Get documents about "THE PRESS
Shared by: cuiliqing
-
Stats
- views:
- 3
- posted:
- 8/8/2011
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 15
Document Sample
THE PRESS
LOTS OF NOISE, luminaries such as Tom Stoppard or Peter
NOT ENOUGH VOICES: Brook on public television.
NEW YORK’S THEATER MEDIA Weekly magazines boast some strong con-
tributors to the theater-media landscape. The
The Press
In a country where single-newspaper towns New Yorker remains the city’s most distin-
are now the norm, the fact that New York guished and respected weekly voice. Its chief
City is served by three major dailies—the Post, critic, John Lahr, who shares reviewing duties
the Daily News and The Times—as well as with Nancy Franklin, is most often singled
Long Island–based Newsday seems a compara- out as the contemporary writer whose essays
tive luxury. But it’s a far cry from the days on the theater will be read by future genera-
when New Yorkers could choose from among tions, as one can now read the collected criti-
seven newspapers. In the 1950s and early ’60s, cism of Eric Bentley or Walter Kerr. New York
when a number of now-shuttered papers were magazine’s John Simon, who also writes film
still in business, the Times competed with the reviews for the National Review, receives simi-
Herald Tribune for the dominant role in cover- lar accolades in some quarters; other theater
ing the theater scene. professionals, though, complain that he can be
New York may not literally be a one-paper overly harsh. (In the words of one, Simon is
town these days, but when it comes to theater “more gimlet-eyed satirist than actual critic.”)
coverage, The Times certainly wields over- The New Republic’s Robert Brustein, known
whelming influence. The prevailing sense, in for his experience and sagacity, is often given
the words of Lincoln Center’s Bernard the space for lengthy essays on the theater, a
Gersten, is that if a production isn’t covered in rarity these days. Time and Newsweek run the-
The Times, “it doesn’t really happen.” Though ater reviews only occasionally; the era of sub-
the Post and the Daily News publish a signifi- stantial theater coverage in the national
cant amount of writing on the theater, their newsweeklies is effectively over.
influence is seen as negligible by theater profes- The Village Voice’s Michael Feingold is a
sionals in terms of critical standing and audi- respected veteran critic, but more for his cover-
ence-building. Those other papers, Lynn age of downtown shows and theater festivals
Moffat of New York Theatre Workshop said that do not get significant attention from The
bluntly, “don’t matter.” Asked if there’s any Times than for his assessments of high-profile
benefit to a positive review in the Post, Gersten shows. Time Out New York helps fill some of
answered, “Yes. We can reprint the review [in the gaps, with substantial coverage and listings
an advertisement] in The Times.” of off-off-Broadway productions. Trade maga-
Newsday’s theater coverage is extensive—in zines such as Backstage and Variety, despite
terms of sheer volume, in fact, it nearly matches their broad industry coverage, are rarely men-
that of The Times. But perhaps because of tioned in discussions regarding theater in the
Newsday’s suburban orientation, its critical media; their circulations—less than one-tenth
judgments don’t come close to matching its that of the dailies’—are too small to have
larger rival’s in importance. Gersten voices a much impact on ticket sales or broad public
commonly held view of Newsday’s admired opinion.
chief critic, Linda Winer, when he observes that Online theater Web sites such as
“her influence is not as great as her opinions.” oobr.com (the Off-Off-Broadway Review),
Television and radio are barely factors, aislesay.com and theatermania.com run more
with the exception of the occasional light comprehensive listings than does the Times,
piece on local cable network NY1 about a but aren’t seen as serious players in terms of
Broadway opening, the annual Tony Awards critical voice. Nor do they claim such a role,
broadcast and sporadic appearances of theater said Robert Viagas, editor of Broadway
72
Wonderful Town
Online. “None of the places I’ve worked at Highly critical reviews hit those in theater
[including Playbill Online, which he co- harder than artists in other art forms, some in
founded] have ever had a ‘voice-of-God’ crit- the business maintain, because stage actors
ic,” Viagas said. “We let readers write the and directors are so enmeshed in a production
The Press
reviews. It’s a living document. We are print- at the time of its opening. (This is in contrast
ing the word of mouth.” to a film actor or museum curator, who’s likely
to have moved on to a new project by the time
ALL HAIL KING TIMES? the reviews come out.) According to Barry
The Times’ reputation as the most influential Grove of the Manhattan Theatre Club, “The
outlet for theater coverage is borne out by sta- damage of bad reviews is very intense if they
tistics. The audiences for Broadway plays are smart-alecky, because it comes at a time
include more readers of The New York Times when [artists] are at their most tired—physi-
than the combined totals of the Daily News, cally, emotionally and psychologically. They
USA Today, the New York Post, the Newark cannot take those smart hits.”
