Theater and the Critic

Believe it or not, there are times when even I don't know who I'm interviewing.

Ever since I started having these conversations, I've gotten emails from people asking if they could talk to me without revealing their identity.  One of those emails lead to the book that's coming out this year.  A lot of them I don't have the time to explore.

This one caught my eye.

Here's the interview:

ME:  How long have you been a critic?

THEM:  Fourteen years in the job I'm at now.  I worked for seven years at another paper before that.  I did a year as a food critic.  That was nice.

ME:  Why'd you give that up?

THEM:  That was a side thing.  I didn't do it for very long.

ME:  What prompted you to email me?

THEM:  Somebody sent me an interview you did with someone who spoke about an arts funding group trying to exert influence over the local media.  The person who sent it to me asked 'Is this you?'  It was someone aware of my dilemma.

ME:  What's the dilemma?

THEM:  Three years ago, I published--or I tried to publish--a review that was not favorable of a play called _______ produced by _________ , which is a well-known company here. I found one or two nice things to say about the production, but for the most part, it was not a good review.  One of the things I enjoyed about the show was the lead actor's performance.  It was serviceable.  I think I said something about it being serviceable.  I'd have to go back and check to see the exact wording, but I thought he did a fine job.  I send my review to the editor.  The review gets printed.  The headline reads something like 'Breakout Performance from ______.'

ME:  In reference to the lead actor?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  Now, doesn't that happen all the time?  You don't get to write your headlines, correct?

THEM:  I don't, and yes, it's not uncommon for a headline to--to not always reflect what's in the review itself, but to me, this was very strange, because I hadn't said the performance was a break-out performance.  I felt like it was misleading enough where I had to go to my editor about it.

ME:  And did you?

THEM:  I did.

ME:  And what did they say?

THEM:  They said that headline was their purview.

ME:  Meaning they have the right to put whatever headline they want?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  Did that bother you?

THEM:  It bothered me enough to speak to them about it, but once I got my answer, I let it go.  I didn't think too much of it other than that the editor was in a good mood that day and didn't agree with my assessment of the production.

ME:  Do you know if they saw the production?

THEM:  People can have opinions about things they've never seen.

ME:  (Laughs.)  Someone's head is going to explode reading that.

THEM:  I'm not saying they're entitled to those opinions, but you know what I mean--

ME:  No, I get where you're coming from.

THEM:  The review was--I really didn't care for the show.  I thought the editor might have felt I was being cruel and wanted to balance the scales.

ME:  But that would be unethical, wouldn't it?

THEM:  I feel that it wouldn't be...professional.  I don't know if I'd say unethical.  If you read the review, they didn't change anything I wrote.  I felt that if how they wanted to compensate for what I wrote was to throw somebody a bone in the headline, then go right ahead.  If somebody reads a headline then rushes to buy a ticket before reading the review, that's on them.

ME:  Before we go any further, do you think people should buy tickets based on what they read in reviews?

THEM:  No.  My review is my opinion.  You could have a totally different opinion and the only way you're going to know is if you see the play yourself.

ME:  But you're supposed to help people in deciding whether--

THEM:  I don't see that as my job.  You make decisions about how you spend your money.  If you think you might like something, then take the risk.  I'm just here to add to the conversation.

ME:  But you're given a platform to do so?

THEM:  We all have a platform now, don't we?  There are blogs that get more attention that my newspaper.

ME:  Sorry, I just rarely get to have frank conversations with critics, so I was getting too philosophical.

THEM:  That's okay.

ME:  What was the next, uh, editorial transgression?

THEM:  (Laughs.)  It was a short time after that.  A sentence was removed from one of my reviews about an actor whose performance I didn't care for.

ME:  Same company?

THEM:  Same company, yes.

ME:  Did you go to the editor?

THEM:  I did.

ME:  What did they say?

THEM:  That the piece needed to be trimmed.  I said if it needed shortening I'd be happy to do that, but I'd like that sentence put back in and I'd like to take something else out instead.  I was told that it wasn't anything worth worrying about and, once again, I dropped it.

ME:  Did you have any inkling that things were going in a strange direction?

THEM:  Editors are--in my experience--because this is my sixth editor--there are a lot of ups and downs.  In general, in life, I don't try to figure people out.  I also pick my battles.  I'm also telling you this now as though it was a pattern of behavior, but at the time, it didn't seem that way, because there were other things going on at the paper.  Budget cuts.  Staff lay-offs.  We were all worried about bigger things.  If that weren't the case, I might have pushed a little harder on a few things.

ME:  But then you got called in for a meeting.

THEM:  Yes.  This was at another theater--a sizable one.  We have--I would say we have a robust theater scene where I'm located.  There are a handful that are thought of as being really--the major players, let's say.  I also want to make it a point that I don't always give bad reviews, but I know that people who know me would say I'm not the easiest person to please.  I'll own that, but I don't try to do any harm when I write something negative.  If you looked at my reviews, you'd see I don't go for punching down.  I'm saying that, because when I got called into this meeting, it was over a review I'd written about a production of _________ in which I was told I needed to change the review.

