Leonard Jacobs, National Theatre Editor and theatre critic for Back Stage and New York Press, is also the mind behind the popular theatre blog, Clyd Fitch Report. Brave soul that he is, Leonard agreed to be our first "Critic on the Spot" by fielding questions from some of our Extra Criticum authors.
Every few days, we'll post a new Q&A between Leonard and one of us. Here's #5 in our series, this one from Gary Garrison.
Q:
What do you think is more effective as a critic: to be the opinionated reporter ("this is what I saw and how I felt about it,") or, the reporter who shares a more global sense of the experience ("this is what I saw; this is how I felt; this is how the audience responded")?
A:
Full disclosure: Gary is a friend of mine, and the last time he and I had lunch, if my memory serves, he asked me a question just like this one. And I’m going to punt just a little and suggest there’s a little bit of both philosophies in most critics. Let me give you an example. If you’re seeing Hair at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park and Hair, for whatever reason, isn’t your thing, then it’s not your thing; that’s fine. But if you’re there seeing Hair and the audience is going absolutely balls-to-the-wall crazy and they’re running up on stage following the end of the show and singing and dancing their asses off, it seems a little dishonest not to at least acknowledge in print that while the critic’s ass was getting middle-age spread and not letting the sunshine in, there were 1,500 people who were pretty damn vocal about the age of Aquarius. Sometimes critics have to write the equivalent of “You’ll like this kind of show if it’s the kind of show you’ll like.” And while some may say that’s the equivalent of, well, punting, and while some may say its something of a slap to the audience, it’s actually a very fair thing to write.
That’s because the alternative is to focus only on the piece, only on your reaction to the piece, cutting out the unusually enlivened participation of the audience completely. By doing a little reportage and conveying the reaction of the audience, you do give the reader—to use Gary’s word—a “global sense” of the experience. I guess when providing that global sense is useful, relevant, or fair, I err on the side of doing so. But let’s be clear: critics cannot and should not report on the audience all the time.
You’re there principally to respond to the play. If not, you’ll write about the idiot whose cell phone rang before Linda Loman’s big speech.
