The Critics Say...: 57 Theater Reviewers in New York and Beyond Discuss Their Craft and Its Future (42 page)

Rob Weinert-Kendt:
Ultimately,
Spider-Man
couldn’t save itself from itself. It was a doomed project from the start. The production, to its benefit and ultimate detriment, ran away from anyone being able to control it. It had rock stars and Julie Taymor. The critics were just a small part of that story. There was no way critics could control that narrative—not least because
Spider-Man
had press agent Rick Miramontez being the referee, making the story happen, even when it was not flattering to the production. Critics weren’t going to be the referees. But like in sports, they’re the commentators. They’re going to have a take on it. And fans at home might throw their beers at the TV, to use that analogy, and say, “You’re full of it.”

Terry Teachout:
Even with a big-budget commodity musical, critics can have an influence. It’s almost possible to bulletproof a show if the commodity is popular enough, and if you spend enough money on it, but that is not normal. I think the critics made a difference with
Spider-Man
, but I don’t care if people want to see it. I care to the extent that the commodity musical is increasingly crowding out better kinds of musicals on Broadway. But then again, I don’t spend most of my time on Broadway. If I did, I’d kill myself. Broadway is just a small part of American theater, and it is not the most important part. I’m perfectly fine with people spending lots of money on shows that I don’t like. It’s their money. That’s their business.

Elysa Gardner:
I don’t really think the reviews affected it much at all. At the end of the day, I don’t think critics can kill a show. Frank Rich was called “the butcher of Broadway” in the 1980s, but Andrew Lloyd Webber still had his hits.

Charles Isherwood:
Spider-Man
was indicative of the current state of Broadway in the sense that there are more and more shows that are impervious to criticism. They are brand-tested before they even get to Broadway. They’re adaptations of popular movies or collections of songs from popular artists. What the critics think of these kinds of shows is immaterial. If they strike a chord with an audience, they’re going to run whether critics like them or not. If they’re second-rate and word of mouth is not particularly good, then eventually they’re going to close at a loss, like
Spider-Man
did. It played for a considerable amount of time, but it came nowhere near to making back its investment.

Leonard Jacobs:
When I was in high school, there was a show called
Merlin
, which was one of the last shows to play the Mark Hellinger Theatre. The magician Doug Henning and Chita Rivera were in it, and Nathan Lane had a small role. The preview period went on and on. If my memory serves, the critics started going to review it before the opening, and there was a lot of outrage over it. It didn’t make a bit of difference one way or the other. The show was terrible.

Matthew Murray:
I do think that
Spider-Man
showed that the critics still do have power. The odds are excellent that the show wouldn’t have received an overhaul had the critics not publicly weighed in on what was going on. It seems as though everyone involved thought they could get away with it, and the critics didn’t let them, and they deserve credit for that. But—and I realize I’m in the minority with this opinion—I think the critics lighting the fuse on the eventual overhaul really hurt the show in the long run because the changes that were later made were almost universally for the worse. To my reading, a lot of other critics didn’t get what the show was trying to do, and therefore weren’t assessing it and nudging it along fairly. And so the creative team, which clearly needed help, ended up doing things that weakened the show in every imaginable way. The critics may have been responsible for a different
Spider-Man
, but they were also responsible for a worse
Spider-Man
.

MATT WINDMAN
: Considering the current challenges for theater critics, do you wish you had done something else with your life?

Jason Zinoman:
Almost certainly.

Michael Dale:
I have a lot to regret about my life. Getting free tickets to every show on Broadway isn’t one of them.

John Lahr:
I did do something else with my life. I didn’t make my living writing drama criticism. I wrote books and movies and the occasional play. If I was only tossing out opinions, I’d be in bad shape. I didn’t start out being a theater critic. I didn’t even think you could make a living writing criticism until I went to Oxford.

Gordon Cox:
Do I think I’ll be doing this for the rest of my life? Who knows? Where this industry is going is totally unpredictable, but I’ve gotten quite a bit out of it.

Jeremy Gerard:
I’ve been very lucky because since 1975, I have always found a way to earn a pretty good living as a journalist. I’m basically doing what I’ve always done, but I’ve been able to accommodate myself to changes in technology. Of course, I would be giving a very different answer if I was still looking for work after losing my job at
Bloomberg
. I have seen great pain inflicted on a lot of my colleagues. I’m no better than they are, and a lot of them are seriously struggling and facing challenges that we shouldn’t have to at our age. Unfortunately, it’s not limited to critics or even to journalists. We live in dire times for a lot of people.

Ronni Reich:
It’s hard to say because my original goal was to pursue a career as an opera singer. Compared to that, I think I made the more appropriate personal choice, even in this economy. But knowing what I know now, it might have given me some pause. I am at an age where, if I wanted to, I could theoretically go back to school and start over, but this just feels like such a perfect thing that I wouldn’t change it.

Alexis Soloski:
I would have made different choices if I knew it would be this difficult.

Ben Brantley:
No. This is what I really enjoy doing. If it stopped tomorrow, I’d feel very grateful to have done it for as long as I have.

Charles Isherwood:
Oh lord, yes. I came to journalism through a series of circumstances. It wasn’t really a career path I specifically pursued. I ended up working at a magazine straight out of college. Once on that path, one job led to another, and this is where I ended up. That being said, if I had seen that the rise of the Internet was going to undermine the economic model of journalism, I certainly would have done my very best to switch tracks 20 years ago. But unfortunately, that’s not the way life works.

David Cote:
No. I wouldn’t change a thing. I have been doing this for 14 years, and I’m sort of amazed that I’m still doing it. It’s a career. I tell people, “I’m paid to sit on my ass and look at theater,” and that’s kind of wonderful. Although it hasn’t made me rich, it has made me very happy, and it’s helped me immensely over the years.

