Authors: Matt Windman
David Rooney
is a film and theater critic for the
Hollywood Reporter
. He was previously the chief theater critic and theater editor of
Variety
.
Frank Scheck
is a theater critic for the
New York Post
and the
Hollywood Reporter
. He has also written for the
Christian Science Monitor
, the
New York Daily News
, and
Time Out New York
.
Michael Schulman
has contributed to the
New Yorker
since 2006 and covers theater in its “Goings On About Town” and “Talk of the Town” sections.
Howard Shapiro
was the theater critic of the
Philadelphia Inquirer
. He currently writes about theater for
NewsWorks
and reviews Broadway on the radio for the Classical Network. He teaches arts criticism at Temple University.
Helen Shaw
is a contributing theater critic for
Time Out New York
. She also works as a dramaturg and teaches drama at New York University.
David Sheward
was the executive editor of
Backstage.
He currently writes reviews for
ArtsinNY.com
and
TheaterLife.com
. He is the author of
Rage and Glory: The Volatile Life and Career of George C. Scott
.
John Simon
was the theater critic of
New York
magazine from 1968 to 2005 and of
Bloomberg News
from 2005 to 2010. He is currently the theater critic of the
Westchester Guardian
and
Yonkers Tribune
. He received the 1969–70 George Jean Nathan Award for Dramatic Criticism.
Alexis Soloski
is a theater critic and reporter for the
New York Times
. She also writes for the
Guardian
and the
New Yorker
and is the former chief theater critic of the
Village Voice
. She holds a doctorate in theater from Columbia University.
Michael Sommers
is a former president of the New York Drama Critics’ Circle and was chief critic for the
Star-Ledger
and the Newhouse Newspapers. He is currently a freelance regional critic for the “Metropolitan” section of the
New York Times
and covers New York theater for
NewJerseyNewsroom.com
.
Marilyn Stasio
is a theater critic for
Variety
. She is the author of
Showtune
, a biography co-written with songwriter Jerry Herman. She is also the “crime columnist” of the
New York Times Book Review
.
Zachary Stewart
is the chief critic and features reporter of
TheaterMania.com
. He has also worked as a playwright and director.
Steven Suskin
is a theater critic for the
Huffington Post
. He has also written for
Variety
and
Playbill
. He is the author of 14 books including
Show Tunes
,
Second Act Trouble
,
The Sound of Broadway Music,
and
The Book of Mormon: The Testament of a Broadway Musical
. He has worked as a theatrical manager and producer.
Terry Teachout
is the drama critic of the
Wall Street Journal
and the critic-at-large of
Commentary
. He is the author of biographies of Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, and George Balanchine. He is also a playwright and opera librettist. He won a 2014 Bradley Prize.
Roma Torre
is a theater critic and news anchor at NY1 News.
Elisabeth Vincentelli
is the chief drama critic of the
New York Post
. She was formerly the arts and entertainment editor of
Time Out New York
. She is originally from France.
Rob Weinert-Kendt
is the editor-in-chief of
American Theatre
magazine. He has also written for the
Los Angeles Times
and the
New York Times
.
Matt Windman
is the theater critic of
amNewYork
. He is also an attorney.
Linda Winer
is the chief theater critic of
Newsday
. She has also written for the
Chicago Tribune
, the
New York Daily News
, and
USA Today
.
Jason Zinoman
writes about theater and comedy for the
New York Times
. He is the author of
Shock Value: How a Few Eccentric Outsiders Gave Us Nightmares, Conquered Hollywood, and Invented Modern Horror
and
Searching for Dave Chappelle
.
Richard Zoglin
is the theater critic of
Time
magazine. He is the author of
Hope: Entertainer of the Century
and
Comedy at the Edge: How Stand-Up in the 1970s Changed America
.
MATT WINDMAN:
Why do we have theater critics in the first place?
Michael Sommers:
Theater criticism goes far back, even in informal ways—like the English court wits that sat around and made cutting remarks during performances in the 17th century. I’m sure there was a lot of grumbling on the amphitheater steps at Epidaurus.
Helen Shaw:
Theater criticism is about the human response to write about theater. Many of us take other jobs so we can do it. We are not doing this to be wealthy, to be known, to be liked, or anything like that. It’s just a primal response.
Zachary Stewart:
Theater critics lead the conversation after the curtain has fallen. They sift through the junk (so that people with limited time and money don’t have to) and connect important work to the larger cultural conversation.
Chris Jones:
People sometimes say to me “critics are dead” or “we don’t need critics,” or variations of that. But consider the
American Idol
phenomenon and all its spinoffs.
American Idol
, at its core, is a group of critics. There’s still a broadly accepted sense that this is a good thing and a healthy thing—even if people don’t find a particular review or a particular critic to be all that good or healthy.
Michael Riedel:
There’s no real reason for theater critics. It’s not a job that’s essential to the wellbeing of mankind. It’s just that during the late 19th to early 20th century, when Broadway was coming along and becoming a big part of the entertainment business, newspapers decided they wanted to cover the shows that people were going to see.
Jesse Green:
Magazine and newspaper editors got it into their heads that people are interested in reading reviews—though perhaps less so now than previously. It’s part of a package of cultural information that appeals to an audience that advertisers want to target. I don’t think there’s a lot to say about theater criticism as an art form. It can be done well, and it can be done poorly. But fundamentally, it’s a business, just like any other. Even Shaw did it for the money.
Peter Marks:
Traditionally, theater criticism was a service for the readers, to let them know which shows to see. It then grew beyond being just a consumer guide. As the theater became more diverse and complex, as the stories and the forms became more varied, there was more reason for someone to have a conversation with the audience about what was going on in the art form.
