of the Associated Press, the only theater critic who benefits from critics losing their jobs, and Jacques le Sourd, who even Riedel himself has admitted is a close confidant and potential leaker. John Heilpern, for one, is not having any of it, and saves this panel from turning into an outright eulogy for a medium that isn't quite in the coffin. But Riedel wants you to believe it is. Because that would benefit Riedel.

Let's make one thing clear on Riedel: he is not a theater critic. Riedel is a gossip columnist for a trashy tabloid. He will trash shows in his columns, but those are reviews in the same way New York Post covers are editorials. He mainly succeeds by being the only voice for the inner workings of Broadway—for theater geeks, that is exceedingly rare, interesting information. But that he writes about a more obscure field doesn't reduce the fact that he embraces the worst traits of tabloid journalism. He will be nasty instead of being insightful, trade on rumor and shallow personal aspects of the theater scene rather than critical judgment, and he's probably more corrupt in doing so than we like to think. Riedel writes for the New York Post, a publication most good New York theater liberals don't trust with anything else; in fact, they usually despise the paper like nothing else in the New York media. So why should they make an exception for Riedel?

When you think carefully about the source of the eulogies, most of the immediate talk of the death of theater criticism that has gotten the theater press and blogosphere in a tizzy stems from Riedel himself. Figuring himself as a theater critic, Riedel wrote a column in October that bemoaned the dimished role of the theater critic in the internet age. He said nothing new, and I took pains to point out that theater criticism is far from dead. The reason the idea took off, however, was because the theater press figured that if even Riedel is worried, we're in trouble.

Listen, here's what everyone's already known about Riedel even before the death of print began. He's an egotist, unafraid of controversy and utterly devoid of empathy; a careerist, and a manipulator. He is not only willing to trample over anything and anyone to get on top—he takes active glee in the process. These are all the classic traits of a tabloid journalist, and they're the traits that make the rest of the the traditonal journalistic world avoid tabloid journalism like the plague. Riedel just happens to have an Ivy League education and concern himself with a "high art" rarely privy to tabloid journalism anymore in the U.S.. All the conniving parts of his trade and personality are still there.

So I would venture to say that Michael Riedel is actively, intentionally manipulating the talk of theater press to bemoan the death of theater criticism more than actually cover theater. Why would he do this? So he can turn the overall discussion to the TMZ side of theater, maybe even integrate a bit of Hollywood scandal into the stictchings of Broadway "coverage." This would give him the authority in the theater world Ben Brantley and Charles Isherwood currently have.

Watch that video, and you see that Riedel is doing exactly what I have just described in this discussion. Take this panel discussion as a microcosm of the theater discussion at large, and it's scary to think of how powerful Riedel would become if no one had the guts like Heilpern to stand up to him. Normally I don't call on spurned theater artists to fight back against their detractors in the press. But no journalist should instill a culture of fear over a community like Riedel has. It's time the theater community, of New York and the nation, learned to grow a spine and fight him. He's not the sharpest mind we have. He can easily be outwitted.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Theater Critics Lack Job Skills To Survive Depression [The Death Of Print]
• HOW TO SAVE THEATER CRITICISM - Part One
• New York theatre, dance critic Clive Barnes dies at 81

Labels: Broadway theatre, celebrity gossip, john heilpern, michael riedel, new york, new york post, tabloid journalism, theater criticism

Image via Wikipedia You Got Yr Link Bomb is meant as a cross between the Will Cordero Memorial Linkpunch and the Week in Review post of the Gawker Media blog of your choice. Hence: links featuring commentary with heavily regulated snark. These links did not get the full Tynan's Anger treatment, through no fault of their own.

---

Double secret YGYLB probation means three days of YGYLB posts, starting right now.

• My good friend Pat at Albatross Hour, perhaps the most awkward person I know, recommends you watch this video if you feel deprived of Even Stevphen. Trust me: you do.