Star-Ledger and the Village Voice.1 Newspaper editors counter that to expect
According to Times culture editor John empathy from critics reflects a certain misun-
Darnton, the paper has an affinity for theater derstanding of their role. “The responsibility of
that it doesn’t necessarily hold for other art the reviewer is to provide context, to provide The era of
forms. “We don’t particularly root to have the meaning of the play, to tell you whether or
good movies out there for the summer,” he not it’s good, bad or ugly, and to tell you substantial
said. “But the theater occupies a special psy- whether you might want to go see it,” Darnton
chological niche for all of us because it’s in our explained. “And it kind of stops at that.” And theater
backyard, because it’s associated with New boosterism for its own sake can backfire. “I
coverage in
York.” Nevertheless, after Sept. 11, The Times always felt that [it’s a bad idea] to tell people
felt no impulse to treat theater as if it were a that plays are better than they are,” said the national
wounded stepchild. “The theater should be Newsday’s Linda Winer. “Then they go there
strong and should be strong enough to take and they say, ‘This is really good theater; I newsweeklies is
it,” Darnton suggested. must not like really good theater,’ and then
The paper did make one concession to don’t go back.” effectively over.
weakened theater business: the temporary The Times’ pre-eminence has caused
addition of a box on the front page of the arts numerous myths to grow up around the
section called “What’s Doing in Town.” Its paper’s coverage and practices, including the
aim, Darnton said, was to “try to boost the idea that it can crush any new production
industry a little.” with ease and that its critics are a sequestered,
Some theater professionals complain that incorruptible lot, forbidden from fraternizing
The Times can be disdainful of public opinion. with members of the theater community or
“The Times, at one time, used to repeat a neg- taking complimentary tickets to shows. In
ative review of ‘Cats’ every week” among its truth, The Times operates its theater section
capsule listings, said Gerald Schoenfeld, chair- essentially according to industry norms. The
man of the Shubert Organization. “After process by which shows get reviewed is neces-
about five or six years, I went over to see the sarily subjective. The Times comes up with a
executive editor of the paper, [then] Abe laundry list of shows; the chief critic, Ben
Rosenthal, and I said, ‘Isn’t there something to Brantley, gets first crack at the ones he wants
be said for the 500,000 people who have gone to review and the critics in the next tier, such
to see ‘Cats’ and enjoyed it?’ To me, there is a as Bruce Weber, choose from what’s left.
certain degree of—I wouldn’t call it arrogance, There is significant dialogue about what
but dismissiveness.” merits coverage between editors and critics, and
73
National Arts Journalism Program
among the writers themselves. “How do we Times’ power is limited, particularly where
know a show’s important? We don’t,” Darnton high-profile musicals are concerned. “Witness
said. “But we suspect. There’s already a buzz the runs of ‘Smokey Joe’s Café,’ ‘Swing,’
out. I’m not saying we make a decision in ‘Saturday Night Fever,’ ‘Fosse,’ and ‘Annie Get
The Press
advance as to whether it’s good or bad—just Your Gun,’ all of which were dismissed by the
whether we view it as significant in some way. It paper’s critic,” Viertel said. “They weren’t all
doesn’t even, obviously, have to be a Broadway financially successful, but they all ran long
show. It could be something off-Broadway. It enough to have their fates determined by
could be ‘The Seagull’ in Central Park.” word-of-mouth and economics, not critical
As at any other newspaper, Times critics reaction in The Times.”
accept free tickets to shows, Darnton said. And Money is a crucial factor, of course, and
though writers police themselves by declining shows with enough cash behind them can
to review any show that might raise conflict- often persevere despite negative critical reac-
of-interest questions, the idea that there is a tion. Advertising is more than twice as influen-
rigid, codified system that controls critics’ tial as reviews in building audiences for musi-
behavior is largely a fiction. “I covered theater cals.(See chart p. 55.) But to survive a spate of
as a reporter long before I was a critic, and I negative reviews, shows often need a hook that
know dozens if not hundreds of people in the extends beyond the show’s mere quality. These
Money is a theater community,” said Times critic Bruce critically immune shows “have come in here
Weber. “I rarely go to theater parties anymore, under some kind of jet propulsion,” said
crucial factor, and I don’t go out of my way to cultivate the- Gerald Schoenfeld. “They were major events
ater contacts, but I don’t go out of my way to in London [or] they have major stars in them.
