Does it really make sense anymore for one theater critic at the New York Times to have the power to make or break a show? I read Mike’s remark this morning about Ben Brantley (jeez, Mike – 4:14 AM? do you ever sleep?) and it reminded me of something I thought about when Dirty Rotten Scoundrels opened a couple of weeks ago. Brantley didn’t like Scoundrels very much. His review, while it made some good points, was unnecessarily snotty. This morning he praises Spamalot more highly, although he doesn’t love that, either.
The theater critic at the New York Times, by nature of the position, has always had the most clout. But why should one person with such mean-spirited opinions have so much power? There is no such thing as oracular, objective truth when it comes to the arts. The Times has been expanding its arts staff and now has two main theater reviewers, Ben Brantley and Charles Isherwood, as well as a few other people. Why not assign high-profile shows to more than one critic and publish multiple reviews? It happens with books — one person might review a book in the daily Arts section, and another will review it for the Sunday Book Review. Why not for theater, too?
There are other newspapers, of course, and there’s also word of mouth (which is possibly even more influential). But a vast majority of New York-area theatergoers (particularly in the suburbs, where I grew up) probably take their cues from the Times. As media continues to evolve, the Times may have less and less clout in the theater world. I’m sure it already has less clout than it used to. But for now, the paper could benefit from including multiple points of view when it comes to theater criticism. There’s no reason why one person’s opinions, particularly those of someone as cranky as Ben Brantley, should count for so much today.
In the sixties Walter Kerr did just what you suggest, giving up his position as regular Times drama critic to write a longer Sunday column. He was not successful in blunting the impact of the opening-night review.
I don’t think they matter to the commercial prospects of most shows either; maybe Brooklyn would be looking at a healthier run with strong notices, but the big comedies are mostly critic-proof. I was just hoping for an exciting Tony race, but now there’s really little to stop Spamalot.
Well, what I meant was to have two simultaneous opening-night reviews. Sort of a point-counterpoint thing. So there wouldn’t be one primary drama critic, but two.
The reviews I’ve seen for Spamalot have been mixed-to-positive — not too many raves. I think the races for book and score are wide open. I don’t think there’s a show this year that can successfully urge voters to “vote their hearts” instead of going with the big horse, though.
Anyway, this whole post was really a roundabout way of saying that I’m sick of Ben Brantley.
I was going to say the same thing about Walter Kerr but Mike beat me to it. Anyway, I’m sick of Brantley too. His tenure now is almost as long as Frank Rich’s was; it’s time for him to go.
Is Brantley at fault really?
The question is why are so many people like sheep?
It’s tempting to blame the post-Iceman ticket price inflation, but it’s been true for much longer.
It’s not about Brantley, it’s about the power of the Times. This has always been the case regardless of whether the critic in the presumed driver’s seat was Frank Rich, Stanley kaufmann or Brooks Atkinson (really shwoing my age now.)
But a show like Spamalot is critic-proof to begin with and has nothing to fear from the NYT.
not quite related, but re Stanley Kaufman: what I enjoy so much about his writings is that he’s not really a reviewer as much as he is a critic (I don’t know why we insist on calling Brantley a “critic”… there’s little to analysis in his reviews, just telling us if it’s good or bad, which isn’t a bad thing in and of itself). His critical essays in TNR are the best thing about that fishwrap lately.