The Critics Say...: 57 Theater Reviewers in New York and Beyond Discuss Their Craft and Its Future Read Online Free

got it into their heads that people are interested in reading reviews—though perhaps less so now than previously. It’s part of a package of cultural information that appeals to an audience that advertisers want to target. I don’t think there’s a lot to say about theater criticism as an art form. It can be done well, and it can be done poorly. But fundamentally, it’s a business, just like any other. Even Shaw did it for the money.
    Peter Marks: Traditionally, theater criticism was a service for the readers, to let them know which shows to see. It then grew beyond being just a consumer guide. As the theater became more diverse and complex, as the stories and the forms became more varied, there was more reason for someone to have a conversation with the audience about what was going on in the art form.
    Frank Rizzo: I used to review rock concerts, which would come into town and leave the next day. And I would think, Why are we covering this? After all, the show’s gone. But people want to know what it was like to be there—to be part of that experience. Theater has a lot more to offer than concerts. Shows have longer runs, so people can read a review and become inspired to go to the theater. But even if they don’t go, they can still feel like they’re part of a cultural community. I read reviews from all over the country. I’m not going to see those shows, but I can feel what it was like to be in that audience.
    Jeremy Gerard: Critics offer a skeleton key into thinking about a subject. They help us to see things with open eyes, open hearts, and open minds. Good critics are not people I agree with all the time. Often, they’re people I disagree with, but whose intellect I respect, and who help me see things in a show that I hadn’t thought about before.
    Elizabeth Vincentelli: From a pragmatic point of view, there are a lot of shows out there and tickets are not cheap. People’s time and money are at a premium, so you want to direct them towards the shows that are worth their attention. A big Broadway show is not necessarily worth their attention. They may be better off with a small, experimental thing that tries to do something and succeeds in its own universe.
    David Cote: Criticism and reviews provide a direct response to works of art. There’s nothing worse than putting art out there, putting your soul out there, into a void. Even if you can afford the most expensive marketing and advertising, it’s still a void. We also serve the function of telling people what we think of certain works and shaping the discourse around them. If critics went away, it would be a horrible blow to art.
    Michael Dale: Theater critics provide an informed opinion. While it’s true that that any opinion can be a valid one, a theater critic working in New York will review well over 100 productions a year. They don’t just see what they want to see. They commit themselves to seeing every major production and a wide variety of other productions, so their reviews come with a thorough knowledge of what is happening and developing in the theater.
    Howard Shapiro: Critics provide more than just comments from friends. While everyone can have ideas about a show, usually they don’t. Usually they just say, “I liked it” or “I didn’t like it.” That’s not being a critic.
    Chris Jones: There is a need within the artistic enterprise for somebody to deliver some kind of verdict. In the theater, you start with an idea. Maybe you have a workshop or a tryout and then a full production. At that point, someone has to say, “This is good” or “This is not good,” or maybe even, “This is great.” That person can’t have a stake in the production. It has to be somebody who is unbiased but has the context to be able to judge that production and relate it to other work.
    Ben Brantley: In the best of all possible worlds—one where people went to the theater without reading reviews—theater critics would be there to continue the