and shows with
avoid people I know and like, either. If it hap- They have means of overcoming.”
enough cash pens that I have a particularly friendly relation- When it comes to straight plays, reviews
ship with someone involved in a show—and remain the single most influential factor for
behind them there have been a handful of such occasions— theatergoers in choosing a show, and are near-
I’ll let someone else review it.” ly twice as important as advertising. But even
can often for straight plays, sometimes even a rave from
persevere TOURIST APPEAL, MONEY CAN The Times won’t help. In December 2000, The
CURE A BAD REVIEW Times’ Robin Pogrebin wrote a piece head-
despite negative Whether The Times has the power to make or lined “Bouquets of Star-Studded Praise Can’t
break a show is a more complicated question. Keep Small Shows From Closing.” It
critical reaction. While Frank Rich was chief critic, from 1980 bemoaned the fact that The Times’ own glow-
to 1993, it was generally agreed that he had ing reviews for Pamela Gien’s “The Syringa
that kind of influence—and no qualms about Tree,” Rob Ackerman’s “Tabletop” and August
using it. These days, a Times review still carries Wilson’s “Jitney” ultimately failed to make
tremendous, unmatched weight, though nei- those shows commercially viable.
ther Brantley nor Weber much exhibit the And it’s easy to forget that the vast majori-
occasional gleeful nastiness that earned Rich ty of readers are not attuned to the niceties of
the nickname “The Butcher of Broadway.” critical opinion. Surprising numbers don’t
Still, certain shows—those with greater understand the difference between a review
appeal for tourists than for the local Times and a feature story, between a positive and neg-
readership, for example—can survive a Times ative notice, or even between editorial copy
pan generally unscathed. Jack Viertel, creative and an advertisement, said Chris Boneau, part-
director of Jujamcyn Theaters, which pro- ner in Boneau/Bryan-Brown, a public-relations
duced “Kiss Me Kate,” “Proof ” and “The firm that represents commercial Broadway
Producers” on Broadway, maintains that The shows. “What matters is what the ladies in the
74
Wonderful Town
cul-de-sac say when they see their friends and the subject, it would help enliven theater cov-
decide how they’re going to go spend their $95 erage. “I don’t know any sportswriter who ever
on the theater evening,” Boneau said. comes into sportswriting who doesn’t love it
and, probably, in the back of his mind, who
The Press
BEYOND CRITICISM, A MIXED BAG doesn’t wish he could be a fullback,” said
Theater coverage is not just reviews; it is also Frank Deford, a well-known essayist on
features, gossip and hard reporting. There, sports. That level of engagement helps draw
too, The Times’ power works in ways hidden loyal readers to sports sections, and in turn
from public view. When New York Newsday increases the resources papers devote to them;
was in existence (owned by the same company reporters are given generous amounts of space
as, but distinct from, Long Island Newsday), it to investigate even the tiniest minutiae about
tried to compete with The Times in terms of their local sports teams. And then there’s bet-
breaking and covering theater news. “We got ting. What if producers found a way to allow
very, very little help from press agents, and New Yorkers to wager on how long a troubled
from the theaters in general,” said Winer, who Broadway show would stay open, or on who
worked for New York Newsday before it folded would replace Reba McEntire in “Annie Get After Sept. 11,
in 1995. “There was a denial of access to basic Your Gun”? If you could run a point spread
information. I would find out the schedules of every day in the theater section, Deford sug- The Times felt no
theater seasons by reading The Times. No mat- gested with a laugh, readership would jump
ter how much we would go after stories, doors immediately. impulse to treat
would be closed in our faces because they Whatever their rooting interests, it’s not
theater as if it
didn’t want to anger The Times.” unusual to hear today’s critics complaining
As one might expect, the city’s tabloids, about the state of contemporary theater—par- were a wounded
particularly the Post, tend to be drawn to scan- ticularly big-budget theater. “I’ve reviewed
dal. Theater reporter and columnist Michael between two and five plays a week for the last stepchild.
