|
Post by Guest00 on Oct 16, 2012 15:51:11 GMT -5
What role do critics play in RVA becoming a premiere theatre town? Also, are the RTCC Awards helpful or not?
|
|
|
Post by RVAer on Oct 16, 2012 19:26:11 GMT -5
The critics play a huge part in the trajectory of Richmond theatre. They ACTUALLY have an established platform that can affect the changes we all desire and that could yield results in a much more immediate way than a collection of individuals with unified voices and actions can. This is not to discredit the efforts of those individuals but the critics each have a unique opportunity to stand as an individual and say, "I like [this]. [This] could be better. [This] should be praised. In the future, I'd like to see [this]." There is an element of this that happens on occasion but it is inconsistent at best.
There may be politics at play or some strategy in the distribution of awards at the RTCCs. We have no choice but to believe the Critics Circle when they say their votes do not reflect that. Personally, I do think that a healthy dose of competition ups the ante for everyone and inspires the very best (in most cases). The bottom line is that this event seems, first and foremost, one that promotes camaraderie, fellowship, and support among the companies and artists that contribute to the Richmond theatre season.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Oct 16, 2012 23:30:46 GMT -5
Of course there are politics at play with the awards. Anyone can see that. It's obvious in the nominations and in the winners. They say it's about awarding excellence. It's not. It's about trying to give attention to people and organizations that they think need it or deserve it. Maybe that's a good thing. But don't say it's about recognizing excellence when what it really is about is critics giving a boost to wherever they decide to.
|
|
|
Post by anonymoue on Oct 17, 2012 7:59:36 GMT -5
One thing that makes Richmond different from other great theatre towns is its size. It's a much smaller pool than places like New York or Chicago. Because of that, the community is much tighter knit. You can like that or hate it, but its what makes us different. The critics here are more involved with the artists than in those other places. It would be difficult for them not to be, because like I said the pond is much smaller. Because the critics are involved like this, certain people will always expect some kind of favoritism. Like how can you really critique somebody honestly who is your friend? I think they do a pretty good job of it. And I do think the awards are recognizing excellence. It may not be what you think is the best, but its the critics think are the best. No one is ever going to agree on all of them. But its a great opportunity for everyone to come together and celebrate what we do together, so I think its good.
|
|
|
Post by Guest11 on Oct 17, 2012 11:16:31 GMT -5
I agree -- while politics may inform certain decisions, the awards are given to those individuals, productions or companies that the CRITICS vote on and determine to be worthy of recognition. Obviously, others will have differing opinions, but as of now those awards are up to the critics to decide. Except for the People's Choice award, which always seems to bring what we think should have been an obvious choice to the foreground. In my opinion, the RTCC's are fantastic. It gives theatre artists something to look forward to, which also raises money for a good cause. It shows our theatre patrons that we take pride in what we do, and it gives our super patrons another opportunity to get involved with the community.
I do think, however, that it is time for our critics to step up their game. It seems that too often we are given an over simplified summary of a show, with one or two words about an actor or two, and a list of who designed what. Our critics have a double edged sword in their hand: one that should help to intrigue audiences to NEED to see a show (especially if the content is more challenging) before it closes, thus promoting ticket sales, while still being honest with our directors, designers, actors, etc. about the work they are presenting.
Since we are such a small community I think we all need to work together to start bringing more people out to the theatre. If our more conservative patrons aren't willing to be challenged, and our young patrons are either bored or can't afford to see many shows, why do the Broadway tours sell out at rates much higher than the most expensive regional ticket in town?
|
|
|
Post by anonymous on Oct 17, 2012 13:20:40 GMT -5
The biggest problem with the critics in town as it pertains to the RTCC Awards is that they don't understand the difference between a Leading Role and a Supporting Role. I'm no expert and just recently getting involved in theatre myself, but I grew up watching the Tony Awards with my family (my sister is a huge theatre nerd) and I was always under the impression that the theatre would submit their picks for the nominations. Is this wrong? For example, the theatre nominates whomever they think deserves recognition from the production and then the critics select from those for the RTCC official nominations list.
Is this something that can be discussed with the Critics Circle or do we have no way of communicating with them about it?
