BLOG

The Ritual of Critique

For those of you who did not attend last night’s panel discussion, “The Ritual of Critique,” you missed a rare opportunity to hear four prominent Chicago critics and three distinguished directors speak candidly about their obligations to one another, their roles in the theater community at large, the sometimes frustrations of their jobs, and ultimately, their satisfaction with the state of affairs of theater criticism in Chicago.

The discussion aptly took place in the Claudia Cassidy Theater at the Chicago Cultural Center. The spirit of Cassidy, a long-time Chicago critic known for her biting reviews (as reflected in her nickname “Acidy Cassidy”) was acknowledged, but not tangible during the two hours of mostly constructive and friendly exchanges between the critics and directors.

Veteran reviewer Jonathan Abarbanel, one of WBEZ’s “dueling critics” and a freelancer for several local papers, made the observation that despite the usual gripes over dwindling word counts (Tony Adler of the Reader confessed he only gets 125 words per review), Chicago’s theater ecosystem is relatively healthy because of the diversity of its press. Unlike New York, where the Times can throw the silver dart which either dooms or validates the success of a particular show, neither the Tribune, the Sun Times, the Reader, Time Out, nor the Windy City Times (and the list goes on) is the single source for trusted criticism. As illustrated by the weekly radio appearance of the “dueling critics,” the public values a variety of opinion and ultimately will decide the worth of a play for themselves.

Kerry Reid, a freelancer for the Chicago Tribune talked about the integrity of the critic and their responsibility to avoid reviewing shows in which they have a more than a casual relationship with a member of the cast or director. She also lamented that the critic is usually self-conscious of their place in the audience and is sometimes irked when asked “So, did you like it?” in the lobby of the theater. She uses a night’s rest and her own writing process to distill her thoughts and crystallize her opinion about the production.

Christopher Piatt of Time Out Chicago, brought the panel’s title, “The Ritual of Critique” to the forefront when he talked about the long tradition of writing reviews and how the format has remained largely unchanged over generations—the critic experiences a production, distills his/her experience into a concise summary, and presents it to the public with wit and intelligence. Likewise, Tony Adler pointed out that a bad review and a negative review are not necessarily synonymous.

Piatt also acknowledged the role of the critic as cultural archivist. All theater productions are, in the end, “perishable,” he said. What continues to exist postmortem is the written commentary about them. Ann Filmer, Artistic Director of the 16th Street Theater in Berwyn also views criticism as a public record and is clearly interested in setting that record straight, when possible. She expressed a desire for more dialogue between the directors and the critics and looks to her reviewers for valuable feedback about her plays. When they see something in her show that she had never considered or intended, she wants to unpack that observation and get to a deeper understanding of how and why they perceived what they did. 

Bob Scogin, Artistic Director of ShawChicago, also sees the critic as a purveyor of valuable feedback for directors and actors. “If the audience was allowed to throw rotten fruit on stage every time they didn’t like what they were seeing, a guy [actor] would get better pretty fast.” Scogin called for critics to both “lighten up” and “knuckle down”—to take themselves a little less seriously (“after all, they’re just plays”) but to also be a stickler when something in the show isn’t up to snuff.

On the other hand, recent OBIE recipient David Cromer (Direction, Adding Machine), downplayed the significance of the critic on the director’s creative process. He holds the philosophy that one should simply accept reviews—good or bad—and not put too much emphasis on their potential impact on theater-goers. He wasn’t disparaging of critics, by any means, but seemed less focused on reviews and more interested in simply putting up quality performances and letting the press chips fall where they may. 

The moderator, Mark Sutton of the Annoyance Theater and The Second City, neatly wrapped up the conversation by asking each panelist what was one thing they would change about the director-critic relationship, if they could. Though you might have expected the panelists to run with this opportunity—a live mic and a receptive audience (after all, as Piatt remarked, even critics are “drama queens”)—the response was mostly equivocal. What was a dynamic and informative discussion ended with a collective shrug—or, if you like, a metaphorical hug. It turns out directors and critics in Chicago don’t have as contentious a relationship as one would assume. They largely consider themselves part of the same community with the same basic goal—to increase the quality of life in Chicago through art.