The Sunday Read: Rick Miller on Critics

“We should not seek immortality in reproduction. But if you contribute to the world’s culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune, invent a spark plug, write a poem, it may live on, intact, long after your genes have dissolved in the common pool.” 

(Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene)

“This one’s done, Rick. Stick a fork in it and let it go.” 

(Richard Ouzounian, from a Toronto Star review of HARDSELL 2.0)

by Rick Miller

My last article dealt primarily with ‘control’, specifically control of the creative process and one’s career in the arts.  This one deals with ‘survival’.  

Survival in the entertainment industry conjures up images of a plasticized Wayne Newton or a Botox-ed Liza Minelli but I want to explore something closer to home: why I keep pushing my shows to survive in a competitive market instead of just “letting them go”, to paraphrase our esteemed Toronto Star critic. Granted, I wish we hadn’t invited critics to that show (which was still trying to find its form) but the sheer gall of a theatre critic dispensing The Last Judgment on something I have been working on for 5 years astounds me. The fact is that HARDSELL 2.0 is not only surviving but thriving: I am premiering the French version at Festival le Carrefour in June, we’ll be shooting a short film that will hopefully lead to a TV series adaptation, and I’ve already premiered the in-school info literacy workshop. My point is that the fate of a show shouldn’t lie in the hands of a critic. If I had listened to the ‘critic within’ in 1994, I would have killed the cast-party joke that was to become MacHomer, which is still on tour and is premiering in New York and at Stratford this spring. More on MacHomer and critics later…

Theatre for Thought, March 8, 2011

to preview or not to preview

Montreal’s non-digital media (print, radio, TV) has shown a criminal lack of regard for most of what goes on in MELT

by joel fishbane

A standing ovation must be given to those theatre critics who, in a stunning move of collective wisdom, finally reviewed the troubled musical Spider Man: Turn off the Dark. The official opening has been prorogued more times then Stephen Harper’s parliament, with the current opening slated for March 15. With a $65 million dollar price tag along the way, it has become the most expensive musical ever made – especially because in all likelihood, it will never make it’s money back.

With preview tickets running $275, the American theatre critics decided that enough was enough. After all, a theatre critic’s job is not to critique the artistic merits of a show: that is a question for academics. The only responsibility for the critic is to inform an audience whether a show is worth both their time and the price of admission. And so, at the beginning of February, a host of important publications reviewed the show. They were all largely negative and, if you believe the N.Y Times’ Ben Brantley, audiences are going solely to see what great disaster will happen next.

After Dark, March 8, 2011

On The Future Of Theatre (critics)
I, and most of my colleagues, could keel over tomorrow.
by Gaëtan L. Charlebois

Let's face it, I'm getting old. Worse, the body has been battered by five surgeries in the last three years and there's more to come.

The fact is, as MELT seems to be getting younger, the commentators of its work are aging fast or are downright old. This is not necessarily a bad thing. There are a bunch of us who have been around for a long time, seen lots of theatre and have a good eye and a hot computer. We all do one thing fairly well, too: we provoke (which, in my opinion, is what theatre commentary should do). Provocative writing, however, is a tool that we gain with time.

Why?

Theatre for Thought, February 7, 2011

CharPo is adding a new column to our op-ed Tuesdays. With the publisher's After Dark column, every week you will also be able to read writer/actor/director Joel Fishbane's opinions on Montreal English-language theater (MELT): Theatre For Thought. Feel free to join the conversations in the comments section below each piece.

On Genres and Critics

by Joel Fishbane

There were three significant openings in the MELT scene this week. Tableau D’Hote's Internet-based fundraising campaign peeked our interest for Humans; indie wunderkind Andrew Shaver has gone mainstream with Stones in His Pockets; and Geordie Theatre has helped Clowns Gone Bad resurrect MöcShplat, their giddy adaptation of a certain cursed Shakespearian play. All three are worthy additions to the theatre season. Yet, once again, the Montreal Gazette has shown their usual display of bias and assigned Pat Donnelly to the adult theatre (Stones and Humans) while giving Geordie to Kathryn Greenaway.

After Dark - December 7, 2010

By Gaëtan L. Charlebois (Editor-in-Chief) I am astounded by the success of The Charlebois Post after a single week online. I am also enormously thankful to be surrounded by collaborators who like theatre and its people so much. The ideas and the writing here have certainly struck a chord with our readers and with me.

Steve Galluccio's piece, for instance, offers an important lesson: to carve out a good career in this business you not only need talent, you have to work your ass off. But Galluccio's piece also reminds that it's also about how you approach the work (a dinner with a producer is not only good business it can also be pleasant) and moreover, you'd better enjoy the work you do. In our business, we can spot lazy, jaded malcontents a mile off: it shows in sloppiness on the stage, it shows in inelegant PR, in aimless texts and it shows in tired (and ultimately tiresome) reporting. As one professor of mine reminded his theatre students over and over again: it's not called "play" for nothing.

Writer Anthony Palermo Defends (!) Critics

(Ed: Anthony Palermo responded to David Allan King's post and we thought it was so interesting it deserved article status)


I believe the role of the critic has lost its place and the art of criticism has lost its meaning. The critic is just as much a part of any production as the director, the actors, the stage manager and the audience. It’s foolish to reject this notion. 

I think a lot of people shit on critics. They hate them. Personally, I love them. I love them because everyone hates them. Like I love Simon Cowell. The dude is a total prick. But he’s often right for being a prick. I don’t always agree with his opinion but I agree with his ‘way’. He’s got a way of telling it like it is. He’s telling the truth. He’s trying to guide the artist towards or away from the limelight. He definitely wants the talented ones to succeed. And that’s why artists hate critics. Because they hate to hear someone say anything else than ‘that was great’ or ‘you were awesome’. Again, personally, I can’t stand comments like that, they don’t mean anything. 


They work for actors. Actors that crave validation. But it never meant anything to me. If you wanted to say something that I would appreciate: point out a moment that touched you in the play; an action that frightened you or a line that made you think.

Discussion: 10 Things Artists Are Sure They Know About Critics

By David Allan King

1.    Critics are failed artists.
2.    Critics are failed journalists.
3.    All critics are bad. All critics are bad.
4.    If you don't make it sexy for them, they won't come.
5.    They didn't even research this before writing about it.
6.    All critics have a personal vendetta.
7.    Never piss off a critic.
7.    They just didn't understand the interpretation.
8.    All critics are single, lurking in the shadows of a dark room.
10.   They didn't even see the same show I did, or why would they say that?