There's a line from Mary Stuart by Friedrich Schiller that I love. It's spoken by Mary to her servant Hannah, after they have been put in exile and faced years of injustice. Depending on the translation, it goes something like this:
In the fair moments of our former splendor
We lent to flatterers a too willing ear;—
It is but just, good Hannah, we should now
Be forced to hear the bitter voice of censure.
Believe it or not, when I first read this quote, it struck me that it could be about theater.
At the time, I was reading Robert Brustein's brilliant book "Letters to a Young Actor," and in one of the chapters, he talks about how for a time while he was the Artistic Director of A.R.T., he banned putting quotes from reviews on posters for the student shows.
The reason behind it was that he felt that the students were learning and that it wasn't constructive to let Boston critics have at them. In general, he felt that reviews shouldn't be plastered on posters anyway, but his marketing department overrode him by saying that pointing out good reviews can help sell a show.
Still, I think of that quote, and I wonder what his marketing department would say when the show didn't get good reviews.
There are so many instances of great work not getting a chance to be seen or heard while it was going on because critics at the time didn't understand or appreciate it. Think of all the films that got bad reviews upon their release only to achieve cult status years later. Matt Damon once said that you can't judge a film until ten years after its release, and he might be right. Pretty much everybody would say that a factor in judging art is whether or not it stands the test of time, otherwise why would we criticize something for being topical?
All of this leads me to a decision I've made recently.
I am no longer going to post reviews on my Facebook page.
Sounds silly, right? Big deal?
Except, for me, it sort of is.
Facebook has become the way we promote ourselves. In a way, it's where we put up our posters.
I've put up links to reviews when they said I did well, only to ignore the ones that didn't like something I'd done. We're all so quick to compliment someone on getting a rave, but when they get panned, we tell them critics don't know what they're talking about.
Well, which is it?
I don't particularly think critics, as a rule, are idiots, nor do I think their opinion has no value. Actually, I think everybody's opinion has a value. I'm not going to lie and say I'm no longer reading reviews, or that I won't get excited when I get a good one. I'm just not posting them any longer, because they shouldn't mean as much to me as they do. Hearing my friends and colleagues, fellow actors and mentors, tell me that they saw something I did and liked it--that's what should mean the most to me.
In a state where The Lion King gets reviewed three times while incredible local theater is beginning to flourish and subsequently get ignored by the major newspaper in the city, why promote that paper by posting links to it on your profile? Why use it to sell your shows? Why not let audiences make up their own minds?
It's been proven that good theater can not only survive, but thrive, on word of mouth. We shouldn't brainwash audiences into only going to see theater strictly because two or three critics told them is worthwhile. We should put up our posters and say, decide for yourselves.
I've enjoyed some shows that critics loathed, and it's not because I was right or they were wrong, but because people have different tastes.
I now find myself going home to check the reviews of a show I just saw to see whether or not I was right for liking it or hating it. That's total insanity.
There are also the critics who give nothing but good reviews, which I feel isn't helpful either. I'm not looking to be universally praised (all right, I am) but to say that every production is flawless is just not helpful. It's only when you point out what could be better that people actually get better, and yet those reviews get put up on Facebook as if they came down from Heaven.
"Look! Now it's official! We did a good show!"
Does anybody else feel like saying "Screw that?"
If a hundred people see your show, and only ten people enjoyed it--yes, those numbers are ideal, but that means you still gave ten people an enjoyable evening of theater. You took away a bit of their stress. Perhaps you even made them look at something in a new way, or gave them a laugh they really needed.
Since when did theater become about quantity instead of quality?
Films don't tend to worry about reviews as much. If they did, would a Transformers movie ever have gotten made?
It's too bad that we live in a society where you don't have to worry about selling a product with guns and sex because it's a sure thing, but provocative and interesting theater needs billboards and full page ads.
We can complain about it, but the fact is, we're also contributing to it.
I'm contributing to it every time I say--Look at this review I got! It means I'm worth something!
So no more.
I'll read my reviews in the privacy of my own living room and jump up and down for joy or cry puddles by myself, but I won't prioritize one person's opinion of what I do over anybody else's. If you like something I've done, or not, I'll still listen and appreciate what you have to say. I'm not above getting criticized, I'm just past deifying the critics.
You can all continue to post your reviews and I'll applaud your victories and commiserate with you over your low points, because ultimately, this is just my decision. I'm going on a no-review posting diet, but that doesn't mean I expect everybody else to stop eating.
Maybe if I can learn not to put the value of what I do in the hands of a select few people, then others can as well, and maybe one day we'll start seeing posters with just the title of the show and the people who worked on it on them.
