A Fool's Request
JJisaFool requested that this post--originally placed as a response to Jose's lovely review of The Swan--be posted on my own blog, as he found it a worthy topic in and of itself. I brushed it up a little, but left it as is for the most part.
Question for artists, arts administrators and, perhaps most importantly, arts consumers who visit this neck of the woods . . .
To what degree does one pay attention to reviews?
In light of this and this (4th show down) (neither of which, by the way, I find particularly discouraging, because this show is decidedly odd, the choices at our fintertips equally so, and the whole effect could be off-putting, or at least an acquired taste; and even more, the fact that, despite not liking my vocal choices, the Times reviewer actually referred to me in print as "sexy", tickles me to no end), I find myself asking the usual questions about critics and reviews: Do fringe companies rely on reviews as the one form of financially equalizing marketing? Do critics and their opinions accurately or adequately represent the thoughts and interests of the audience at large?
Obviously, adjusting the show for critics (or anyone else) once open is as close to a sin as a good relativist like me is likely to acknowledge, regardless of the validity of the criticism. And I'm not inclined to take any of these reviews to heart (indeed, the criticisms in each review point fingers at different aspects of the play--one critic liked me and not the other guy, the other reviewer liked the other guy but took exception to my "dialect" [which, funny enough, is largely, though not entirely, dictated by the text], which indicates to me that they were troubled, and couldn't quite put their fingers on why . . . which sounds like success to me). I mean, as we've seen, the music and cinema I've appreciated over the years is often subject to misunderstanding by critics and audiences alike.
On the other hand, ignoring the critics is stock in trade for movies and CDs. Theatre . . . well, I don't know. I tend to find that theatre people fancy themselves more educated, more "academic", than fans of more "populist" art forms. As such, they may be more susceptible to "corruption" by a perceived critical consensus (not that these reviews represent much of a consensus). Or maybe not.
I wonder, too, if dismissing critics is tantamount to dismissing the audience, which brings us back around to the "fuck you" from the audience that a certain fool threw out there a number of weeks back.
I'm half questioning, half musing on the matter. Thoughts?
Question for artists, arts administrators and, perhaps most importantly, arts consumers who visit this neck of the woods . . .
To what degree does one pay attention to reviews?
In light of this and this (4th show down) (neither of which, by the way, I find particularly discouraging, because this show is decidedly odd, the choices at our fintertips equally so, and the whole effect could be off-putting, or at least an acquired taste; and even more, the fact that, despite not liking my vocal choices, the Times reviewer actually referred to me in print as "sexy", tickles me to no end), I find myself asking the usual questions about critics and reviews: Do fringe companies rely on reviews as the one form of financially equalizing marketing? Do critics and their opinions accurately or adequately represent the thoughts and interests of the audience at large?
Obviously, adjusting the show for critics (or anyone else) once open is as close to a sin as a good relativist like me is likely to acknowledge, regardless of the validity of the criticism. And I'm not inclined to take any of these reviews to heart (indeed, the criticisms in each review point fingers at different aspects of the play--one critic liked me and not the other guy, the other reviewer liked the other guy but took exception to my "dialect" [which, funny enough, is largely, though not entirely, dictated by the text], which indicates to me that they were troubled, and couldn't quite put their fingers on why . . . which sounds like success to me). I mean, as we've seen, the music and cinema I've appreciated over the years is often subject to misunderstanding by critics and audiences alike.
On the other hand, ignoring the critics is stock in trade for movies and CDs. Theatre . . . well, I don't know. I tend to find that theatre people fancy themselves more educated, more "academic", than fans of more "populist" art forms. As such, they may be more susceptible to "corruption" by a perceived critical consensus (not that these reviews represent much of a consensus). Or maybe not.
I wonder, too, if dismissing critics is tantamount to dismissing the audience, which brings us back around to the "fuck you" from the audience that a certain fool threw out there a number of weeks back.
I'm half questioning, half musing on the matter. Thoughts?
posted by thelyamhound at 4:25 PM
16 Comments:
On the other hand, ignoring the critics is stock in trade for movies and CDs.
I think the fact that theatre reviews seem to be taken more seriously, or at least not dismissed as easily, has to do at least somewhat with distance.
National reviewers are easier to dismiss because they are so far removed from the audience/reader of the review. And, you just wouldn't find a national review of a regional show (very often, anyway).
