Broadway "Bolter" Univited to Future Shows
Broadway "Bolter" Univited to Future Shows
BudFrump23
Broadway Star Joined: 5/20/03
#1Broadway "Bolter" Univited to Future Shows
Posted: 12/8/14 at 6:21pm
I read her piece a while ago, and I'm glad somebody is doing something about it. I'd gladly take her job and review theater for free. (And stay through the show, as 'bad' or 'boring' as it may be...)
No Tickets For You
I'm as jumpy as a virgin at a prison rodeo!
Pootie2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/1/14
#2Broadway
Posted: 12/8/14 at 6:37pm
Excellent. This was noted here:
Full thread
#BoycottTrumplikePattiMurin
Updated On: 12/15/14 at 06:37 PM
#2Broadway
Posted: 12/15/14 at 12:35am
As a Broadway World reviewer (first DC, and now Palm Springs, CA), I'm hardly in the same category as a Wall Street Journal reviewer. However, I wouldn't DREAM of walking out in the middle, because the second act could be completely different from the first, and a review praising or excoriating a show based on the first act could be inaccurate.
I would make an exception, however, for a show so offensive in Act I (e.g., racist, anti-Semitic, or homophobic) that the second half CAN'T rescue it. If I did feel compelled to walk out, I'd say so in the review and explain why.
Audrey
Audrey, the Phantom Phanatic, who nonetheless would rather be Jean Valjean, who knew how to make lemonade out of lemons.
#3Broadway
Posted: 12/15/14 at 2:08pm
I have to say if you are there to review the piece I don't care if Hitler and the KKK sing heroic songs of victory while beating up a gay baby, you should stay for the whole show. It's your job. Like a surgeon would not stop operating on a murderer. You may hate what you are watching but any critic who leaves mid-way through is not a real critic and should not be taken seriously.
That said, I know this woman at the WSJ is not a critic. However, my personal opinion is that as an arts writer she shows a complete lack of understanding and sensitivity to art by walking out. She may think it's cute to cop to it but it just shows that she is a lazy thinker and not worth reading.
rjm516
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/24/09
broadwayguy2
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
#5Broadway
Posted: 12/15/14 at 5:39pm
I am not a review, nor an awards voter, but I have always understood / believed / discussed that when you are given comps to a show, especially by the company, there is a certain level of behavior expected above and beyond other patrons. You are there as a guest in that "home", you are not a paying customer.
If the seat is less than ideal, you make do and make the best of it.
You do NOT show up at curtain time and try to rush in as the lights go to black.
You don't comment negatively on the show while you are there, even if you hate it. Be polite until you are at least on a different city block..
You do NOT leave early unless it is absolutely unavoidable as a last resort in an emergency...
#6Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/15/14 at 6:39pm
Hackasaurus, I agree that, in general a critic or arts reporter should not walk out of a show. Because there are exceptions to every rule, I am willing to admit that I would consider leaving if the play's message is so offensive that I can't get past the message. However, I've never walked out early, and don't expect to do so. Invoking the exception to my stay-to-the-end rule should probably occur no more than once in a career, if that often. Any journalist who makes a habit of sneaking out and then writes about the show as if he or she watched it all the way through is being unethical in my opinion.
Since we're on the subject of what a writer should and shouldn't do during a performance, I have a question that I'd like to throw out there: I take handwritten notes during the performance to jog my very poor memory when I write my review. I can't always read them, because writing in the dark often results in two separate notes being juxtaposed, but it's better than nothing, and it's MUCH better than typing on something that gives off light. People have sometimes asked me at the intermission why I'm taking notes and I tell them the truth. I'm curious as to what the folks on the discussion board think about note-taking during a performance.
Audrey, the Phantom Phanatic, who nonetheless would rather be Jean Valjean, who knew how to make lemonade out of lemons.
ggersten
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/11/06
#7Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/15/14 at 8:36pm
When I did reviews long ago for college radio, I got pretty good at taking notes in the dark. Movies were more difficult than theatre. The problem was making a legible enough note with enough detail to remember what the thought was at that time. Of course, sometimes, the train of thought can be quite fun as I once re-read my notes from a film that was supposedly a comedy that was, in my opinion, very unfunny. I think my notes were more amusing than the film. But, I also vividly remember writing a "GREAT!" with a flourish at the curtain of a show I was reviewing. But, since this was not Broadway, I was there generally on opening night, and so I wasn't the only one taking notes. Never got a question from anybody. The notes also were good for when I got to interview an actor or director after seeing the show.
AND I NEVER LEFT AT INTERMISSION. Even when I wanted to.
1000songs
Chorus Member Joined: 12/13/14
#8Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/15/14 at 8:44pmIn Australia we have bloggers that ask for free meals. Personally I am over it. I think you shou should pay to review its not an ad.
