| re: Imagine if Brantley... | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 08:30 pm EST 11/29/17 | |
| In reply to: Imagine if Brantley... - Delvino 09:56 am EST 11/29/17 | |
|
|
|
| I have the opposite reaction. We know that no reviewer operates in a vacuum, and that there own preferences for certain kinds of stories are reflected in the reviews they write. Brantley doesn't have to write a column about the kind of play he wants to see for me to understand the kind of play he wants to see, for his reviews are more than enough to give me a sense of his likes, dislikes, and hang-ups. Additionally, Brantley will regularly choose to pass on reviewing a show because he isn't interested in the subject matter (or doesn't know how to write about it), as will Green, so their personal biases are in effect on a regular basis, and those biases shape the work that gets championed in New York. I understand your distinction about objectivity versus subjectivity, but I would suggest that while theaters are aware of the reviewers, they ultimately don't make programming choices based upon the reviewers. I can't speak for any theaters other than the ones that I have worked at, but I've never once heard a programming discussion revolve around a critic's tastes in terms of the review they will write. Certainly, the discussions being had by culture writers will come up in a meeting, but that has a different focus than concern about the actual review. I appreciate two aspects of Soloski's essay. First, she is embracing the role of a critic to be engaged in the role of culture shaping and to consider not simply what is on stage but how it reflects and engages the larger world. Second, she is making it very clear what she would like to see and not like to see, which actually gives theater companies clear information to work with in their discussion with the Times as to which critic they would like the Times to send. While the Times and their critics are the ultimate arbiter of who sees what, theaters do make requests for one reviewer over another, and they make them based upon their best sense of which reviewer will respond most favorably. When you write, "This practice could even invite theaters to read (NY Times) reviewer preferences prior to choosing works. It's not impossible to imagine", this is actually already common practice. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't (I worked on a show not too long ago that requested who I think was the wrong second-stringer, which was reflected in the review), but it's just a part of doing business. Again, I don't think that affects programming so much as it affects marketing and audience development, at least in the non-profits that I've worked at. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | Imagine if Brantley... - Delvino 09:56 am EST 11/29/17 |
| Next: | 1 Excellent Seat Available for John Lithgow show, Sat. Jan. 6, 2 pm -- See Shoppin' - lowwriter 02:24 am EST 11/28/17 |
| Thread: | |
Time to render: 0.007698 seconds.