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

conversation, start an argument, give a nod of affirmation, or whatever. I like to read other kinds of criticism after I’ve seen a movie or read a book. I think there are people like me who enjoy reading criticism—even of things that they won’t see—if the critic can recreate the experience in writing. Ideally, that is what criticism should do. Sometimes you can kind of get off on someone else’s enthusiasm.
    Peter Filichia: Not everyone agrees with me, but I say we’re here to let people know what they’d enjoy. I want to be an audience matchmaker. Most of my reviews are positive because I specifically slant them to the people who will enjoy a certain show. I see no reason why critics should only give their own opinions. They’re writing for an audience. It’s about the reader. It’s not about me. I don’t care if I have a good time or not. I am there to determine who would like the show.
    John Simon: Being a consumer guide is the most pathetic and inadequate way of looking at drama criticism. Unfortunately, that is the way many publications—perhaps even most—look at it. That is the last thing that matters. What matters is trying to understand what the work is and what it isn’t and to reveal that to your own satisfaction—assuming that you apply high standards to your own work, which you should if you’re a critic.
    Linda Winer: For me, the consumer guide function has always been the least interesting part of the job. I don’t want to devote my life to telling people whether or not to spend $50 or $100 or even $500 on something. I think we have theater critics to continue the conversation. Everybody walks out of the theater talking about plays, and we are part of that conversation. I think a good critic is someone with an interesting mind. It isn’t the yes or the no that matters—it’s the why . Everything we do is about trying to explain the why . That is harder and harder to do with reduced space. But for me, that’s the goal.
    Roma Torre: I go back and forth about this. Sometimes it’s consumer-oriented, in that you’re steering people to see or not see something based on its quality and its cost, but I think the main function of a theater critic is to assess the intrinsic merit of a piece of theater. There are many aspects to that, and a lot of intangibles as to what make for good theater. But if we do our jobs correctly, we can help maintain a sense of quality control within the art form.
    Steven Suskin: How do prospective ticket buyers decide what to see? If you’re in a town with only two theaters operating at any given moment, you can find out easily enough what’s playing. But in New York, there’s so much out there. It’s easy to say, “I want to see The Book of Mormon . That’s supposed to be really good.” But there are a lot of Off Broadway shows, and even Off Off Broadway shows, that are worthwhile. I don’t think there is any way that theatergoers will find out about them unless they read something urging them to go, and that’s what theater critics do. I don’t think our job is to tell people whether it’s good or bad. Our job is to give the readers enough information so that they can say, “Oh, I’m interested in this.”
    Michael Schulman: If it’s done well, criticism is certainly more than providing a kind of consumer report. Critics are people with an analytical ability who deconstruct the experience of seeing theater. Criticism deepens the art and deepens the experience for all audience members. And since theater evolves and is ephemeral, we need theater critics to document and analyze what’s happening with the theater as an art form: how it changes, how it grows, where it missteps, and where it finds insight into the human condition.
    Leonard Jacobs: More than evaluating or passing judgment, the main function of theater criticism is to teach—whether that’s teaching the public, the industry, or other critics.
    Andy Propst: In the ideal world, a critic is