#9Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/15/14 at 8:52pm
I've never walked out of a show in the middle, when I've paid or with comps. As a reviewer, I feel it's my duty to stay and watch the whole show even when I don't like it. The only case I could see of leaving a show early when I'm there to review it is if there is an extreme emergency, and in that case I would probably write to the producers and explain what happened, and then not review the show unless I'm able to see it on another date.
Also, even when I pay to see the show, I can't imagine walking out early unless the show is so offensive I can't sit through it. Even when the first act is bad, I'm optimistic enough to hope things will improve in the second act, so I want to stay.
As for notes, I don't always take notes, but I usually have a pen with me so I can scribble a few notes on the program if I need to. Most of the time it's too dark to take notes, although there are some shows where I can see better (especially outdoor shows). Also, if I'm concentrating too much on taking notes, it's easy to miss something that happens on stage. Sometimes I'll write down a few notes right after the show, but most of the time I remember it well enough to write the review without a lot of notes.
Also, about reviewer comps, I agree that asking for free meals is excessive (and ridiculous), but a lot of reviewers can't afford to see all the shows they see if not for comp tickets. Independent bloggers are getting more and more common, and most of us don't get paid to blog, so comps are very helpful. As long as you don't abuse the privilege by walking out early, I see no problem with comps for reviewers.
Updated On: 12/15/14 at 08:52 PM
Alan Henry
Team BWW Joined: 12/5/11
#10Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/15/14 at 9:25pm
AHLiebross,
I usually jot down thoughts on my phone after the show, but have also taken them in a small notebook or small paper pad during the show. I'm normally seated with or near other reviewers and either way, it doesn't bother anyone.
I would never leave a show before the end on a comp, unless it was so offensive that I planned to write I left because it was offensive. Or in the event of an emergency, for example.
#11Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/15/14 at 9:44pmBwayto, if you are one who reviews theater I have to ask... What are you so afraid of experiencing that it would force you to leave a show early that you are reviewing? Is your skin that thin that someone's words could keep you from doing your job? It seems to me that if that is the case you shouldn't review any kind of art. Comp or not is completely irrelevant. If your job is to review a piece then I believe it is unethical to not see the piece you are reviewing in it's entirety... No matter how offensive the subject matter is to you. We as a country have put too high a premium on hurt feelings. In a culture of free thought and expression feelings get hurt and sensibilities are challanged. Especially from someone who considers their opinion on art worth listening to I would expect you would have the ability to challange your sensibilities in order to properly do your job.
#12Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/16/14 at 1:09am
Hackasaurus, I'm with Bwayto here. You say:
What are you so afraid of experiencing that it would force you to leave a show early that you are reviewing? Is your skin that thin that someone's words could keep you from doing your job?
Let me reverse the question: "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" There are some things that bring a reviewer's activity to a screaming halt. I recently saw a version of "Hair" in which the ending involved the dead protagonist lying naked on an American flag, instead of clothed, on the black cloth as in the original. I was practically shaking when I left (at the end) because I was so offended about desecrating the flag in this manner. I was able to review the production because there was quite a bit to say that was positive. Nonetheless, I can see a reviewer saying, "I'm sorry, but I can't think about anything other than this naked guy dripping bodily fluids on the US flag."
Audrey, the Phantom Phanatic, who nonetheless would rather be Jean Valjean, who knew how to make lemonade out of lemons.
#13Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/16/14 at 11:51am
AHLiebross, this is where I believe you are confusing your role as a reviewer vs that of a general theater patron. Yes, if you are there to simply watch and enjoy a production you have every right to leave at any time you feel like it for any reason. However as a critic of the piece you do not have that right... ethically. Sorry you just don't. Just like a doctor can't stop operating on a patient because, let's say, he discovers the patient has a Swastika tattoo. It may offend him deeply but that can't stop him from doing his job.
And I'm sorry but I am not sure the point of your Lincoln analogy since I am fairly certain from the history I've read that our President was not at the Ford Theater that night to review "Our American Cousin." However, inappropriate analogies aside, let's just look at the example you gave... I'm sorry but if an actor lying naked on an American Flag is THAT disturbing that it would bring your "reviewing activity to a halt" I stand by what I said to Bwayto and say that I believe the role of a critic is simply not for you. You may be an amazing writer but you clearly don't have the temperament to sit through material that challenges your personal sensibilities.
You have one job. Sit through the entire show (or film, or art exhibit, or concert) and write about it as thoughtfully and critically as you can. That's it. It's not a hard job. In fact other than honing the skill to write concisely, thoughtfully, and in an entertaining fashion, it may be the easiest job on the planet next to toll booth operator.