Or there can be the distance between reviewer and work. A local review of a movie is just one among thousands upon thousands of opinions (reviewers and hoi palloi audience).
Theatre is so grounded in place, and a review is one of many fewer voices, it seems to carry more weight.
And, there is the risk factor. Two people seeing a movie that ends up sucking lose $16-$18, while even your show, in a relatively small venue, sets them back $24, and at the Rep might set them back $90.
I tend to find that theatre people fancy themselves more educated, more "academic", than fans of more "populist" art forms.
This may be the case, but I think it is the nature of the artform more than the nature of the audience in this case.
I wonder, too, if dismissing critics is tantamount to dismissing the audience
I don't really think so. They often don't pay, and express a particular opinion as opposed to an aggregate of opinions from an audience. They have also styled themselves as experts. All this just seems to indicate that you can expect more from them, even demand more, or just stop giving them comps.
I wonder, too, if theatre reviews havee the same dual purpose as book reviews, where book reviews offer an opinion on a book for prosepctive readers as well as providing a cultural discussion point for those who have already read the book. I only fall in the latter group - I rarely use book reviews to help choose a book, but read reviews for books I have read to get a feel for other readings/reactions to the book.
Great topic, Ly. One I think the community needs to have. I'd like to see more companies circumvent reviewers and try to take advantage of peer-to-peer marketing.
peer to peer marketing?
wazat?
Very interesting topic, and also, so nice to hear from ya, Ly.
Peer-to-peer marketing encompasses the lists of books users make on Amazon and site like yelp.com that collect user reviews. It is essentially the idea that you encourage your customers to share their opinions of your product with other consumers instead of relying on gatekeepers, like expert reviewers.
After reading what you've posted about your journey with this particular show, reading those 2 reviews mostly made me want to see it even more. (drat)
That said, I'm far more likely to read a book/see a movie/go to a play based on the recommendation of a friend than a critic, but am more likely NOT to read/see if I know very little about a book, play, etc, and read several bad reviews about it.
Don't know particularly how that applies--but it's currently all I've got.
Oh--and being called sexy in print? That's just totally bitchin'.
I like where this discussion is going. JJ, I disagree with nothing; but there are some points to which I'd like to add.
I wonder, too, if theatre reviews have the same dual purpose as book reviews, where book reviews offer an opinion on a book for prosepctive readers as well as providing a cultural discussion point for those who have already read the book.
(JJ)
This is an interesting question, because book reviews often fall under the heading of Criticism in a way that film reviews generally don't (no one has taken any film reviewer since the late Pauline Kael as a serious scholar on film theory). Theatre reviewers? Hard to say, since, to my knowledge, writing about theatre has never produced a Lester Bangs or a Pauline Kael, i.e., it has never produced anyone whose opinion need be offered any real sense of consequence or seriousness . . . except, perhaps, in exercising the dubious power to make or break a show.
But between this from JJ . . .
I only fall in the latter group - I rarely use book reviews to help choose a book, but read reviews for books I have read to get a feel for other readings/reactions to the book.
. . . and this from Missuz J (no relation) . . .
That said, I'm far more likely to read a book/see a movie/go to a play based on the recommendation of a friend than a critic, but am more likely NOT to read/see if I know very little about a book, play, etc, and read several bad reviews about it.
. . . I see an interesting pattern for using critical analysis. All of the above statements from both parties could apply to me, but this is what I'd add: Bad reviews won't keep me from things I want to see, but could tip me if I'm on the fence and vindicate me if I already have a bias against. Good reviews won't tip me towards something in which I have no interest, may tip me if I'm on the fence and will vindicate me if I'm already excited. I'm not going to buy a Dave Matthews album no matter how good the reviews, I won't miss a David Lynch flick no matter how angry the critics; but, say, a dull-looking historical epic or romantic comedy with an intriguing cast or arsenal of artistic personnel, or a fascinating story with an unknown set of personnel, may pull me in if the reviews are good enough.
Which, of course, makes me a rube. Many a critically panned work has struck me as an unheralded masterpiece, or at least an intriguing failure (a far nobler thing to be than a successful foregone conclusion). My trouble comes in that I don't really trust audiences, either, which makes it difficult to know where my "entertainment" dollars are best spent.
