Critics in the digital age

Pah. Critics. There's really only one opinion that matters.

Mine.

What I like is finding a critic whose views closely align with mine. I'm not a dispassionate observer or an academic who may not see the play but can construct a reasonable idea of it from reading a wide variety of sources. If I'm reading a review, it's to find out if a production is worth my money and time (usually over another production rather than a quiet night in or an art gallery opening or whatever), and if I have a critic who consistently likes the same things as me and for the same reasons (and I do), then I can turn to them for useful advice.

The thing is, both the advice-seeking theatre-goer and the source-seeking academic can only benefit from the expansion and proliferation of digital age criticism. I never met a single academic who complained about having too many primary sources, and where I might not find a close-aligning voice among traditional print critics, I've got a wide choice of bloggers to pick from. Not all bloggers are created equal, and of course there's a wiiiiide swathe of those whose idea of a review is to recount the plot, list the actors, then conclude "I really liked this!", but not all traditional print critics are automatically much cop either.

I don't mind saying that a critic who I don't have much time for these days is Mark Shenton. He seems far more interested in what people think of him than in what he thinks of theatre...

I agree with much of what you say, especially about anyone's view being worthless to anyone else, but  I would be more radical in my conclusion.

The 'pool of critics' shouldn't be small, it should include everyone. Those writing for a large or small audience, people you know, people you don't, people you agree with, people who are the opposite and so on.

It's never a good idea to expect a limited number of people to tell you what you should like, it not only keeps out a range of voices (from various parts of society) but it narrows down what is seen and who by. It's the same with other products, what sells is what people have heard of, not what they would best appreciate. This is why the internet is a great challenge, it has opened up opinion whilst also closing it down; people only communicating with the like minded where the opportunity is there for your experience to be more open and wide ranging than it otherwise would be.

I don't think they'd argue that their opinion is more valid than yours, but I think they'd argue they contribute to the discussion around the media they review in general. Critics are great promoters of their genre, at their best they are cheerleaders for the best of the thing they love, and perhaps try to warn you against things they did not enjoy whilst earnestly discussing whatever merits it has. In a similar vein, what right do I have to tell you what I think about a play? Why on earth should I care what you have to say about it? It's because there's a discussion, you see others perspectives on something, and if (perish the thought) you're not a person who can just go and see everything they might potentially enjoy, you can try and choose the right thing to spend your time and money on.

Many opinions can be interesting but some are not, perhaps most often when born out of ignorance but worst of all when driven by spite, bile or the many other petty motivations which spur trolls on the internet to do their thing. I have plenty of experience of sites such as Trip Advisor - I would never dream of using it for reference other than to find an address or phone number (and even these are often wrong) - where malicious or biased reviews/ratings destroy the hard work of honest people whilst promoting that of their unscrupulous culinary inferiors.

A good critic is someone who has a deep understanding of theatre and hopefully has some cultural hinterland too. It is to be hoped that to get a job in a major outlet as a critic some selection is involved which roots out obviously unsuitable candidates.

We live in the age predicted by Warhol and The Kinks (Everyone's In Showbiz, Everyone's A Star) but when we require surgery most of us opt for a qualified, experienced professional rather than someone who talks knowledgeably about operations and may even have been present at one once. Possibly. Participation is great, and exchange of opinions is great, but this is not always a substitute for expertise.

And the quality of online reviews is, to be polite, very mixed. Only yesterday I read what is, for me, the worst review I have seen in my life on The Londonist's website. A one-liner recommending what you should drink when you go to a particular theatre.

Off to find a review website where I can tear chunks out of The Londonist with a dozen different avatars....

Reviving this topic which I missed the first time around.

Yesterday, I saw that a critic with a large following retweeted something which, with literally two clicks, 10 seconds later, anyone could prove was false. A few people spotted it and posted in the comments section it was fake but well over a hundred people retweeted it and hundreds liked it. The critic eventually said in reply to someone's comment that he wanted it to be true and it was based on fact - and has left it up, where it continues to be circulated. It's nothing nasty or scurrilous, just stupid and fake. And you think, if he can't be bothered to check the simplest and most obvious of things, what else doesn't he get right?

This is one of many ways in which the internet can be vexing - I was annoyed about something false being widely and pointlessly circulated and also cross with myself for wasting time thinking about it. It takes up too much headroom.

On the other hand, my favourite drama criticism these days tends to come from writers at Exeunt - and I only access their stuff online.

I think also some 'mainstream' critics are, as my politician friend calls it 'a fan of their own image more than the work they do' which weirdly applies to MPs and theatre folks equally a lot of the time.

As in certain critics (whose name may or may not rhyme with Shark Menton as a great example) are more interested in how what they say about a show makes them look, rather than offering a real opinion. Equally some of the self proclaimed high-brown critics have a similar problem with 'what opinion will make me seem most clever'

The only 'mainstream' critic (aside from a handful of regional freelancers who work for the Stage, who aren't 'full timers' by any stretch) that I have time for is Lynn, and even she now could be considered an 'indie' or 'blogger' critic I guess.

As one of said bloggers BELIEVE me it's an issue several of us have raised with his 'other half' for that website many, many times. (his face has at least been removed from the publicity after a particularly targeted bout of blogger degradation he was part of). 

I have no issue, as a blogger and someone who works for 'mainstream' publications occasionally in acknowledging they are different styles of writing sometimes, and serve different purposes. But it does show a slightly dinosaur like approach to try and claim that bloggers/vloggers etc have no place in criticism, when they've clearly established themselves as part of the 'system'....of course such is the way with dinosaurs, not fond of the meteor coming their way perhaps. 

They don't usually pick whereabouts they're sitting, they might be able to influence it (ie, if they need or want an aisle seat) but generally top dog critics will be put in some of the best seats in the theatre. Non-print reviewers (bloggers/influencers etc) will usually be in Band A/B seats at the very least but again, apart from access or aisle preference, they don't usually have a say in where they're sat. 

It depends but generally critics will be invited to one of the last preview performances and embargoed until press night, hence why you'll sometimes see reviews go live as soon as the curtain is down on press night, but some will be invited to press night with their reviews going out the next morning. 

Hope that helps! 

Also, I assume the cast all know when invited critics are in the house, so that they know to be on it?! Not that they wouldn’t be normally but, you I’m sure knowing they’re there will focus the mind somewhat 😄 

Thanks, that’s interesting! When you say it’s usual in West End / bigger theatres for critics to come in “pre-previews”, do you mean, in previews pre official opening? I guess it must be only a few days prior given that shows are constantly being tinkered with right up to official opening so you want the show to be in as final form as possible when you invite the critics in?

Yes to the point (and given I trust Baz's opinion) I'm inclined to see the NT live to see if it changes my opinion of it as well. 

On the subject of seating, of course a few of my locals have unreserved seating so even us critics are battling it out like animals for a seat...