I saw RENT 5 times and Joy Newsum was amazing, but Joann is not the lead role in that production. She was a powerhouse and by far my favorite actress in the production, but I would argue that the roles of Mark, Roger, and Angel are the leads in that production. The actor who played Collins (I don't remember his name, but he was great) won for Lead Actor and Collins is not the lead in that show, either. The Angel in the production was also amazing, but I believe he won for Supporting Role when the actor who played Angel on Broadway won for Lead Actor. I'm confused as to how these breakdowns work.
And another thing that has always confused me is that the "reviews" by some of the critics are more of a synopsis of action as opposed to a review of the production.
Am I completely out in left field or is this something worth talking about?
|
|
|
Post by Guest11 on Oct 17, 2012 13:57:42 GMT -5
It's worth talking about! Perhaps we'll hear from someone with some insight. In the mean time, what do you think the strengths and weaknesses are in the present system/content of reviews?
|
|
|
Post by volunteer on Oct 18, 2012 10:40:58 GMT -5
Am I the only one who misses reading Roy Proctor's reviews? He knew theater and loved theater, and was tough (tough enough to inspire letters to the editor complaining about his reviews), but he was tough on everyone. While I like when shows that I like get good reviews (not just summary/program rehashes, spoilers and nit-picking), I'm not sure what the standard is anymore for reviews of Richmond theater. Or, is there a standard?
As an audience member, I knew that if Roy Proctor wrote "don't miss this show" I needed to make sure to get to it if I could. And I never regretted paying full-price to see a show that he had given a good review.
|
|
|
Post by kevininouye on Oct 18, 2012 11:48:34 GMT -5
Am I asking for trouble by not posting anonymously? That seems to be the norm here... which may or may not be part of the problem...
While none of us like reading bad reviews of our work, I strongly agree that a healthy ecosystem needs predators. When reviewers just write summaries and platitudes and never call things bad, their reviews aren't taken seriously... and neither is that theatre scene.
That's my take, anyway. One of the differences between a professional theatre community and a community theatre scene is the willingness to hold people to a higher standard - publicly.
|
|
|
Post by anonymous on Oct 18, 2012 16:33:16 GMT -5
I think these posts are dead-on. I wonder if the critics sometimes underestimate how much influence they actually have. I also wonder if they recognize the value of hard, honest criticism. They should be the standard-bearers-- the ones who say, "Look at THIS. This is the kind of work to strive for." And they should build the kind of reputation that saying so actually MEANS something. Also, criticism and writing reviews are two different things. ANYONE can write a review. A review is "I liked this, I didn't like that because..." Criticism involves much more. Of course, anyone who calls themselves a critic should know that. No one wants to read a summary of a play, and they certainly don't want their own experience of seeing a play compromised by what a critic has irresponsibly chosen to reveal. The critics here ARE involved with the artists in the community to an extent that I think compromises their ability to do their jobs well. I think they view themselves more as "friends and advocates" of the theatre than "critics." I think that's been made pretty apparent by the way the RTCC Awards are handled. I would say that kind of involvement ultimately hurts more than it helps. It continues to promote a kind of complacency among theatre companies to never step up their games, and it doesn't inform the audiences of where to best spend their money, either. Everyone loses- but hey, we're all having fun, right?
|
|
|
Post by kevininouye on Oct 19, 2012 8:56:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philcrosby on Oct 19, 2012 9:28:50 GMT -5
I don't think there is disagreement in the theater community about what we wished our local critics and reviewers would be. I think, though, we also need to take a look into their world ... and I say this only from my observations, not from any over-abundant familiarity with any of them personally.
None of these people are full-time theater critics, or even full-time paid writers. Those jobs do not exist at the publications for which they work. I know at one time, they got paid something small per review, but that may have changed.
In most cases, they have to fight and demand the editorial space from their editors ... especially to get prime print inches. If these particular "friends and advocates" did not care for our theater community as much as they do, there would probably not be any reviews appearing at all ... or only in blogs from people with possibly even less in credentials.
Make no mistake, Roy Proctor fought for every inch of space he had, and he convinced Media General that coverage of the arts was critical. His retirement coincided with the downturn in the print outlets and now, there are virtually no full-time "voices" of any kind at the paper.
Is this optimal? No. Does it help us or hurt us? I am not sure. I don't see much swing in sales from theater reviews anymore. Word of mouth still is the determinant of that.