Theatre is so grounded in place, and a review is one of many fewer voices, it seems to carry more weight.
I totally agree. But--yes, we're using THAT word again--SHOULD it be that way? Or, to put it less deterministically, is that FAIR?
And, there is the risk factor. Two people seeing a movie that ends up sucking lose $16-$18, while even your show, in a relatively small venue, sets them back $24, and at the Rep might set them back $90.
Well, yes. This economic matter is one of the problems with theatre as an industry. As long as is costs $90 for two people to see a play for which the actors are being paid, the audience is limited either to those who can afford to toss that out every weekend or those who only consume their art/entertainment every couple of months--hence where you respond to this . . .
>>I tend to find that theatre people fancy themselves more educated, more "academic", than fans of more "populist" art forms.<<
. . . with this . . .
This may be the case, but I think it is the nature of the artform more than the nature of the audience in this case.
I say, "Maybe . . . or it may be in the nature of the industry."
And even our big houses run on subsidies, government or otherwise. In real market terms, tickets would have to be over $100 EACH to sustain these organizations without these subsidies.
Film and music have a true product in the can; you can pay your creators with money not yet made knowing that you can make the money off of that product years after the actors, musicians, cinematographers and producers have grown old and or moved on to other things (in theory). Every time a show goes up, your product costs you anew. This carries no judgement on the form itself, but a concern about its sustainability at the very root of the thing.
I'd like to see more companies circumvent reviewers and try to take advantage of peer-to-peer marketing.
Well, I think the Beige's review is a good start (remind me to ask him if I can forward a link to all my lists).
I think you're right, pretty much, although, as I've said, I mistrust the popular opinion as much as the academic one. But as I've also said, I think a show has a better chance of finding its particular audience if those who found it powerful passed some documentation of that experience to others.
Thing is, though, a "weird" band operating outside of both mainstream tastes and critical radars (say my old standby, Sleepytime Gorilla Museum), or a "weird" filmmaker operating in a similar nebula (say old standby Hal Harley) can remain financially lucrative with grassroot, cult audiences because, again, there's a product. For theatre to function that way . . . well, I don't know HOW theatre would function that way.
I've often wanted to see theatre develop a relationship with film and video the way live music has found a relationship with live performances and music videos (which would pave the way, hopefully, for musical theatre to develop a relationship with music that doesn't suck). I'm not sure how any of that would look, though.
Peer-to-peer marketing encompasses the lists of books users make on Amazon and site like yelp.com that collect user reviews. It is essentially the idea that you encourage your customers to share their opinions of your product with other consumers instead of relying on gatekeepers, like expert reviewers.
Even something like the user comments on IMDB can serve similar purposes, I think.
After reading what you've posted about your journey with this particular show, reading those 2 reviews mostly made me want to see it even more. (drat)
"Mixed" reviews are a tremendous enticement for me, given my tastes.
And drat indeed. I'd love to see y'all down here.
Oh--and being called sexy in print? That's just totally bitchin'.
Yeah, that takes all the sting off.
Theatre is so grounded in place, and a review is one of many fewer voices, it seems to carry more weight.
I totally agree. But--yes, we're using THAT word again--SHOULD it be that way? Or, to put it less deterministically, is that FAIR?
I dunno for fair, but it may be necessary. Just in terms of numbers, the opening weekend of a film is going to send more audience members out into the world to share opinions than a play, because a film can show five times a day. It hits its own critical mass earlier. And, I don't think theaters can wait until the reach their own critical mass. So, it seems like they have to rely on reviewers to get the word out. Or, explore ways to push that peer-to-peer process along, get greater reach before critical mass.
What might that mean? Marketing heavily to and comping key people within social networks. Baristas. People active in circles like Beigey's Tribe. I've long advocated comping temps.
In the absence of such efforts, reviews serve to raise awareness faster than diffusion of past audiences can.
Thing is, though, a "weird" band operating outside of both mainstream tastes and critical radars (say my old standby, Sleepytime Gorilla Museum), or a "weird" filmmaker operating in a similar nebula (say old standby Hal Harley) can remain financially lucrative with grassroot, cult audiences because, again, there's a product. For theatre to function that way . . . well, I don't know HOW theatre would function that way.
