|
Becca-
First, a word of warning- this is quite a can of worms
you've opened.
Next- a suggestion- Check the RAT-base (http://www.rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com). This is a pretty well-discussed topic around here, and you'll
find some interesting quotes and ideas there.
Now, my two cents....
I find it interesting, to start with that you make (
perhaps an unconscious ) distinction between 'REPORTER' and 'REVIEWER'. This is
an important distinction , in my mind, for many reasons; especially if you're
going to enter into a discussion about the importance or impact. As a person who
has sat both sides of the fence, here is what I think...
Among the people who write about theatre ( or any issue
of aesthetic, for that matter) There are really three categories of Writer; A
Critic, A Reviewer, and a Reporter. In general, all of these have an effect,
desirable or not, on Theatre makers as artists; in as much as they not only
influence opinion, but they also serve (usually ) as the voice of at least part
of our audience (that is, if we as artists make the decision to listen to that
voice, which is a whole other conversation).
A reporter, to my mind, is that class of writer who may
or may not be a journalist, whose main concern is the dissemination of
information; "The Park City Players will present Rob Nash's classic play
'Shameless Plug- The Musical' at the town hall arts center...(etc etc etc)". The
reporter may or may not include interesting pieces of info, like the cast , and
who to call for tickets, but really, doesn't need and doesn't exercise much
(credible) judgment at all. This is most people who write for smaller
publications.
A REVIEWER is a slightly more dangerous fellow. A
reviewer is usually a fairly astute judge of taste and popular culture, and is
also a talented or accomplished essayist; that is, they write a regular column
and have people who read them regularly to see what they have to say, primarily
because they are particularly eloquent or entertaining by themselves. They also
generally have a working knowledge of the genre they are reviewing, but would
really be the same thing no matter what they were writing about- people paid to
express their opinion. How much actual influence these folks have is a matter of
some debate; just how much influence they actually have over what shows people
buy tickets for is not only varied, but hard to measure. Generally, unless they
have something really good or really bad to say about a show, I myself consider
them to be free publicity and discount any damage that they might incur based on
my own observation that they not only have very little real knowledge about the
show or theater in general, but that most people view them ( again) as
entertaining writers that at best contribute to the public discussion. (again,
that's my interpretation of what I see in my own town...) This group is about
99% of the people you find published.
A Critic (again, in my opinion ) is someone much closer
to the heart and soul of the Western Theatre. A critic is a person who has some
qualification to say what he says about what he sees in the theatre; that
is, he is familiar with Theatre, it's history and technique, and is
qualified to recognize and point out what he thinks is good or bad. This writer
tends to include specific cases in his opinions. Rather than merely 'I
Like/Didn't like' he can make a case for why a particular artistic or technical
choice was effective or useful ...'Mr. Nash's performance was interesting and
entertaining, but derivative, reminiscent of last years presentation by the
Capital player's Nick Savage...'. These folks can tell us alot that we may not
be able to admit to ourselves, which is why they are so tremendously unpopular
among alot of theatre makers, but can be so very useful to a producer or
director who pays attention. Good example of this kind of writing can be found
in many collections of theatre criticism...Robert Brustien is great, for
example, even if you don;t agree with him. David Mamet also has written some
interesting stuff. These are mainstream, established theatre writers,
though...most folks on this list are a long way from the kind of shows they
write about- and so are much more sensitive about what a critic has to say, when
we can get writers of this caliber and influence to see our shows. To some
degree, the principle of free publicity and public debate applies here as it
does to the reviewer, but it carries much more weight and sting. Ideally, these
people ought to be hand in glove with the theatre community, or perhaps
considered to be the loyal opposition. Most often, though , they are eschewed by
the community, which in some cases may be justifiable, but is still a sad state
of affairs since they provide educated insight into what we
do.
Anyhow...I've gone on a bit long...I expect there will
be many more voices heard on this soon enough...
Glen 'Skip' Newell
The Pauline Project/ReaLive Productions
Denver, Colorado
|