Because after all, aren't those the only things that should be there?
In the fair moments of our former splendor
We lent to flatterers a too willing ear;—
It is but just, good Hannah, we should now
Be forced to hear the bitter voice of censure.
Believe it or not, when I first read this quote, it struck me that it could be about theater.
At the time, I was reading Robert Brustein's brilliant book "Letters to a Young Actor," and in one of the chapters, he talks about how for a time while he was the Artistic Director of A.R.T., he banned putting quotes from reviews on posters for the student shows.
The reason behind it was that he felt that the students were learning and that it wasn't constructive to let Boston critics have at them. In general, he felt that reviews shouldn't be plastered on posters anyway, but his marketing department overrode him by saying that pointing out good reviews can help sell a show.
Still, I think of that quote, and I wonder what his marketing department would say when the show didn't get good reviews.
There are so many instances of great work not getting a chance to be seen or heard while it was going on because critics at the time didn't understand or appreciate it. Think of all the films that got bad reviews upon their release only to achieve cult status years later. Matt Damon once said that you can't judge a film until ten years after its release, and he might be right. Pretty much everybody would say that a factor in judging art is whether or not it stands the test of time, otherwise why would we criticize something for being topical?
All of this leads me to a decision I've made recently.
I am no longer going to post reviews on my Facebook page.
Sounds silly, right? Big deal?
Except, for me, it sort of is.
Facebook has become the way we promote ourselves. In a way, it's where we put up our posters.
I've put up links to reviews when they said I did well, only to ignore the ones that didn't like something I'd done. We're all so quick to compliment someone on getting a rave, but when they get panned, we tell them critics don't know what they're talking about.
Well, which is it?
I don't particularly think critics, as a rule, are idiots, nor do I think their opinion has no value. Actually, I think everybody's opinion has a value. I'm not going to lie and say I'm no longer reading reviews, or that I won't get excited when I get a good one. I'm just not posting them any longer, because they shouldn't mean as much to me as they do. Hearing my friends and colleagues, fellow actors and mentors, tell me that they saw something I did and liked it--that's what should mean the most to me.
In a state where The Lion King gets reviewed three times while incredible local theater is beginning to flourish and subsequently get ignored by the major newspaper in the city, why promote that paper by posting links to it on your profile? Why use it to sell your shows? Why not let audiences make up their own minds?
It's been proven that good theater can not only survive, but thrive, on word of mouth. We shouldn't brainwash audiences into only going to see theater strictly because two or three critics told them is worthwhile. We should put up our posters and say, decide for yourselves.
I've enjoyed some shows that critics loathed, and it's not because I was right or they were wrong, but because people have different tastes.
I now find myself going home to check the reviews of a show I just saw to see whether or not I was right for liking it or hating it. That's total insanity.
There are also the critics who give nothing but good reviews, which I feel isn't helpful either. I'm not looking to be universally praised (all right, I am) but to say that every production is flawless is just not helpful. It's only when you point out what could be better that people actually get better, and yet those reviews get put up on Facebook as if they came down from Heaven.
"Look! Now it's official! We did a good show!"
Does anybody else feel like saying "Screw that?"
If a hundred people see your show, and only ten people enjoyed it--yes, those numbers are ideal, but that means you still gave ten people an enjoyable evening of theater. You took away a bit of their stress. Perhaps you even made them look at something in a new way, or gave them a laugh they really needed.
Since when did theater become about quantity instead of quality?
Films don't tend to worry about reviews as much. If they did, would a Transformers movie ever have gotten made?
It's too bad that we live in a society where you don't have to worry about selling a product with guns and sex because it's a sure thing, but provocative and interesting theater needs billboards and full page ads.
We can complain about it, but the fact is, we're also contributing to it.
I'm contributing to it every time I say--Look at this review I got! It means I'm worth something!
So no more.
I'll read my reviews in the privacy of my own living room and jump up and down for joy or cry puddles by myself, but I won't prioritize one person's opinion of what I do over anybody else's. If you like something I've done, or not, I'll still listen and appreciate what you have to say. I'm not above getting criticized, I'm just past deifying the critics.
You can all continue to post your reviews and I'll applaud your victories and commiserate with you over your low points, because ultimately, this is just my decision. I'm going on a no-review posting diet, but that doesn't mean I expect everybody else to stop eating.
Maybe if I can learn not to put the value of what I do in the hands of a select few people, then others can as well, and maybe one day we'll start seeing posters with just the title of the show and the people who worked on it on them.
Because after all, aren't those the only things that should be there?
Comments
Post a Comment