  The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
  10 F#@king Years - Even Stevphen
  www.thedailyshow.com
  Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

• While were on the subject of video trips down memory lane, see if you can name all the indie icons who graced Pete & Pete. Don't look at the cheat sheet! Via Idolator:
  
  Man, there's no way you can expect a kid to get the Dead Zone reference and not have serious mental problems. My major complaint with the vid is the .5 seconds allotted to Michael Stipe's cameo, despite being the musician who perhaps shaped Pete and Pete's spirit more than anyone else. Have you found your target yet?
• The annual rite of passage of BCS grumbling has started, and Bryan Curtis of the Daily Beast isn't having it, despite Obama's clamors. Or at least he wasn't having it. Bryan Curtis, as it turns out, is a die-hard Texas Longhorns fan. I'd be interested in seeing what he has to say about the BCS now (this is the benefit of having two weeks of YGYLB hindsight).
• According to Clyde Fitch, the excellent Pearl Theater Company is taking new steps to create affordable theater in dire times by eliminating the press comp. For a volunteer critic like me, this is devastating news, but the side of me that likes innovative theater solutions likes the move immensely. I just hope this is treated more as a method of innovation than as a sign of the death of theater criticism (though the Pearl's coverage may suffer as a result of the move).
• Is the NHL starting to take precedent over the NBA, like it supposedly did in 1994? You wouldn't know it from ESPN's coverage, but Puck Daddy's Greg Wyshynski thinks this may be happening. Yes, the NHL's ratings are crappy, but the NBA's ratings aren much better. Plus, at least the NHL still has devoted fans, which are dwindling rapidly in the NBA (Nick Friedell's description of an Orlando Magic game is pretty depressing). Even though the NBA has bigger stars, they're not seen as local stars. Does anyone in Cleveland really think Lebron is staying in 2010? It's starting to look like even Lebron doesn't think so.
• I once praised John Zogby's polling but dismissed his writing. Now it's starting to look like his polling is going sour too. Nate Silver reports that Zogby engaged in ridiculous, empirically-challenged push polling. All of a sudden, the Onion's analysis of Zogby seems more accurate.
• Finally, we have one of the best contrarian, anti-Google SEO articles I've ever read. Riddle me this: instead of fighting with each other over SEO strategies, why is no one calling out Google's leverage over an entire industry? John Andrews shows more courage in SEO writing than has been shown since some dude claimed that all SEO is Black Hat.
  

Related articles by Zemanta

• "Pete & Pete" & Stephin & Sarah & David & Debbie & Gordon &... [Videodrone]
• Longhorns Hope for an Upset, but May Not Like the Result

Labels: Adventures of Pete and Pete, bcs, daily show, even stevphen, google, john zogby, lebron james, nba, nhl, press comps, seo, texas football, theater criticism, you got yr. link bomb

Just as I advocate abolishing numerical ratings for theater reviews, the secret gets out about Critic-O-Meter, a site that does just that in terms of the Metacritic/Rotten Tomatoes format. While I am dismayed that the site exists, I certainly don't hold anything against its creators, who have been doing stunning work. At the very least, they validated my point that American Buffalo got some good reviews. I applaud the diligence of Isaac and Rob, even as I become dismayed at the prospect of a theater Metacritic.

Labels: critic-o-meter, metacrtic, numerical ratings, rotten tomatoes, theater criticism, theater reviews

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

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 explore the relevance of theater in a digital age. In Part Three, I will conclude my discussion by outlining the role of a theater critic in the current economic and cultural climate.

---

PART TWO: Would Kenneth Tynan Twitter? Theater as the ultimate digital diversion.

Most sane people don’t go into theater criticism for a paycheck. Arts criticism in general is becoming an even less profitable way of making money, and theater criticism as a non-academic profession is at this point almost as extinct as the panda (though the image of an attempted mating between a caged Mary McCarthy and Walter Kerr is significantly less adorable). When in doubt, current critics like to point to the death of theater in general. But theater isn’t dead—it’s still got a national appeal even as it has become centralized in a few major areas, and there are communities—yes they’re fragmented, Prof—around the country.