Riedel of the Post said he enjoys covering a nine months, which is quite a lot of theater
conflict-ridden industry, and he doesn’t feel works, but I think I’ve only seen about ten
any particular need to exhibit passion for the things that I can actually call a play, and five
theater. “The reporters who get into trouble— things I can actually call a musical,” lamented
the ones who don’t write tough enough sto- the Voice’s Michael Feingold.
ries—are the ones who were in love with the
theater as young kids, who were lip-synching THE INDUSTRY BITES BACK
to ‘Hello Dolly’ in the rec room when every- From the theater community’s point of view,
one else was out playing softball,” he said. the general sentiment is that the quality of
“They’re the ones who wanted to be play- criticism has eroded as well. Theater profes-
wrights and actors, and they have sort of a sionals worry that criticism is increasingly
gooey-eyed way of looking at the theater.” written merely to be scanned for plot and
Jed Bernstein of the League has little opinion, not read from beginning to end—
patience for that attitude. “I think we would and certainly not to be treated as literature.
all agree that critics do not have any obliga- Playwright Christopher Cartmill feels that
tion to like a particular play or a particular theater professionals now view journalists
musical,” he said. “But what about this: Do more as cogs in the advertising and market-
critics have a responsibility to like theater and ing machinery than as participants in a
to encourage people to go to the theater? My meaningful conversation with artists and
answer is yes.” audience members. “Whatever relationship
Some observers outside the business agree that the writer once may have had with the
that if critics demonstrated more passion for critic,” Cartmill said, “has now been usurped
75
National Arts Journalism Program
by the publicist and the producer.” For much of his tenure, he was considered the
“One would be hard-pressed to say we’re most important of all the critics at The Times.
in a golden age,” Bernstein said. “Criticism is “Frank could hate or adore something
so much less important than it was, now that with a passion nobody else could summon,”
The Press
society has changed. Magazines are less impor- Bernstein recalled. “He thought it was impor-
tant. Newspapers are less important. They’ve tant to go to the theater.”
been eclipsed by dozens of other marketing Others long for a return to the days when
and communications outlets. Rich’s wasn’t the only respected voice.
“The great critics, the Harold Clurman “Certainly, the heyday of criticism in New
critics,” he added, “played a crucial role in the York, as far as I am concerned, was when
development of artists. [A review] wasn’t just a Walter Kerr was writing on Sunday, Rich was
scorecard; it was a teaching thing. I don’t writing daily, and Mel Gussow was doing
know that we have had anybody in recent his- radio,” producer Elizabeth McCann said.
tory who played that kind of a role.” “You had three very distinct voices. I’d go to
Part of the problem is the increasingly an ad meeting, and some poor producer
There is a lack hyperbolic prose used by many critics. “The would be sitting in front of a stack of negative
Times wants to see its name on a big show. It’s notices, and someone would say, ‘Well, why
of passion in
a form of advertising,” John Lahr of The New don’t we wait and see what Walter says on
much of today’s Yorker suggested. “If you say, ‘This is a Sunday?’” Indeed, Kerr’s Pulitzer Prize was
thoughtful, powerful, affecting play,’ that’s awarded for his Sunday pieces.
writing on nothing from the point of view of the paper Still, the notion of a new Dark Age in
and the production. You have to say, ‘This is theater coverage is far from accurate. While
theater, a sense an avalanche of hilarity’ or ‘He is the sultan of many in the industry miss the singular voices
of rote duty. seismic satire.’ It’s got to alliterate. Language in of Rich and some of his renowned predeces-
this culture is so pumped up. It’s on steroids, sors, others have come to appreciate Brantley’s
and so it’s meaningless.” The fact that advertis- less confrontational style. Still others say nos-
ing dwarfs editorial space in most theater sec- talgia has clouded our views of past critics.
tions, including in The Times, means that Darnton maintains that the current slate of
enormous blurbs in the ads often have more Times critics ranks right up there with Kerr
visual impact than the reviews from which and Rich. “It always looks better in the past,”
they’re drawn. he said. “I was in Spain for a number of years
In addition, there is a lack of passion in as a correspondent and they always said, ‘The
much of today’s writing on theater, a sense of bullfighting today is not what it once was.’
rote duty. “The thoughtful, diagnostic sort of And then you go back and read articles on
piece is hard to find a place for,” Bernstein bullfighting from the 1930s and 1950s—and
said. “It’s hard to imagine that there’s a huge they said the same thing then.” ■
readership for it.” Rich’s reign at The New
York Times is cited frequently as the last time “Who Goes to Broadway, 1999-2000,” League of American
1
theater was perceived truly to matter in print. Theatres and Producers, 2001.
