The title of this post may seem odd.
Comparing a phrase that's been used for a corrupt business with the word theater may seem ludicrous, but I've been seeing more and more examples of it lately.
Smaller theaters seem to be getting kinder, some might even say flimsier, reviews from critics.
I wonder if it's because these critics feel like if they actually lay into any of these theaters, they run the risk of hurting the theater so much it won't be able to recover.
It's not like it hasn't been proven that a bad review can significantly hurt ticket sales for a show. Now that critics understand their power, are they using it more sparingly?
Look at New York, where they don't hold back. A bad review from the New York Times usually means you're toast, unless of course you have the word "Spiderman" in your title.
For example, if you look at the number of shows in Rhode Island that have received negative reviews in the past three years, you'll notice that there aren't many.
Now, it's entirely possible that all the theaters in the area have just been on a winning streak for a few seasons, but that...
Well, let's be honest, that's not likely.
What's more likely is that critics around here feel an obligation to keep the theaters going, and so perhaps they're not always as harsh as they could be.
I know what you're thinking--If that's the case, why are you complaining?
It's tricky.
To me, it's important we try to take away the stigma that a bad review scares away audiences. Maybe it does, but it shouldn't, and we certainly shouldn't play to reviewers or rely so heavily on reviews to sell shows. That's another problem for another day, but what I'm trying to get at here is--I think most shows are worth seeing--good or bad.
Theater has always been like church for me. Or exercise. It's something you make a part of your life, and it's not always good, but it's never wasteful. I've never felt like I wasted my time seeing a piece of theater. That's the sort of attitude we need to try and instill in more people.
Critics shouldn't feel obligated to give a production a good review for fear of jeopardizing the theater's financial state if they don't. They shouldn't be thinking about finances at all. They should be worried about giving the show a fair review.
Comparing a phrase that's been used for a corrupt business with the word theater may seem ludicrous, but I've been seeing more and more examples of it lately.
Smaller theaters seem to be getting kinder, some might even say flimsier, reviews from critics.
I wonder if it's because these critics feel like if they actually lay into any of these theaters, they run the risk of hurting the theater so much it won't be able to recover.
It's not like it hasn't been proven that a bad review can significantly hurt ticket sales for a show. Now that critics understand their power, are they using it more sparingly?
Look at New York, where they don't hold back. A bad review from the New York Times usually means you're toast, unless of course you have the word "Spiderman" in your title.
For example, if you look at the number of shows in Rhode Island that have received negative reviews in the past three years, you'll notice that there aren't many.
Now, it's entirely possible that all the theaters in the area have just been on a winning streak for a few seasons, but that...
Well, let's be honest, that's not likely.
What's more likely is that critics around here feel an obligation to keep the theaters going, and so perhaps they're not always as harsh as they could be.
I know what you're thinking--If that's the case, why are you complaining?
It's tricky.
To me, it's important we try to take away the stigma that a bad review scares away audiences. Maybe it does, but it shouldn't, and we certainly shouldn't play to reviewers or rely so heavily on reviews to sell shows. That's another problem for another day, but what I'm trying to get at here is--I think most shows are worth seeing--good or bad.
Theater has always been like church for me. Or exercise. It's something you make a part of your life, and it's not always good, but it's never wasteful. I've never felt like I wasted my time seeing a piece of theater. That's the sort of attitude we need to try and instill in more people.
Critics shouldn't feel obligated to give a production a good review for fear of jeopardizing the theater's financial state if they don't. They shouldn't be thinking about finances at all. They should be worried about giving the show a fair review.
Comments
Post a Comment