The main reason people go into theater criticism, however, is their desire to be at something like a modern-day Algonquin Roundtable. The theater critic carries a history of status and image that the middle-aged sweater-wearing film critic or the drug-fueled rock critic lacks. There are paintings in New York subway stations of theater critics surrounded by the likes of Eugene O’Neill and George S. Kaufman, Harpo Marx and Edna Ferber. It may seem completely irrational to go into a field for a 70-year-old image, but theater critics do so all the same.

These are the same critics who find absolutely no respite in the digital age. With multiple critics being old, that is to be expected. But there seems to be a larger theme of the Algonquin image crumbling under the image of new media. Would Kenneth Tynan Twitter? Would Bernard Shaw post his rants on his blog without editing them beforehand? The idea of the print journalist critic losing his voice in the digital age hits especially hard with theater criticism, since theater can never really be tapped digitally.

Rather than a problem, however, I say that theater’s distinctly analog qualities are precisely what can make theater vital in the digital age, and make theater criticism just as vital. Theater is defined by performers performing in front of a live audience, as in an audience who is actually in the same room. Live performance cannot be replicated by a computer. Both dance and music, other methods of live performance, can be translated to digital media (though they differ from their live counterparts, the core of the medium stays the same). Theater, however, is the part of live dance and music that doesn’t translate digitally. Theater is absolutely untouchable—have you ever tried watching a taped performance of a show? It’s almost unbearable, even though you’re still seeing all the actions that would take place in person.

What this means to me is that, rather than being outdated by technology, theater can regain its importance in society simply because it is the only medium where in-person human interaction is built into its DNA. If art exists as a means of pleasure to take us away from our daily lives, theaters artistic power is amplified in a culture where all other human interaction is digital. With other forms of digitalized art, the value of entertainment and diversion gets cheapened and makes the audience lazy. Why go to the movies when I can wait until its on-demand? Why go to the record store when there’s a record store on my computer? There’s no way to encounter theater without it essentially turning into a night out. The need to go out at night won’t diminish, which means theater could increasingly prove to be a sociological necessity.

That theater can’t exist in the digital realm also places an increased premium on theater criticism. With digital access to any other form of art, people can make judgments for themselves without putting on pants. You don’t need to go through the effort to deem whether a work of art is worthy of your time, and increasingly, you don’t need to decide whether to spend money on that art, legally or otherwise. But with theater, there’s no way of knowing what goes on without actually being there. If someone is looking for an assessment of a play, they cannot download the play and judge for themselves. The need for an independent party to relay their experience, whether on the blogosphere or in a major paper, is at a higher demand for theater than for any other form of art. That’s the closest link to the Algonquin era that we’re going to get.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Marsha Norman on Theater Critics
• Books of Style: Snapshots of a Century, Portraits of Celebrities
• Theater Critics Lack Job Skills To Survive Depression [The Death Of Print]

Labels: digital vs. analog, how to save theater criticism, kenneth tynan, Mary McCarthy, new media, reproducable art, theater criticism

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 will explore differences in the theatergoing experience between the critic and uncommitted audience member. In Part Two, I will explore the relevance of theater in a digital age. In Part Three, I will conclude my discussion by outlining the role of a theater critic in the current economic and cultural climate.

---

PART ONE
No Sex for the Critic: Why theater critics are not normal people
How do normal people see theater? Normal people go to a show with their significant other, usually with dinner beforehand. After they see the show, they go home, have sex, and go to sleep.

When a theater critic sees a play, he needs to find time in this cycle to write a review. When exactly can the critic fit that in? Do critics write reviews before sex? After sex? During? (At least in their heads). Do they wait until their significant other goes to sleep, then get out of bed at 3 a.m. and write the review? That doesn’t sound all that healthy.