76
Wonderful Town
THE CRITICS: A ROLL CALL
BACKSTAGE THE NEW YORK TIMES
The Press
Weekly trade newspaper (circulation: 29,000) Daily newspaper (circulation: 1.1 million)
Print reviewers (freelance unless noted): Irene Chief theater reviewer: Ben Brantley
Backalenick, Glenda Frank, Victor Gluck, Eric Staff theater reviewers: Margo Jefferson,
Grode, Dan Isaac, Leonard Jacobs (full-time), Bruce Weber
Michael Lazan, Karl Levett, Julius Novick, David Other staffers who review theater: Sarah Boxer,
Rosenberg, David Sheward (full-time), Elias D.J.R. Bruckner, Anita Gates, Neil Genzlinger,
Stimac, Esther Tolkoff, Jeanette Toomer Wilborn Hampton, Lawrence Van Gelder
Web site reviewers (freelance unless noted):
Derek Beres, Andy Buck, Sarika Chawla, Peter THEATERMANIA
Shaugnessy, David Sheward (full-time), Piper Web site (weekly hit count: 250,000)
Weiss (full-time) Full-time reviewers: Dan Bacalzo, Brooke Pierce,
Michael Portantiere, Ben Winters
DAILY NEWS Freelance reviewers: David Finkle, Marc Miller,
Daily newspaper (circulation: 704,463) Barbara Siegel, Scott Siegel, Ricky Spears
Full-time theater reviewers: Robert Dominguez,
Howard Kissel TIME
National weekly newsmagazine
NEWSDAY (circulation: 4,000,000)
Daily newspaper (circulation: 575,000) Theater reviewer: Richard Zoglin
Chief theater reviewer: Linda Winer
Full-time reviewer: Steve Parks TIME OUT NEW YORK
Freelance reviewer: Gordon Cox Weekly local entertainment magazine
(circulation: 112,000)
NEW YORK Theater editor and reviewer: Jason Zinoman
Weekly magazine (circulation: 438,000) Full-time reviewer: David Cote
Reviewer: John Simon Freelance reviewers: Michael Hogan, Alexis
Soloski, Trav S.D., Linda Yablonsky, Webster
THE NEW YORKER Younce
Weekly magazine (circulation: 800,000)
Reviewers: Nancy Franklin, John Lahr VARIETY
Weekly trade magazine with daily component
NEW YORK OBSERVER (circulation: 36,000)
Weekly newspaper (circulation: 50,000) Theater editor and full-time reviewer:
Reviewer: John Heilpern Charles Isherwood
Other full-time reviewers: Robert Hofler,
NEW YORK POST Marilyn Stasio
Daily newspaper (circulation: 443,951)
Full-time theater reviewers: Clive Barnes, VILLAGE VOICE
Donald Lyons Free alternative weekly (circulation: 250,000)
Freelance reviewer: Chip Deffaa Chief theater reviewer: Michael Feingold
Other reviewers: David Finkle, James Hannaham,
NEW YORK PRESS Charles McNulty, Francine Russo, Alexis Soloski,
Free alternative weekly (circulation: 116,000) Alisa Solomon
Reviewer: Mimi Kramer
77
National Arts Journalism Program
THEATER COVERAGE IN When the Daily News and the Post are
PRINT MEDIA: AN AUDIT combined with Newsday, The Times’ daily-
newspaper share of theater coverage shrinks to
just over 40 percent. And not only do The
The Press
When it comes to the New York print
media’s coverage of theater, various presump- Times’ competitors spill more ink on theater,
tions abound: 1) The New York Times is all they also reach more readers. Because one-
that matters. 2) Critics are, on balance, more third of The Times’ 1.1 million circulation is
negative than positive in their assessment of beyond the New York metropolitan area, the
plays. 3) The larger papers write only about three other dailies (which do not circulate
Broadway, while the small alternative publica- nationally) combined reach more than twice
tions scrape up the off-off-Broadway remains. as many local or regional readers as The Times.
