October 26, 2007

Theatre is not immune to the Laws of Supply and Demand

By Stan Dyer

Recently, while reading the print version of YourHub.com, I came across an article by a theatre professional concerned with inaccuracies in theatre reviews. The author questioned why critics exist at all. It was a clever article from a different point of view, but, instead of successfully arguing his point, the article served more to support the point of view he opposed. Critics, like actors, exist not only to assist the laws of supply and demand, but to serve them as well.

One important aspect many people overlook about critical reviews (and all reviews for that matter) is that good and bad are secondary to the fact that someone took the time to write the review at all. Time is money to us all and it takes an hour or so to write a good review. Besides, even if a review seems unfavorable, it is still free publicity, and publicity gets people talking. When people start talking, it sparks interest. If people do not talk, interest may wane. Where would the actors be if people all lost interest in theatre? Where would critics be with nothing to criticize?

Personally, I review everything. I review movies, theatre, restaurants and just about anything that is different, unusual and noteworthy. If I go somewhere with the intent of review and I get a bad product, I will just not spend my time writing about it. On the outside chance I showed up on a bad day, I go back and try again. If I keep getting a bad product, I not only do not review it, I stop going. In that way, I and other reviewers assist supply and demand. Likewise, an actor's performance can do the same. I understand that if I don't like the product, there's a good chance other people won't either, and there really is no need to say anything at all. Nature will run its course and I can spend my time on more important concerns.

The big problem with theatre in this city now is that there is so much of it. That increases the pressure on theatre companies to consistently provide an excellent product to attract the dollars and many theatres just can't keep it up. Personally, I have dropped season tickets I held for a long time because of a theatre's inability to maintain the quality of performance I expect and I pay for. Now, that doesn't mean I am the all-seeing God of theatre and my word is law, but I do refuse to spend my money for an average, lackluster performance. If other people disagree, they are free to spend their money where they please and as they choose, but I'll be taking my entertainment dollars where I find the best value.

Also, don't be kidded into thinking reviewers aren't reviewed as well. Three types of people read reviews: 1) The Curious, 2) The Opinionated and 3) The Purists, and they all have their own ways of offering critique. The Curious read reviews mostly to see what people are saying. They may or may not be influenced by the review, but that small seed of interest is still planted. The Curious usually do not respond immediately, but if they hear other people talking often enough, interest may grow so large, it picks them up and hauls them out to the show. They give a favorable review of a critique just by showing up. The rest is up to the theatre company.

The Opinionated, on the other hand, already have some sort of interest in what is being reviewed. They tend to read reviews simply looking for a point of view that supports what they already believe. Often times, the Opinionated will disagree with a review and not even realize it is favorable and supports their point of view. They do not read the entire review for the truth, but, rather, they look for that one tidbit of information they can attack. These people like to criticize critics, but they seldom will go through the trouble to write their own critiques. They tend to go to the shows anyway.

Finally, there are the Purists. They read reviews looking for the truth. If they question something about a review, they don't attack the writer, but, instead, they contact him for an explanation. I am fortunate enough to be acquainted with a number of these people whom I came to know in this manner and who have expanded my understanding in the mutual exchange of information. These people command respect and the Curious learn to listen.

This type of reader feedback is only one way critics are critiqued. Just as an actor is not likely to work without pay, critics, too, don't work for free. If people do not like what a critic says, they are not likely to read, buy or print his work. When that happens, critics must compromise their standards or go broke. Newspapers and magazines buy and print most of what critics write. If advertisers, readers or the editorial staff simply disagree with a point of view, warranted or not, they can see to it that a critic is dropped from the payroll. That hurts us all. When critics and writers start writing just to please those who write the paychecks, honesty is lost and the First Amendment becomes irrelevant. Give me an honest review, good or bad, anytime over one bought and paid for.

I have one last remark on that type of audience critique known as the "standing ovation." Don't take it too seriously, even if you see it everywhere you go. I have been in many audiences where I did not find the performance particularly moving, and yet, many people around me joined in the standing ovation at the show's end. When people around you start standing and clapping, there is a great deal of peer pressure to join in even when you don't think the performance warranted such praise. I know artists are deeply affected by such things and place great value in them, but, from experience, I can assure you that more standing ovations are given than are actually deserved. Artists like and need that feedback, but true artists take more pride and more satisfaction simply in the knowledge that they gave their best effort and that they are doing what they love to do.

When artists mature enough and rise to the level of accomplishment where the money and the feedback no longer matter, it is then and only then that they become true artists. Until such time as personal satisfaction in doing what one does becomes the most important motivation, one remains little more than a common worker and, like the rest of us, in humble servitude, subject to the laws of supply and demand.