One thing is for certain:
Getting a bad review will not help sell your show.
Or will it?
I mean, think of Spiderman...
Okay, but let's talk about things at the regional level, since anything at the Broadway level is so wild it's like trying to explain chaos theory.
Actually chaos theory and theater are sort of--
Anyway, a bad review doesn't help.
A really bad review may even tank a production, and a few really bad reviews could probably shut down a small theater.
But what about good reviews?
If a bad review doesn't help sell a show, does it stand to reason that a good review would help sell a show?
Sadly, it doesn't seem like that logic is true, and we're the reason behind it.
Well, when I say "we're" what I mean is all of you and not me.
Because I'm the author of this piece, so of course, I'm innocent.
The way I see it, there are two reasons why a good review wouldn't help sell a show:
1) The content of the show sounds unappealing. I remember when "Next to Normal" came to PPAC, and the review for the show was glowing, but it didn't sell. It's probably because people weren't familiar with the show AND it was about a dysfunctional family with a bipolar mother. Oh sure, the show's great, but if you're trying to sell it based on what it's about, you're going to have a tough road ahead of you.
So there's that.
But! --in addition to that, there's also #2.
2) We're dissolving the meaning of reviews.
Well, again, not "we." This time, I mean critics.
Recently, something's been happening to the critics in Rhode Island.
They've become...nicer.
Well, for the most part anyway.
The small-town newspapers always erred on the side of the positive, but the Journal and the Phoenix could always be counted on for a scathing review now and again.
Now, it seems like they're ready to praise anything and everything.
It's obvious that this stems from that fear that I mentioned earlier--a bad review can seriously impact a theater nowadays.
So maybe they're just trying to be more supportive.
Yes, that's great, but there is such a thing as being too supportive.
Loving anything unconditionally, including a theater, doesn't always help that thing grow.
Let's think about this--what are the odds that every major and minor theater in this area has done nothing but amazing work for the past three years?
Oh sure, every once in awhile a show will get panned, but I've seen way more that deserved a scolding and somehow walked away with a rave.
So what does this do?
It takes away anyone's faith in the value of a good review--especially the audience's.
And what's dangerous about that is that a lot of good shows have the potential to get lost in the shuffle, because audiences don't trust that when a critic or other artists in the community say they're good that they actually are good.
We can't stick to this belief that defending and supporting all theater is a good thing. We don't gain anything by protecting the bad shows. It just makes us look ignorant to our own art form when people outside the community see this stuff and wonder why we told them they should go check it out. I'll go see just about anything, but if most general audience members see a bad show, they're not going to be inclined to see theater again for awhile.
In New York, they don't pull any punches. They encourage the good, and say "Out with the bad." And yeah, sometimes good stuff gets tossed out too, but better to set the bar high.
Only the strong survives there.
Well, the strong and Spiderman, but that's another story...
Getting a bad review will not help sell your show.
Or will it?
I mean, think of Spiderman...
Okay, but let's talk about things at the regional level, since anything at the Broadway level is so wild it's like trying to explain chaos theory.
Actually chaos theory and theater are sort of--
Anyway, a bad review doesn't help.
A really bad review may even tank a production, and a few really bad reviews could probably shut down a small theater.
But what about good reviews?
If a bad review doesn't help sell a show, does it stand to reason that a good review would help sell a show?
Sadly, it doesn't seem like that logic is true, and we're the reason behind it.
Well, when I say "we're" what I mean is all of you and not me.
Because I'm the author of this piece, so of course, I'm innocent.
The way I see it, there are two reasons why a good review wouldn't help sell a show:
1) The content of the show sounds unappealing. I remember when "Next to Normal" came to PPAC, and the review for the show was glowing, but it didn't sell. It's probably because people weren't familiar with the show AND it was about a dysfunctional family with a bipolar mother. Oh sure, the show's great, but if you're trying to sell it based on what it's about, you're going to have a tough road ahead of you.
So there's that.
But! --in addition to that, there's also #2.
2) We're dissolving the meaning of reviews.
Well, again, not "we." This time, I mean critics.
Recently, something's been happening to the critics in Rhode Island.
They've become...nicer.
Well, for the most part anyway.
The small-town newspapers always erred on the side of the positive, but the Journal and the Phoenix could always be counted on for a scathing review now and again.
Now, it seems like they're ready to praise anything and everything.
It's obvious that this stems from that fear that I mentioned earlier--a bad review can seriously impact a theater nowadays.
So maybe they're just trying to be more supportive.
Yes, that's great, but there is such a thing as being too supportive.
Loving anything unconditionally, including a theater, doesn't always help that thing grow.
Let's think about this--what are the odds that every major and minor theater in this area has done nothing but amazing work for the past three years?
Oh sure, every once in awhile a show will get panned, but I've seen way more that deserved a scolding and somehow walked away with a rave.
So what does this do?
It takes away anyone's faith in the value of a good review--especially the audience's.
And what's dangerous about that is that a lot of good shows have the potential to get lost in the shuffle, because audiences don't trust that when a critic or other artists in the community say they're good that they actually are good.
We can't stick to this belief that defending and supporting all theater is a good thing. We don't gain anything by protecting the bad shows. It just makes us look ignorant to our own art form when people outside the community see this stuff and wonder why we told them they should go check it out. I'll go see just about anything, but if most general audience members see a bad show, they're not going to be inclined to see theater again for awhile.
In New York, they don't pull any punches. They encourage the good, and say "Out with the bad." And yeah, sometimes good stuff gets tossed out too, but better to set the bar high.
Only the strong survives there.
Well, the strong and Spiderman, but that's another story...
Comments
Post a Comment