Research by the NAJP has found those three Other key findings include:
presumptions to be, to varying degrees, false. ● In New York’s tabloid war, the Post comes
We studied 15 publications during the out ahead in the theater department, running
two-week period beginning Monday, March 40 percent more coverage than its chief com-
26, 2001 and ending Sunday, April 8. For petitor, the Daily News.
weeklies, we chose cover dates nearest to ● Time Out ran more on theater during the
March 26 and April 2. We counted stories in weeks surveyed than the Village Voice—often
those publications whose primary subject was regarded as the king of New York alternative-
theater and whose orientation was on New media arts coverage. Time Out distinguishes
York theater activity, omitting stories on itself by running in its lead slot a weekly, gen-
national or international theater. erally favorable feature of roughly 1,000
New Yorkers have plenty of places to look words, while the Voice theater section has no
for theater coverage. In this two-week period equivalent slot.
between late March and early April 2001—a ● Variety was the king of the “trades,” run-
period that saw no blockbuster openings— ning roughly 50 percent more on theater than
the publications we surveyed ran approxi- Backstage. The two publications cannot be
mately 100,000 words on theater, the rough said to be true competitors, though, given
equivalent of a 300-page hardcover novel. their differing focus and the fact that Variety is
And print media hardly have the last word on a daily and Backstage a weekly.
theater coverage. Web sites such as ● The upmarket New York Observer—often
Theatermania and CurtainUp and radio and neglected when arts coverage is considered—
television reviewers and personalities from ran with the weekly pack. Theater coverage in
Rosie O’Donnell to WOR Radio’s David the conservative weekly New York Press was
Richardson contribute as well. scant compared with its competition on the
Not surprisingly, The New York Times cov- left, the Village Voice.
ers New York theater to a greater extent than ● Though the dailies’ greater publication
any other publication we surveyed. What may frequency enabled them to produce more the-
be surprising is that The Times is not in front ater copy than the more arts-oriented Time
by much. The word count of Newsday was Out and Village Voice, the weeklies made up
nearly equal to that of The Times during the for it with extensive listings sections. Time
weeks surveyed, even though 83 percent of Out runs seven to nine pages of show listings,
Newsday’s circulation is confined to Long accompanied by 50- to 100-word capsule
Island, with most of the remainder in Queens. reviews. The Village Voice runs about five
This indicates the suburban audience’s sus- tabloid-sized pages of listings with 25- to 75-
taining interest in New York theater. word reviews.
78
Wonderful Town
IT’S NOT JUST THE TIMES
THEATER COVERAGE IN NEW YORK PRINT MEDIA
The New York Times (20,826) The New York Times (30)
The Press
Review Word Count Reviews
Article Word Count Articles
Newsday (18,784) Backstage (24)
Variety (14,252) Newsday (23)
Backstage (9,380) Variety (22)
New York Post (8,927) New York Post (18)
Time Out New York (6,600) Village Voice (16)
Daily News (6,506) Daily News (13)
Village Voice (6,158) Time Out New York (12)
New York Observer (5,790) New York Observer (7)
The Wall Street Journal (3,160) New York (5)
New York Press (2,775) The Wall Street Journal (4)
The New Yorker (2,770) New York Press (4)
New York (2,200) The New Yorker (3)
Time (160) Time (2)
Newsweek Newsweek
(no articles/reviews) (no articles/reviews)
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(words) (articles/reviews)
National Arts Journalism Program, 2002
Notes:
1) Word lengths for major newspapers and magazines were checked on the Dow Jones or Lexis-Nexis databases. Word lengths for other publications are best approximations.
2) Word counts include all reviews, features and news stories, and do not include theater listings.
3) “Reviews” refers not to the number of bylined reviews, but to the number of productions evaluated. Often, more than one show was reviewed under a single heading.
4) “Articles” refers to feature and news stories.
5) New Yorker tallies refer to issues from 3/19 and 4/2; the 3/26 issue could not be located for this survey.