By changing their own expectations to fit, which is why I get abgry with theatre artists that bitch about how hard it is and shouldn't be to make edgy and experimental theatre. If Hartley had felt entitled to major studio production budgets, or SGM expected to be able to sell out the Key, they would either be solely disappointed or have to change the nature of their work. They are lucrative but to a degree. Speilberg is to Hartley as Britney is to SGM as the Rep is to unpaid actors in 50-seat black boxes.
The consolidation of publishing companies has taken writing the same direction. If I wanted to make a living as a novelist, I'd either have to write Nora Roberts Tom Clancy bullshit or find a way to live on a $1000 advance and 10% on net.
(remind me to ask him if I can forward a link to all my lists)
if you think it'll help, do it up, man.
Once again, little with which to argue, much upon which to expand.
So it seems like they have to rely on reviewers to get the word out. Or, explore ways to push that peer-to-peer process along, get greater reach before critical mass.
Which still leaves us with the dilemma of the critics themselves, whether they represent the audience, whether they have reasonable investment in the form, whether their "expertise" is reliable. It seems we ought to be playing for the audience, not the critics; but if we're relying on the critics to bring us our audience . . .
What might that mean? Marketing heavily to and comping key people within social networks. Baristas. People active in circles like Beigey's Tribe. I've long advocated comping temps.
Good ideas, all. I also think that theatre websites may do well to offer visitor chat forums a la IMDB or Slate.
In the absence of such efforts, reviews serve to raise awareness faster than diffusion of past audiences can.
But because of the expense of seeing theatre, not ALL publicity is GOOD publicity.
By changing their own expectations to fit, which is why I get abgry with theatre artists that bitch about how hard it is and shouldn't be to make edgy and experimental theatre. If Hartley had felt entitled to major studio production budgets, or SGM expected to be able to sell out the Key, they would either be solely disappointed or have to change the nature of their work. Speilberg is to Hartley as Britney is to SGM as the Rep is to unpaid actors in 50-seat black boxes.
But SGM can function without day jobs by simply selling out Chop Suey or Neumos. Even if we sold out our 100 seat blackbox, we still wouldn't be getting paid. And we're hell and gone from selling out that black box, which says to me that we haven't found "our" audience the way our examples have.
It's interesting to me that independent film, genre films and varying genres of or ideas regarding music create geek enclaves who are enthusiasts for that specific form: hip-hop has its headz; punk and post-punk actually maintain a dominance in some small markets (like here, for instance); I know tons of people who are suckers for Lynch or Cronenberg, or will see every horror movie, kung-fu movie or superhero movie that come down the pike, or who are addicted to the talky hipster screeds of Hartley and Jarmusch; even experimental art-metal has a its adherents. I don't know a lot of people, though, who go to see every absurdist play that comes into town, or a theatre that focuses on surrealism the way El Corazon focuses on punk and metal. Our "fringe" is constructed out of completely different social materials than the fringe of popular music.
They are lucrative but to a degree.
Better than NO degree.
The consolidation of publishing companies has taken writing the same direction. If I wanted to make a living as a novelist, I'd either have to write Nora Roberts Tom Clancy bullshit or find a way to live on a $1000 advance and 10% on net.
Sure, but that's still more than the drinking-money stipends of the fringe, and I would submit that it's because a book is a less ephemeral, more tangible product than a stage show. I'm not really concerned with the money; I've already resigned myself to the probability that getting paid to do stage work involves compromises of artistic vision that I'm simply not willing to make, or at least involves the pursuit of ensemble-based generative work, which can make for a leaner, more portable and more easily revivable/adaptable product (and, like sketch comedy, can lead to profit-sharing arrangements). What concerns me is that small companies who give actors like me the opportunity to do interesting work, to prepare for more experimental avenues or hone skills that would be useful if I DID decide to pursue a more mainstream route, may have trouble sustaining themselves even in the goal of creating good work for which artists are NOT paid, let alone grow to the point where they CAN pay those artists, because one of their marketing cornerstones seems to be the hope that all the hard work and vision will lead to good reviews.
But SGM can function without day jobs by simply selling out Chop Suey or Neumos. Even if we sold out our 100 seat blackbox, we still wouldn't be getting paid. And we're hell and gone from selling out that black box, which says to me that we haven't found "our" audience the way our examples have.
Well, yeah, think about my analogy in terms of dollars. Rep artists and staff as the high end in town just make decent money, nothing outstanding. So, Speilberg is to Hartley as Rep is to fringe is multimillions is to good money as decent living is to what? Pittance. Beer money.