As far as what might be next if the gravy train stops—and by gravy, I mean a tiny, dried-up piece of gravy in the corner—I don’t know what I would do next. Do I think I should have gotten my PhD years ago? Yes, I do. The thing about theater critics is they live for the moment and in the moment, and for the eight o’clock curtain and the deadline the next day. It’s a drug. Then you wake up and realize that 20 years have passed, and you didn’t have a Plan B. That’s scary, but a hell of a lot of fun.

Elisabeth Vincentelli:
I don’t know how to do anything other than writing, though I may have used my writing skills in another way. But what’s done is done. I’m past my midcareer point. I think it’s more of a problem for the younger generation, which doesn’t have many options.

Peter Marks:
I regret what’s happening to other theater critics, but I don’t regret doing it. Being on the aisle seat at the theater is fascinating. I don’t regret a moment I spend in almost any theater. It’s a great job. There are hassles, downsides, pitfalls, nervous-making moments, and things that are on the line and at stake, but it’s been an amazing experience.

David Rooney:
I think I would have thought more seriously about a job offer I got while I was still at
Variety
. Not long after I moved to New York from Rome at the end of 2002, I was offered a really interesting job in film development. It probably would have doubled my salary. I said no at the time because it involved a move to L.A., and I have no interest in living there. It also felt slightly disloyal.
Variety
had moved me to New York. They were putting me through the green card process, and I had loyalty back then to a company that had provided me with opportunities. Knowing what I know now, I probably would have thought more seriously about the proposal. Whether or not I had stuck with that career path, it would have opened up more opportunities for me and provided a little more security. Theater writing is a very narrow niche.

I’m now in my early fifties. It’s scary to look down the pipeline and think, I have 20 more years of work left in me. Am I going to be able to scratch out a living doing this for that amount of time? I also own property in New York. I have financial responsibilities. I’m not getting any younger, which means healthcare becomes more of a concern.

Michael Musto:
Nobody knew in advance that journalism would become the equivalent of selling typewriters and pencils, but it’s still there. It’s still vital. You can still make a living at it. I can’t imagine doing anything else. So no, I would not have chosen any other path.

Peter Filichia:
As Charles Kringas says in
Merrily We Roll Along
, “I like money a lot…. I mean, it’s better than not.…” However, money has never been the motivating factor for me. When I was in high school, everyone was being told to go into engineering, but that’s of no interest to me. There’s a part of me that feels like I’m not working at all when I’m writing.

Richard Ouzounian:
Becoming a critic was a late-in-life turn for me. I got into it at age 50. I didn’t know how long it was going to last. The fact that I’m still doing it 15 years later is a compliment to me, the paper, the business, and the city I live in. If someone is 25 years old now and thinking of being a theater critic, I’d ask them to think long and hard and to realistically look around. When I hear all about these universities offering degrees in theater criticism and dramaturgy, I wonder where their students are going to work.

Adam Feldman:
I could’ve gone in different directions with my life in a gazillion different ways. I don’t think that’s a productive way of thinking. I’ve very much enjoyed being a theater critic, and I hope to continue being a theater critic for many years to come. That’s really all there is to it. If, for some reason, it becomes impossible for me to continue doing that, then I will do something else. There are lots of things I would like to write about. But no, if I could go back in time and change one thing I’ve done in my life, it would certainly not be the choice of writing about theater.

Terry Teachout:
I never planned to be a theater critic. When the
Wall Street Journal
approached me, I had never done it before. If you’re asking me the question more generally, then no, I would not have gone into journalism. No one in his right mind, had he been able to look forward to the situation as it is now 25 or 30 years ago, would have assumed there would be a job for him. I’m terribly lucky. There’s only one
Wall Street Journal
, and I’m its only drama critic. Those are not good odds.

Roma Torre:
The state of theater criticism has nothing to do with whether I want to continue being a theater critic. I do it because I love the theater.

Matthew Murray:
As far as theater criticism itself is concerned, I consider it only one part of my life, and not even necessarily the biggest part. It’s something I do, but it’s not everything that I am. Even after it became clear I’d never make a ton of money at it or work for the
Times
, I didn’t think it was a bad choice. I wouldn’t be half the person I am today without it.

Zachary Stewart:
Every profession has challenges in this ultra-disruptive economy. At least we get to sit comfortably in a darkened theater and be entertained (sometimes). It’s not shoveling coal.

MATT WINDMAN
: What advice do you have for aspiring theater critics?

Michael Musto:
See as many shows as you can see. Write down your thoughts about the shows, even if it’s just for yourself or your
Facebook
friends. That’s how you become a critic. You learn by doing. The cream rises in this society, and your work will get noticed if you’re a little aggressive in promoting yourself. And if that’s what you were meant to do, you will find a job, even in this diminished landscape.

If you are not passionate about the theater, don’t do it. If you just think it might be cute, or if you liked
Mamma Mia!
, that’s not going to be good enough. You have to like the whole breadth of what the theater provides: from musicals to Shakespeare to original dramas. You have to really love it because you are going to be spending a lot of time sitting there in the dark, and it can become torture if you’re not into it.

David Sheward:
Have another job that pays you, like maybe a job writing in some other capacity that is in demand and that you’ll get a salary for.

Michael Dale:
Try acting instead. You’ll be more likely to get work.

Elisabeth Vincentelli:
Find a backup plan to make money because the chances of you making a living and supporting yourself from it are so slim. It’s not economically viable at all. There was a moment of glory from the 1990s up to the mid–2000s when you could support yourself writing, but that moment is gone. We’re back to the Dark Ages of having three jobs at once. It’s very depressing. You might be able to write a few theater reviews here and there, but you have to be ready and willing to write articles about a whole bunch of other things that are not necessarily of interest to you.