79
National Arts Journalism Program
●Don’t expect to read about theater in the Cox, the New York Post’s Clive Barnes, the
nation’s newsweeklies. Time ran only two Voice’s Michael Feingold and Variety’s Robert
thumbnail reviews in its “Short Takes” section Hofler and Charles Isherwood. Newsday’s
during the period surveyed. Newsweek ran Blake Green was the most prolific feature
The Press
nothing at all, though in the issue after the writer, churning out 6,700 words of copy.
survey weeks, it published a 1,000-word Q&A ● The Times’ Brantley was also one of the
with lead actors from “The Producers,” which most positive critics: Five of his reviews were
would open two weeks later. positive, one was neutral, and just one was
negative. Newsday’s Linda Winer liked five of
REVIEWS the six shows she saw. On the other hand, the
More than twice as many plays received posi- Voice’s Michael Feingold was among the
tive reviews than negative reviews during the crankiest, writing negatively on four of the
weeks in question. And the biggest publications seven productions he saw and approving of
were among the most positive. The New York just two. Time Out’s Jason Zinoman and New
Times—along with Backstage—was among the York’s John Simon also wrote more negative
most approving of publications we studied. than positive reviews.
More than The vast majority of reviewed plays were ● Alternative publications tend to be more
off-Broadway plays. This was mainly due to the negative than mainstream ones. Though the
twice as greater quantity of off-Broadway openings (all survey’s composite love/hate ratio was about two
Broadway openings of that period were to one, the Voice, Time Out and the Press derid-
many plays reviewed by most publications). But these fig- ed nearly as many productions as they lauded.
received ures indicate two possible trends: One, that the ● Backstage ran reviews from nine different
media these days have become highly attentive critics during the period, making it the publi-
positive to “alternative” or “serious” off-Broadway the- cation with the most critical diversity. One
ater; and two, major off-Broadway productions man’s diversity is another man’s inconsistency:
reviews than increasingly resemble Broadway productions in At New York magazine, a single reviewer (John
negative terms of marketing muscle and savvy in attract- Simon) carried the load.
ing coverage. It remains true that the majority of ● The controversial title of one production,
reviews. theater-related features and previews are of “No Niggers, No Jews, No Dogs,” dissuaded
Broadway productions. none of the New York area’s four major dailies
Certainly, fringe productions still have a from reviewing it (the title was named in full
hard time attracting reviewers. An off- in each review, but abbreviated or censored in
Broadway review was six times more likely to the headlines). But perhaps it should have:
appear than an off-off-Broadway review, even “No Niggers...” and Stephen Sondheim’s
though roughly the same number of produc- “Follies” were the only shows of that period to
tions were running in each category during receive four negative reviews.
the two weeks we analyzed. ● Mainstream publications did not stick
Other findings include: exclusively to mainstream shows. The percent-
● New York Times chief critic Ben Brantley age of New York Times’ reviews that were of
was by far the most prolific reviewer, or at off-off-Broadway shows was roughly in sync
least the one allotted the most space. He wrote with the average. The most mainstream publi-
seven reviews totaling 8,672 words—more cation in terms of its reviewing profile was the
than the combined output of all but four New York Post, which, along with appraisals of
other publications. Other heavy hitters each new Broadway show, revisited the
include Newsday’s Linda Winer and Gordon already-open “Riverdance.” ■
80
Wonderful Town
CRITICISM BY THE NUMBERS
BROADWAY & OFF-BROADWAY REVIEWS POSITIVE VS. NEGATIVE REVIEWS
The New York Times (21) Time (1)
The Press
Broadway Reviews
Backstage (15) Off-Broadway Backstage (.6) This ranking, which
assesses the level of
Off-off Broadway approval of a publica-
tion’s reviews, was
compiled by subtract-
Newsday (15) The New York Times (.523) ing the number of
negative reviews
from positive
reviews, and dividing
that sum by the total
Village Voice (14) The Wall Street Journal (.5) number of reviews
(including reviews
determined to be
neutral). A +1 score
Variety (13) The New Yorker (.333) indicates all positive
reviews; a –1 score
indicates all negative.
New York Post (11) Newsday (.285)
Time Out New York (10) New York Post (.273)
Daily News (8) Time Out New York (.2)
New York Observer (6) Daily News (.125)
New York (5) Village Voice (.071)
The Wall Street Journal (4) New York Observer
(neutral)
New York Press (4) New York Press
(neutral)
The New Yorker (3) Newsweek
(neutral)
Time (2) New York (-.2)
Newsweek Variety (-.23)
(no reviews)
0 5 10 15 20 25 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(reviews) Negative Positive
National Arts Journalism Program, 2002
Note: Tonal judgments on reviews are, by nature, subjective, and the plays reviewed during this period may not be representative of that publication’s typical critical response.