ME:  What did they--this was your editor?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  What did they mean by change it?

THEM:  They felt it was unfair.

ME:  Unfair in what way?

THEM:  They accused me of being biased.

ME:  Of course you're biased, you're a critic.

THEM:  In this case, they tried to say that the review read as though I had a vendetta against the theater.

ME:  Did you?

THEM:  (Laughs.)  No.

ME:  Had you written positive things about them in the past?

THEM:  Many times.

ME:  Did the editor take issue with anything specific in the review?

THEM:  Not that I recall.

ME:  So they just wanted you to write a good review for a show you didn't like?

THEM:  No.  That wasn't--That wasn't what was said--and I'm sure that was the point.

ME:  To not say it?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  So instead--

THEM:  [They] wanted something more on the line.

ME:  They wanted you to ease up on the negativity?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  So don't like, but tell less of the truth.

THEM:  (Laughs.)  Something like that.

ME:  What did you say?

THEM:  I said I wouldn't do it.

ME:  How did that go over?

THEM:  Not well.

ME:  (Laughs.)  Did you argue?

THEM:  Oh yes.

ME:  So what happened?

THEM:  [They] threatened to have someone else go and review the show instead.  We have two other reviewers at the paper.  I'm the senior writer, but they're both excellent in their own right.  I said if [the editor] wanted to send one of them, that would be fine with me, but that I would not be changing my review of the play.

ME:  And did they send another reviewer?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  And what happened?

THEM:  That reviewer hated the show too.

ME:  Did the editor have a meeting with the second reviewer?

THEM:  I don't know.  I do know they sent the third reviewer and that's the review that got published.

ME:  Was it a good review?

THEM:  It wasn't good, but it wasn't bad.

ME:  It was on the line?

THEM:  Yes.  It was on the line.

ME:  At that point, did you get any kind of--

THEM:  At that point, yes.

ME:  You were concerned?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  What happened next?

THEM:  I thought I could get ahead of the problem by offering to take myself off the list to review for that theater.

ME:  What did your editor say?

THEM:  Nothing.  It's not--it's not that uncommon for a reviewer--for different reasons--to recuse themselves from reviewing at specific theaters or reviewing productions with certain actors in them--that kind of thing.

ME:  Okay.

THEM:  But the theater objected, because I'm thought of as being the lead critic and they want to be reviewed by the lead critic.

ME:  Even if it's a negative review?

THEM:  They never knew that last review would have been negative, but I had given them negative reviews in the past, and they don't like it, but they still wanted me to come review.

ME:  Which is kind of a testament to you.

THEM:  I think they--I would hope they would agree that I'm fair.

ME:  So they protested?

THEM:  They asked me to keep going there so I said, 'All right' and I thought that because they had asked for me to review them, whatever I had to say in the future--good or bad--would be acceptable.

ME:  Okay.

THEM:  Everything was okay for about a year.  There was also a lot of good theater going on, so I doubt I wrote many negative reviews--possibly none.  Then I go back to the first theater I mentioned--

ME:  The one where the headline got changed?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  Okay.

THEM:  They did a version of ______ that I didn't like.  I wrote the review.  I submitted it.  I get called in to a meeting.

ME:  Another meeting.

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  What were you asked to do this time?

THEM:  Change the review.

ME:  That was flat-out--

THEM:  No, again, it was suggested.  But it was a clear suggestion.

ME:  What did you say?

THEM:  This time I asked a question I was hesitant to ask the last time which is--I asked the editor, 'Do you have some stake in this company or any company?'  Because while all this was going on, other theaters in the area were being reviewed negatively--not all the time--but there didn't seem to be any outcry when some of the other theaters got a negative review.

ME:  Were those theaters bigger or smaller than the ones you were reviewing?

THEM:  Smaller.

ME:  Can I ask some leading questions I already know the answers to?

THEM:  (Laughs.)  For your readers?  Go right ahead.

ME:  Did the smaller theaters who were allowed to get negatively reviewed advertise in your paper?

THEM:  No.

ME:  Did the bigger theaters that you had to have meetings about advertise in your paper?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  Before you say it, I'll say--nobody can prove there's a correlation there, but I think it's worth--

THEM:  I can prove there's a correlation.

ME:  You can?

THEM:  Oh yes.

ME:  How?

THEM:  One of the other reviewers was friendlier with [the editor] than I was, and it was explained to them--in a friendly conversation at a party or something, a work event--that we had to keep those theaters happy, because they advertise with us.  It was also explained to them--this other reviewer--that we should be going out of our way to give them good reviews because bad reviews could really hurt sales and if these theaters close, where would that leave us?

ME:  Do you agree with any of that?

THEM:  No.  If theaters want good reviews, do good work.

ME:  But good work is subjective.

THEM:  Kevin, if a theater in my area did Hamilton next year, and I said it was unwatchable, do you think anyone would care?  No.  People see what they want to see.  I'm not saying that reviews hold no weight, but they're no longer the determining factor in whether or not people buy tickets, and if your show fails because of a bad review, then you need to build a stronger relationship with your audience.

ME:  Can you elaborate on that?

