So, I never complain about critics, because I think it's hypocritical to call a critic an idiot when they don't like your work and then use their positive reviews to try and sell your show a month later.
On top of that, if I was going to publicly disagree with a critic, I never thought I would do it over a touring show at PPAC, but hey, it's 2017, so why not? I'll try and be as respectful as possible.
I'm not going to go into all the details of why I have an issue with the Providence Journal's review of "Curious Incident," but what I will say is this--
If you are a local critic--any local critic--part of your job should be to read up on previous productions of the show, or, at the bare minimum, the response the show got when it originally opened in New York.
That doesn't mean shows can't get better or worse, or that a touring production can't fail to live up to the Broadway production or elevate it, but regardless, it should be part of your research before you go see the show.
If a show gets universal praise in its early productions, and you don't like it, that's fine, but you should at least consider those other accolades before you sit down to write your review, and wonder if maybe you just didn't give the show a fair shot. Conversely, if you loved a show, that's even more of a reason to look into it and make sure you're giving it the in-depth analysis you're being asked to provide.
It's only my opinion, but I can't imagine anything making you look more sheltered and provincial than praising or demolishing a show when smarter people than you have given it an opposite--and more fleshed-out--opinion.
Sometimes there's even this air of--"I'm smarter than that New York/London/Somewhere Else critic. I'm the kid pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes." But often--you're not. You just come across looking like you didn't get it and you didn't want to try.
Just something to think about.
Comments
Post a Comment