It's great for everyone's egos when we rave reviews. It's nice to be able to pull quotes from reviews to optimize the advertising. It's lovely to win Artsies so that I can talk about "proof of quality" to funders ... because those reviewers are all we have. And those reviewers are doing what they do because ... and they admit this ... they love Richmond theater and its artists with -- and I absolutely believe this -- the same ardor we do.
I think for someone to perform the job of "critic" that we have all identified they would need to be supported by a media outlet that values their voice ... and feels that enough people in the greater community would read and value the content. Outside of STYLE, which puts more of a consistent focus on arts coverage than any other outlet in the city, I am not sure who could pull that off.
I think the conversation about the Artsies is a slightly different one. Now that the event has become what it has, I think the RTCC members should be more vigilant about seeing ALL the shows produced. (It is rare at RTP for us to get half of them to attend). They decided to put the event on, so they should take it more seriously. Or, it could morph into something like the Helen Hayes awards, where the deciding body is larger. I think those changes could result in less "curious" nominations and wins.
|
|
|
Post by ladybug on Oct 19, 2012 16:23:11 GMT -5
I agree with what Phil said. It sounds to me like the critics here are no different than the artists-- underpaid, under-appreciated, and doing what we do mostly out of love for the theater and this community. But none of these things are an excuse for a lack of quality. Theater reviews may not influence the public or ticket sales like they used to, but I think that's because the public has learned to stop paying attention anymore. Unless a theater critic has a reputation worth listening to, no one is going to listen. You earn that reputation with the quality of your reviews. And if people can trust you. Roy Proctor has been coming up a lot. Not everyone thought he was the best, either. But it's true that he wasn't afraid of holding people up to certain standards. I think that's what's really missing here, and that's what word of mouth is. It's people listening to people's opinions that they trust. Our critics here can be that. If the people they write for don't want them to be- I guess that's something only the critics can tell us. I also agree that if the RTCC awards are really going to mean something, there should be a different approach to what is nominated and who wins. Seriously, they don't even see everything? And how can it be that some of the best performances that almost everybody agrees on don't even get nominated, and then other ones that are really curious win? But it is the critics' award show, so I guess if you don't like it you can always just choose not to go.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on Oct 19, 2012 17:03:40 GMT -5
International Association of Theatre Critics Code of Practice
Theatre is among the most interactive of the performing arts. As privileged spectators, theatre critics share with audiences and performers the same time and space, the same individual and collective stimuli, the same immediate and long-term experiences. As working theatre commentators, we seek in our individual ways to articulate these interactions as a frame for discussion and as a meaningful part of the interpretation and significance of theatrical performance. The International Association of Theatre Critics therefore urges its members worldwide to accept as an agreed starting point the core professional guidelines articulated in this document.
1. As writers and thinkers in the media and/or as scholars connected to various branches of academic discourse, theatre critics should always remain aware of normative professional practices, respect artistic and intellectual freedom, and should write in what they believe to be the best interests of the ideals of the art of theatre.
2. Theatre critics should recognize that their own imaginative experience and knowledge is often limited and should be open to new ideas, forms, styles and practice.
3. Theatre critics should speak truthfully and appropriately while respecting the personal dignity of the artists to whom they are responding.
4. Theatre critics should be open-minded and reveal (as appropriate) prejudices – both artistic and personal – as part of their work.
5. Theatre critics should have as one of their goals a desire to motivate discussion of the work.
6. Theatre critics should strive to come to the theatrical performance in their best physical and mental condition, and should remain alert throughout the performance.
7. Theatre critics should try to describe, analyze, and evaluate the work as precisely and specifically as possible, supporting their remarks with concrete examples.
8. Theatre critics should make every possible effort to avoid external pressures and controls, including personal favours and financial enticements.
9. Theatre critics should make every possible effort to avoid situations which are or which can be perceived to be conflicts of interest by declining to review any production with which they are personally connected or by serving on juries with which they are personally connected.
10. Theatre critics should not do anything that would bring into disrepute their profession or practice, their own integrity or that of the art of the theatre.
(IATC – draft February 2010)
|
|
|
Post by letsdothetimewarp on Oct 21, 2012 19:08:15 GMT -5
It's nice to have awards, and everyone likes winning them and being recognized, even if the system is flawed. The RTCC is trying to do us a favor and celebrate us. However, if we could all vote to be "academy members" each year and shake up the voting committee, that would really be something.
|
|