Frank Rizzo:
I used to review rock concerts, which would come into town and leave the next day. And I would think, Why are we covering this? After all, the show’s gone. But people want to know what it was like to be there—to be part of that experience. Theater has a lot more to offer than concerts. Shows have longer runs, so people can read a review and become inspired to go to the theater. But even if they don’t go, they can still feel like they’re part of a cultural community. I read reviews from all over the country. I’m not going to see those shows, but I can feel what it was like to be in that audience.
Jeremy Gerard:
Critics offer a skeleton key into thinking about a subject. They help us to see things with open eyes, open hearts, and open minds. Good critics are not people I agree with all the time. Often, they’re people I disagree with, but whose intellect I respect, and who help me see things in a show that I hadn’t thought about before.
Elizabeth Vincentelli:
From a pragmatic point of view, there are a lot of shows out there and tickets are not cheap. People’s time and money are at a premium, so you want to direct them towards the shows that are worth their attention. A big Broadway show is not necessarily worth their attention. They may be better off with a small, experimental thing that tries to do something and succeeds in its own universe.
David Cote:
Criticism and reviews provide a direct response to works of art. There’s nothing worse than putting art out there, putting your soul out there, into a void. Even if you can afford the most expensive marketing and advertising, it’s still a void. We also serve the function of telling people what we think of certain works and shaping the discourse around them. If critics went away, it would be a horrible blow to art.
Michael Dale:
Theater critics provide an informed opinion. While it’s true that that any opinion can be a valid one, a theater critic working in New York will review well over 100 productions a year. They don’t just see what they want to see. They commit themselves to seeing every major production and a wide variety of other productions, so their reviews come with a thorough knowledge of what is happening and developing in the theater.
Howard Shapiro:
Critics provide more than just comments from friends. While everyone can have ideas about a show, usually they don’t. Usually they just say, “I liked it” or “I didn’t like it.” That’s not being a critic.
Chris Jones:
There is a need within the artistic enterprise for somebody to deliver some kind of verdict. In the theater, you start with an idea. Maybe you have a workshop or a tryout and then a full production. At that point, someone has to say, “This is good” or “This is not good,” or maybe even, “This is great.” That person can’t have a stake in the production. It has to be somebody who is unbiased but has the context to be able to judge that production and relate it to other work.
Ben Brantley:
In the best of all possible worlds—one where people went to the theater without reading reviews—theater critics would be there to continue the conversation, start an argument, give a nod of affirmation, or whatever. I like to read other kinds of criticism after I’ve seen a movie or read a book. I think there are people like me who enjoy reading criticism—even of things that they won’t see—if the critic can recreate the experience in writing. Ideally, that is what criticism should do. Sometimes you can kind of get off on someone else’s enthusiasm.
Peter Filichia:
Not everyone agrees with me, but I say we’re here to let people know what they’d enjoy. I want to be an audience matchmaker. Most of my reviews are positive because I specifically slant them to the people who will enjoy a certain show. I see no reason why critics should only give their own opinions. They’re writing for an audience. It’s about the reader. It’s not about me. I don’t care if I have a good time or not. I am there to determine who would like the show.
John Simon:
Being a consumer guide is the most pathetic and inadequate way of looking at drama criticism. Unfortunately, that is the way many publications—perhaps even most—look at it. That is the last thing that matters. What matters is trying to understand what the work is and what it isn’t and to reveal that to your own satisfaction—assuming that you apply high standards to your own work, which you should if you’re a critic.
Linda Winer:
For me, the consumer guide function has always been the least interesting part of the job. I don’t want to devote my life to telling people whether or not to spend $50 or $100 or even $500 on something. I think we have theater critics to continue the conversation. Everybody walks out of the theater talking about plays, and we are part of that conversation. I think a good critic is someone with an interesting mind. It isn’t the yes or the no that matters—it’s the
why
. Everything we do is about trying to explain the
why
. That is harder and harder to do with reduced space. But for me, that’s the goal.
Roma Torre:
I go back and forth about this. Sometimes it’s consumer-oriented, in that you’re steering people to see or not see something based on its quality and its cost, but I think the main function of a theater critic is to assess the intrinsic merit of a piece of theater. There are many aspects to that, and a lot of intangibles as to what make for good theater. But if we do our jobs correctly, we can help maintain a sense of quality control within the art form.
Steven Suskin:
How do prospective ticket buyers decide what to see? If you’re in a town with only two theaters operating at any given moment, you can find out easily enough what’s playing. But in New York, there’s so much out there. It’s easy to say, “I want to see
The Book of Mormon
. That’s supposed to be really good.” But there are a lot of Off Broadway shows, and even Off Off Broadway shows, that are worthwhile. I don’t think there is any way that theatergoers will find out about them unless they read something urging them to go, and that’s what theater critics do. I don’t think our job is to tell people whether it’s good or bad. Our job is to give the readers enough information so that they can say, “Oh, I’m interested in this.”
Michael Schulman:
If it’s done well, criticism is certainly more than providing a kind of consumer report. Critics are people with an analytical ability who deconstruct the experience of seeing theater. Criticism deepens the art and deepens the experience for all audience members. And since theater evolves and is ephemeral, we need theater critics to document and analyze what’s happening with the theater as an art form: how it changes, how it grows, where it missteps, and where it finds insight into the human condition.
Leonard Jacobs:
More than evaluating or passing judgment, the main function of theater criticism is to teach—whether that’s teaching the public, the industry, or other critics.