Can theatre provide an experience analagous to SGM or Hartley. No. I really don't think as an industry it can support edgy art that turns any kind of profit. Not unless it is hugely, like order of magnitude over Rep or SCT, subsidized.
Maybe under a patron system it could happen. But, there are just too many other options for people's art and entertainment dollars.
As a job, it is a boutique item, like being a poet.
Which still leaves us with the dilemma of the critics themselves, whether they represent the audience, whether they have reasonable investment in the form, whether their "expertise" is reliable. It seems we ought to be playing for the audience, not the critics; but if we're relying on the critics to bring us our audience . . .
Critics love shows that are financial failures and pan shows that make money, so playing to the critics wouldn't necessarily increase audience. At some point, it becomes about the relationship between critic and audience. Expertise is really best measured in trust - do audiences trust the critical voice enough to follow both yea and nay recommendations?
It is a complex relationship. I'll go see something Annie Wagner pans because I don't think she knows shit, and I'll take with a grain of salt most Mischa or Adcock reviews, but take Boling reviews to be nigh-gospel.
Really, critics may or may not represent the audience or be invested in the medium. But, what matters most to them is not what theatre artists think of them, but what the readers of the papers think. They are the market.
Can theatre provide an experience analagous to SGM or Hartley. No. I really don't think as an industry it can support edgy art that turns any kind of profit. Not unless it is hugely, like order of magnitude over Rep or SCT, subsidized.
I basically agree . . . and am saddened. Without "edgy" art, a form dies. People have been declaring the death of theatre for decades, and broke, dying companies have been insisting all along that it's still breathing. The answer is probably somewhere in between. Theatre will never completely die, but as long as innovation is left to the hobbyists, and the professionals have to be propped up by governments and patrons, I don't know how it can be expected to evolve.
Maybe under a patron system it could happen.
Which may be the best option. I find it just a little distasteful, since it makes practitioners seem like pets of an ill-defined aristocracy.
But, there are just too many other options for people's art and entertainment dollars.
As a job, it is a boutique item, like being a poet.
This is where I think we need to blur the boundaries a bit. Music videos changed the way music was marketed while providing a format for fledgeling filmmakers. I envision physical, musical, theatrical performers generating work that can be formed into both cinematic and theatrical conceits, to be captured by collaborative media artists. Films, videos and recordings will be distributed through many of the usual networks, and ensembles can be divided into resident groups creating local destination theatre and touring groups doing teasers; these would function like cells of Project Mayhem, distributing ideology and aesthetic theory instead of consensual violence and domestic terrorism.
Of course, this scenario also involves foursomes with Juliette Binoche, Clive Owen and my wife. Shit, I can dream, can't I?
Really, critics may or may not represent the audience or be invested in the medium. But, what matters most to them is not what theatre artists think of them, but what the readers of the papers think. They are the market.
But how do you measure that market? Paper sales? Seems to me that critics are accountable to no one, because there's no way to evaluate the impact of their work on the public.
But how do you measure that market? Paper sales? Seems to me that critics are accountable to no one, because there's no way to evaluate the impact of their work on the public.
Roger Downey blustered about being accountable to nobody when we had him on a panel discussion last year, but that's bullshit. The reviewers are accountable to the editors, the editors to the publisher, and the publisher to the bottom line.
Here's a weird thing. Were all the local arts companies to stop advertising in the papers, the papers would likely cut critical coverage. In the case of theater in particular, the ads are considered part of the content, one of the things that draws readers who are looking for a combination of listings and reviews, and without the revenue that the ads produce and the content they essentially provide, there would be little justification to continue reviews, because they, on their own, draw such a small and difficult-to-track audience.
So, the community is complicit. Theaters support the critics.
Speaking of Joe Boling . . .
And speaking of peer to peer marketing . . .
Two Boling checkmarks!
I'm doing my happy-happy-huzzah dance for you right now.
What I love about Boling is that he seems to come to theatre wanting to like it, which is the opposite of what most critics do. Plus he tends to like me. ;^)
Of course, now we need to get YOU to see the show . . .
I'll make it in the nick of time. My girls are heading to E WA next weekend. I'm planning on Sat.
Post a Comment
<< Home