What We Mean

There is a typical pattern for how theatre criticism is disseminated in the United States: :

1. There is one large paper with one lead critic in each regional hub. Sometimes there are more outlets (smaller papers, blogs, or newsletters) but the paper of record is a singular entity.  There is one review, that of the major regional paper, that producers and artists brace for. They hope the review is good, since  the success, viability and longevity of a production often depends on it.
2. A production approaches opening night.
3. A critic is given at least one complimentary ticket to opening.
4. The play opens.
5. The critic of that major paper writes a review that is published within a few days that rates the worthiness of the play.
6. This “rating” is stamped on the play.
7. A review is one person’s opinion. It does not represent the opinion of a newspaper, a city, an organization or an industry.

This rating then follows the play for years, if not decades. If the playwright is at the beginning of their career, then the rating of this play will also inform their personal reputation. The director, producers , actors, and designers can also be chased by the statements of this single review.

We are both frustrated and exhausted by a system that prioritizes and empowers one critical voice (that of those major regional paper’s reviewers) to make such summary judgements with such lasting impact. We find it egregious that this system has not been changed in a hundred years.

This does not mean that there is no place for bad reviews or divisive opinions. This means that the  burden of a bad review on the artists must be examined and acknowledged in context of the imbalance of power at play.