Pootie2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/1/14
#14Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/16/14 at 12:05pmThe controversy spawning this thread also has nothing to do with being a theater critic either--highly recommend reading the first thread linked at the top.
#BoycottTrumplikePattiMurin
#15Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/16/14 at 12:13pmI addressed that point in my initial post, Pootie2. This topic spawned a new conversation. That happens when adults discuss things. Read the full thread before criticizing.
#16Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/16/14 at 1:19pm
Hackasaurus writes:
I believe the role of a critic is simply not for you. You may be an amazing writer but you clearly don't have the temperament to sit through material that challenges your personal sensibilities.
Hackasaurus, I disagree. I believe that the message is part of the whole in any theatrical production, just as it is in a novel. If I don't have the temperament to be a reviewer, it's for a different reason -- I hate the idea, especially when reviewing a small, local production, of saying that so-and-so was too wooden, or that another so-and-so can't hit the high notes. The company has worked hard to put on the production, and I want to give it the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, I hate being harsh.
Returning to the question of whether a critic must avoid having personal feelings intrude about the message, in my opinion, a review is based entirely on personal feelings. There is no reason that a reviewer should not comment on the message. If the message is so relentlessly depressing that it dwarfs everything else, that is a legitimate basis to dislike a production. Getting back to the version of HAIR that I saw, I questioned whether its treatment of the flag is still appropriate after 9/11. However, I pointed out that the performances were full of energy, and that there was much to enjoy.
Hackasaurus, you are entitled to disagree with my opinion about what constitutes a legitimate topic of comment in a review, but I respectfully disagree that you have enough evidence to conclude that I "clearly don't have the temperament to sit through material that challenges [my] personal sensibilities."
Audrey, the Phantom Phanatic, who nonetheless would rather be Jean Valjean, who knew how to make lemonade out of lemons.
#17Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/16/14 at 1:40pm
Sorry you just don't. Just like a doctor can't stop operating on a patient because, let's say, he discovers the patient has a Swastika tattoo.
That actually was a story line on an episode of Grey's Anatomy. A very good episode I might add.
#18Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/16/14 at 1:41pm
I think you missed my point, AHLiebross. I am not saying you are not entitled to have your personal feelings inform your critique of a piece. That would be insane. Of course. Such a thing goes without saying. My point is that those feelings should not keep you from keeping your butt in the seat for the entire performance so that you can review it properly.
As to your thoughts on the "Hair" production you saw, I personally think there is nothing so outrageous about a character laying naked on an American flag in a musical that was created to be a giant theatrical war protest in the first place. Certainly nothing that would compel you to walk out as a critic. Now I never saw this production you speak of but in the context of that particular show they are performing it is not out of the realm of appropriate... 9/11 or not. Maybe the production was drawing parallels to the way young people felt about the wars we were dragged into after 9/11. Maybe the nudity represents innocence. Hell, I don't know. Again I didn't see it.
The point I was making was not to critique the content of your reviews... I've never read one. My point (and it is one that I frankly see no argument against) is IF you are tasked with reviewing a piece and you take your job seriously then you have an obligation TO YOUR OWN CRAFT to sit through the piece in its entirety. And if you can't do THAT, if you can't sit for an entire performance no matter what they are doing on stage, then I stand by my opinion that you don't have the right temperament for art critique.
Liza's Headband
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/28/13
#19Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/16/14 at 4:20pmIf it's a part of her job duties & tasks, as mandated by her employer, or she is reviewing the piece in question, then yes. It's her obligation to do so. As SH*Tty as this situation is, I don't believe she was critiquing/reviewing the shows...
#20Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/16/14 at 4:42pm
Hackasaurus writes:
My point (and it is one that I frankly see no argument against) is IF you are tasked with reviewing a piece and you take your job seriously then you have an obligation TO YOUR OWN CRAFT to sit through the piece in its entirety.
Hackasaurus, I agree with you. I have never walked out, and, as I said in an earlier post, I can see someone's doing so no more than once in a career. I would not, however, blame a PTSD sufferer for walking out in the middle if he or she were so unfortunate as to be given tickets to a play that hits too close to home.
I think you and I are basically on the same page, except perhaps whether the version I saw of "HAIR" suffered from bad taste. However, bad taste is protected by the First Amendment, and any critic needs to be aware that "bad taste" for him or her is instead a daring and bold vision for someone else.
Audrey, the Phantom Phanatic, who nonetheless would rather be Jean Valjean, who knew how to make lemonade out of lemons.
#21Broadway Bolter
Posted: 12/16/14 at 10:12pmI was always speaking specifically about just the people who write about a show (arts writers or critics). I fault no person of the general public for leaving early if they find the experience unpleasant (PTSD sufferer or just a guy who finds the show stupid).
Videos