The point of this admittedly silly thought experiment is to show that there is no real way to reconcile what a theater critic does with what a regular audience member experiences seeing theater. If you have a deadline, you can’t act like a normal individual when you see theater. If you’re a good critic, you also need to think intensely about the show, and do research before and after seeing it. But the very nature of the theatrical experience as it relates to one’s mundane life is fundamentally different between the critic and the normal audience member.

That difference does not mean that the critic is out of touch with the audience, nor does it mean that the critic is the only one expert enough to opine on a show. But this problem does offer an explanation for why the opinions of the critic and audience member clash so frequently. If the fundamental experience of a show is different, of course opinions will vary. The important thing is to remember that the critic’s primary responsibility is to the reader, and to know what kind of audience is reading the publication you’re writing for. No publication represents a perfect cross section of a play’s audience, even for small, far off-off-Broadway shows.

Here's where I go out on a limb: what I’m arguing is that it is not the critic’s responsibility to tell the reader whether or not to see a show. The fact that the audience member has to pay money to see theater, while the critic does not, creates an irrevocable disparity between the critic and reader in the decision to see a show in the first place. Instead, the critic should focus on what his audience should keep in mind about a show when (not if) they do see it. The essential role of the critic is to give voice to an opinion that represents a segment of the theatergoing audience about what was good about a show, what wasn’t, and what was significant regardless of quality. If a theater critic doesn’t do this—whether it be in the New York Times or in a blog no one reads—who does?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Theater Critics Lack Job Skills To Survive Depression [The Death Of Print]

Labels: albertine theatre, Arts, audience relations, critics, how to save theater criticism, new york times, theater criticism, Theater in the United States

A lot of theater bloggers like to malign Michael Feingold. I am not one of them. His general disdain for new media is not all that out of line for his trade or age group, and he's less obnoxious about it than many others (he's also smart as hell). However, if he's going to criticize bloggers for being uncouth, he better not go around and criticize actors (especially one as established as Richard Griffiths) solely for being fat. I don't know how many people picked up on the fat joke from Feingold's review of the Daniel Radcliffe Equus:

The hogwash taints Sharrock's production particularly because Griffiths, a capable actor hopelessly miscast, never suggests a man whose inner discontent is constantly gnawing at him. On the contrary: Griffiths's placidly adipose Santa Claus of a shrink seems to have done far too much gnawing himself.

I found this line perfectly horrid and completely tasteless, straight from the Rex Reed playbook. In fairness, I have not seen the Broadway Equus yet, but I know Feingold is not alone in seeing Griffiths as miscast. What's egregious, however, is to say that Griffiths is miscast for the part simply because he is obese. Besides being unfairly mean, it's also a completely baseless claim. There's nothing saying shrinks, or even Dysart's character in particular, can't be overweight. If Feingold had a reason for not wanting a fat Dysart, he should have explained why it didn't fit the role. Instead, he basically mocked Griffiths in third grade style, veiled by a graduate school vocabulary.

It was less than two years ago when Timothy Noah slammed the Academy Awards as having a fat bias for not nominating Griffiths for The History Boys. I didn't believe it at the time, but if Feingold's review of Equus is any indication, it may be time to start addressing that bias more seriously.

The Academy's fatty problem - [Slate]
Equus, The Tempest, and The Glass Cage—Old Texts That Need Some Old-Style Theatrical Flair - [Village Voice]

Labels: broadway, equus, michael feingold, obesity, richard griffiths, theater criticism, village voice

Sooner or later, us critics are going to have to go medieval with our defenses of criticism. The latest comes from Time Out Chicago's Kris Vire. I was initially fooled by the "University Theatre" label fool you, that's University of Arkansas' University Theatre. The blasted "-re/-er" distinction strikes again. But then again, I don't see Darren McFadden studying Shakespeare with David Bevington so I guess I'm cool with that.

Labels: kris vire, theater criticism, time out chicago, univeristy of chicago

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