THEM:  Yes.  A theater has a relationship to an audience.  The audience might also have a relationship with a critic, but the relationship they have to the theater should be stronger, but if it's not, then yes, an audience is going to say 'Based on what I read I'm going to make a decision, because I trust the critic more than I trust this theater.'  But I've seen many examples of theaters that had a core audience that supported a theater regardless of what the reviews said.  It doesn't mean they liked everything they saw, but they felt it was important to make a commitment to the theater and what it produced--good or bad.

ME:  I don't know if we have any theaters like that where I'm from--maybe one.

THEM:  That's too bad.  It's just my opinion, but if your audience comes and goes based on what a review says, then you don't really have an audience at all.

ME:  What happened when you said you asked your editor about his investment in some of these companies?

THEM:  I was told that was out of line.

ME:  As opposed to being on the line.

THEM:  [The editor] got very irate and things were said.

ME:  Were you worried about being fired?

THEM:  Not at that time, no.

ME:  How did they justify asking you to change the review?  Did you already know at that point about the conversation they'd had with another reviewer?

THEM:  No, that was told to me later.

ME:  So what was the justification?

THEM:  It came back to me having a grudge against the theater.

ME:  Against multiple theaters apparently.

THEM:  That was the line they were going with--I'm not sure what else they could have come up with, so that's the reason that was given.

ME:  That you needed to write a good review of a show you didn't like, because otherwise it would be proof that you just didn't like this theater?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  But it would still be asking you to lie.

THEM:  I said something similar.

ME:  And?

THEM:  I was told that if I couldn't find a way to reframe my review in a way that was more in keeping with the arts coverage at the time, then a bigger conversation needed to be had about my position at the paper.

ME:  Blackmail.

THEM:  Sounds like it, doesn't it?

ME:  What did they mean about it being in keeping with the arts coverage?

THEM:  There was a disproportionate amount of coverage for some of these theaters than others, and I think the point was being made that a bad review would counter some of that positive coverage.

ME:  Because a feature is nice, but a bad review would make it irrelevant?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  But that happens all the time.  Entertainment Weekly will put a movie star on the front cover and then trash their movie on the inside.

THEM:  Presumably they have different people writing the features and the reviews.  At our paper, we didn't have enough staffing to do that, so I wasn't doing features, but the other reviewers were--it was all under one roof.

ME:  So the editor was trying to say it would look like you all weren't on the same page?

THEM:  I don't think that was an honest concern, but it was voiced as a concern.

ME:  Did the smaller theaters ever get any of that coverage?

THEM:  Little to none.

ME:  Just checking.  Did you change the review?

THEM:  I edited it as best I could.

ME:  Did that work?

THEM:  It was edited further without my consent.

ME:  Aren't there people you can go to when this kind of stuff happens?

THEM:  Yes, but then I'd have to continue working where I am with the people I work with and I didn't want to find out what that would be like if I tried to fight this.

ME:  Have you been looking for work at other places?

THEM:  It probably won't surprise you to hear that there aren't a lot of open positions for theater critics.

ME:  Gotcha.  Are you allowed to write any negative reviews for larger theaters in your area?

THEM:  I haven't really tried to since all this happened.  I highlight elements in different productions that I thought didn't work, but sometimes I don't even bother to do that.  I'm not as young as I used to be, and all of this carries with it a lot of stress.  I tell myself at the end of the day that the world isn't going to crash into the sun because somebody had to say something nice when they didn't want to.

ME:  But it must feel like you're compromising your integrity?

THEM:  It does, yes.

ME:  I'm sorry.

THEM:  Thank you.

ME:  Do you think this is happening at other papers?

THEM:  I know it is.  I've had other conversations with other writers.  In this instance, it's not sinister.  Not to my knowledge anyway.  It's just about the bottom line.  In other places, from what I've heard, there are real efforts being made to spotlight certain theaters and drag down other ones.

ME:  Why?

THEM:  Because somebody's cousin is on the board of one and someone doesn't like an actor at another.  In bigger cities, I'm not sure you have these problems.

ME:  You're a writer in a bigger city--

THEM:  Which is why I think I'm lucky enough to only have this be a problem because we need to worry about ad dollars.

ME:  Does it make you feel better knowing that's the reason?

THEM:  I wouldn't say better.

ME:  I want to end the interview by asking--What's the meanest thing you ever said about someone?

THEM:  (Laughs.)  You're going to make me sound very sympathetic.

ME:  I'm just curious.

THEM:  Because everyone remembers what the meanest thing a critic ever said about them was?

ME:  That's why, yes.

THEM:  What's the meanest thing one ever said about you?

ME:  Uh--I remember 'overwrought and overwritten' about a one-act I wrote.

THEM:  That's not too bad.

ME:  No, it's really not.  And they said much nicer things after that.  Plus, they weren't wrong.  It was over-written.

THEM:  Was it overwrought?

ME:  Well, everything I write is overwrought.

THEM:  (Laughs.)  I'd like to see something you've written.

ME:  Okay, but you have to be nice.

THEM:  You're right.  I'll have to be.

Them has been a critic for over twenty years.