Ruminations on the end of the season

"After what should have been considered a cause for serious celebration -- a season which concluded with the opening of four new musicals, two new reviews, and three major revivals -- we find ourselves mourning..."

That was how the article I planned to write might have begun. I spent weeks collecting reviews from every source I could find of the shows which opened in the late season, watching in horror as show after show was lambasted and pilloried in the more than two hundred pages of reviews I had collected. It wasn't so much that I demanded raves for every show; no, that would have been excessive (besides, I'm not that open-hearted). But it certainly conflicted with my dream of an atmosphere of nuturing criticism, one in which reviewers recognized that audience attendance is directly related to the health of theatre in general.

So, I planned my response to the critics -- an article to be entitled, "Pan & Slam: What fools these morons be." I planned to discuss:

• The pomposity of reviewers: fouling themselves in the attempt to come up with the wittiest title or twist on the subject play's title; babbling just to hear themselves speak;
• The stupidity of reviewers: Watching what seemed to be an attempt to literally kill the theatre, it occurred to me that critics are one of the few groups of employed people who try to eliminate the reason for their employment;
• The arrogance of reviewers: writing about areas in which they have no knowledge; or making statements about "what the play should have..." "...been," "...done," "...attempted," "aimed for," etc., (see, for example, Howard Kissel's comments in the New York Daily News about how Steel Pier's creators failed to achieve something only he believes they were trying to achieve;

and more along those lines.

I planned to support all these statements with massive tables excerpting the articles to show how the critics:

• contradicted each other and themselves;
• made erroneous statements about the shows, the pre-production, or the casts;
• cribbed from each other, or somehow suffered from an overall lack of creativity (How many of the reviews of The Life mentioned the "Disney-fication of 42nd Street? How many of the reviews of Titanic mentioned the pre-opening difficulties, or its failure to manifest a flop on the proportions of Carrie?);
• were simply malicious, irritating, or ignorant (You want to see a visual definition of the word "glee?" Watch Michael Riedel on WNET's Theatre Talk during one of the shows periodic critical bash fests [This is the only site I could find with a mention of Theatre Talk.]);

and more along those lines.

But when I sat down to assemble all of this material -- with colored pens, highlighters, 3 X 5 cards, notepads, and the two-hundred-plus pages of reviews -- I suddenly found it all too overwhelming, too depressing. In many cases these were my friends being raked over the coals. Who wants to spend days reading about how much people think they've screwed up, botched their chances, damaged their reputation, and offended the sensibilities -- whether you believe in the veracity of the statements or not?

And, ultimately, what would be the point of all of this effort? Could a change be effected? Would the theatre-going public suddenly stop placing any emphasis on the reviews? Would the critics suddenly become more enlightened, more nuturing, more even-handed? Would the major papers (and other media) abruptly require something more, something greater of their critics or oust them?

Doubtful. So, while it began as what I thought would be a fun exercise and poke in the eye, it ends with this brief article. Of course I don't believe that these shows are without flaws. As a matter of fact, there are several that I abhore. I haven't even seen them all. But that's not what it's about. It's about a dream, a fantasy world in which there's room for more, for everything, where shows and writers that aspire to something different are recognized, where mediocrity is never celebrated, where The Lion King can lie down with Gypsy. (Okay, that was a little forced; bonus points for those of you who get the reference.)

And as my wife points out, it's been going on like this for all of time. And we've continued to survive.

I'll leave you with these few thoughts I've had during the preparation for all this. I hope it promotes some discussion. Anybody interested in seeing the preliminary, incomplete tables that were to accompany the aborted article, click here.

• I would rather see a flawed, but truly heartfelt attempt than a cold, pompous work of genius.
• Critics and producers have bemoaned the dearth of new talent out there. It's there, except there's no way anyone's is going to chance six to ten million bucks on a no-name. Which is why this season saw no productions created by writers with no track records. And the failure, or shall we say lack of "critical success" by the big name writers is not going to help.
  (Just this week a musical director of a very major incoming Broadway show told me, "Keep writing. We need new writers." As an unproduced composer, he should know better. Perhaps he's thinking that there are better chances with greater numbers?)
• People have been talking for years about how, since the theatre is so expensive because of union requirements, there should be some concessions made by the unions and/or some profit sharing established between the union members and the producers. So? When?
• The fact that a piece of theatre gets celebrated is no reason to actually fear a trend will be created. Look at Rent: where are all the imitators we were told to expect? (Of course, the process is v e r y s l o o o w w w.... We're still seeing Les Miserables imitations.)

Producer Roger Berlind said the best things I've heard all year when accepting his best musical Drama Desk award for The Life. He talked about how he had another show nominated that he loved just as dearly (Steel Pier). He talked about how producers were not in it for awards, but because they love what they do. Finally he congratulated "every show that got up."

Forget the critics. Go see a show.

Originally published at Suite101.com Theatre, 5/27/97

<---Previous article

Next article --->

Return to the archive listing.

Return to Mr. Cranky @ Large.