critic?
Elysa Gardner: It’s all different media with different elements. But at the end of the day, it’s about the visceral impressions that the art makes on you—whatever art that is.
Michael Sommers: With any kind of criticism, what you’re trying to do is put a work in some sort of context and give people an understanding of what it is.
Jesse Green: Theater is not a vibrant economy anymore. Film is extremely vibrant, and TV is even more vibrant than film. I get a breakdown every day of the hits on the Vulture website, which is New York magazine’s cultural web presence, and it’s organized by cultural category: film, music, TV, theater, books, and art. Without giving away any trade secrets, I can tell you that TV is almost always at the top and theater is almost always near the bottom, unless James Franco was involved in whatever I reviewed the previous night. Perhaps it’s a reflection on my writing, but I don’t think so. It’s just the way it is.
Charles Isherwood: Because film is such a ubiquitous part of our culture, film critics don’t have as much direct influence. People go to the movies no matter what the critics say. Sometimes you get the feeling that film critics are talking to themselves or to each other. That’s less the case with theater critics. As much as we like to complain that people don’t go to the good shows, people really do look to critics when they’re going to spend $100 or more to go to the theater. They’re not going to slavishly follow any one person’s opinion, but you can feel like you’re having some sort of impact.
Zachary Stewart: Compared to a mass media critic, theater critics write for a much more boutique audience who can afford to go to the theater and have a desire to do so. This can be quite liberating when it comes to writing with specificity for a targeted audience.
Michael Schulman: As far as the financial prospects of a movie are concerned, film criticism is negligible. Theater exists in this small community where a Times review can make or break you. That puts a lot on the shoulders of one person or two people.
Don Aucoin: When I wrote about TV shows, I could safely assume that thousands of my readers were going to see the show in question, or that they at least had the ability to see it by clicking a remote control. With theater, you’re speaking to a much smaller, but often more committed audience.
Frank Scheck: The experience of watching film is different than watching theater, and the art form is different, but the process of writing about them is the same.
Robert Feldberg: Theater is different than movies. Every Friday, another romantic comedy opens. They’re written according to formula. They’re not even meant to be reviewed. They’re all variations of the same thing. When I was reviewing movies, only one out of 10 movies was really engaging. Movies are aimed at a certain audience for one weekend, like teenage boys or couples or whatever. Theater is much more individualistic. And in the majority of cases, the playwright is trying to create something artistic. Every show you see is likely to be different from other shows, so the writer deserves your patience and attention.
Joe Dziemianowicz: Stage productions are fleeting. The review is often the only record of the production, its cast, its direction, its look, its interpretation, its vision. Sure, some productions are filmed, and there are books and photographs, but reviews are an essential part of the theater history of any given season.
Michael Riedel: If you review a movie, everyone else is going to see the same movie that you saw. But if you review Angels in America on Tuesday night, the performance on Wednesday night is not going to be the same. You’re describing a live event that’s going to be seen only once. You’re capturing a passing moment. In some ways, your job is to capture it as a reporter.
Andy Propst: You walk into a theater and sit there for two and a half hours.