81
National Arts Journalism Program
HOW MUCH PRESS A SHOW More than a month before its March
CAN EXPECT: FOUR PROFILES 2000 opening, dozens of articles had been
written about “Aida” on subjects including its
CD soundtrack, a set snafu in the Chicago
The Press
The bigger the blockbuster, the more exten-
sive the coverage: that much goes without say- production and the fact that John had
ing. But our examination of specific New York stormed out of a preview. “If this were just any
theatrical productions demonstrates the size of other musical, you’d have to start six to nine
the gulf is between the media haves and have- months in advance,” said Chris Boneau, head
nots. We’ve analyzed newspaper coverage of of PR for “Aida.” “But sometimes, [the media]
four representative productions and inter- choose you.”
viewed the publicists for each. Negative early reviews, Boneau said, com-
pelled him to concentrate on particular ele-
BROADWAY MUSICAL (“AIDA”) ments in his pitches to reporters and critics. “I
The extensive coverage of “Aida,” critical reac- felt completely confident talking about [‘Aida’
tion aside, demonstrates the media power of lead] Heather [Headley]. I felt confident talk-
Broadway juggernauts—a power driven more ing about Elton, and Bob Crowley, who is just
by themes of celebrity and corporate influence a genius in designing sets and costumes…. So
than by the shows themselves. “Aida” had sev- I said, ‘What are the things I feel I can sell?’
eral built-in pegs: “The Disney production fol- One big thing was: ‘This is Disney’s next
lowing ‘The Lion King’”; “The long-awaited musical.’” Ironically enough, thanks to its
musical from Elton John”; “What will these early problems, the $15 million musical was
hitmakers do to Verdi?”; and, after rough out- able to take on the role of underdog.
of-town runs in Atlanta and Chicago, “Can Headlines such as “Can Disney’s Gamble Pay
‘Aida’ survive the naysayers?” Off?” began to appear.
ALL PRODUCTIONS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL
ARTICLES & WORD COUNTS FOR “AIDA,” “PROOF,” “O PIONEERS!” AND “CANNIBAL!”
80 50,000
Articles and reviews Word count
70 (42,710)
(61) 40,000
60
50
30,000
40
(35)
(21,085)
30 20,000
(21)
20
10,000
10 (4,900)
(5)
(1,435)
0 0
Aida Proof (includes O Pioneers! Cannibal!: Aida Proof (includes O Pioneers! Cannibal!:
articles for both the The Musical articles for both the The Musical
Broadway and Broadway and
off-Broadway run) off-Broadway run)
National Arts Journalism Program, 2002
Notes:
1) We counted articles and reviews in selected publications for which the show in question was the main subject. We tracked the following publica-
tions: The New York Times, the New York Observer, the New York Post, The New Yorker, the Village Voice, The (Newark) Star-Ledger, the Daily News, The
Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, USA Today, Variety and Backstage. 2) Internet and television coverage, where significant, is alluded to anecdotally in their
profiles but not counted in totals. 3) “Aida” and “Proof ” counts do not include listings; “O Pioneers!” and “Cannibal!” counts do. 4) For “Aida,” cover-
age beginning 1/1/99 was counted; some coverage preceded this date. 5) For “O Pioneers!,” coverage in primary out-of-town newspapers was included,
though some of these were too small to be found in databases and therefore remain uncounted in this survey.
82
Wonderful Town
Boneau invited media to advance presen- SIZE COUNTS
tations of selected “Aida” scenes, and he tried ARTICLE COUNTS AND WHEN THEY RAN
to dole out story ideas equitably to reporters. 35
(35)
“I’m good at saying, ‘Someone else is writing
The Press
Pre-opening feature/preview coverage
30
this exact story, so I don’t want you to feel
Reviews
trumped here,’” Boneau said. This paid off in 25
Post-opening feature coverage
advance features on the show that ran in every (21)
20
New York publication and most news- (17)
magazines. To the opening, Boneau invited 15
(15)
(14)
not only reviewers but gossip columnists, tele- (11)
vision personalities and celebrities. “When 10
no previews
no features
people read about ‘Aida’ and broadcasters and 5 (4)
anchors are there, they’re not going to review (2) (2)
(1)
the show so much as say how the evening 0
Aida Proof O Pioneers! Cannibal!
The Musical
went,” Boneau said.
National Arts Journalism Program, 2002
Some did review the show—scathingly.
“It’s hardly worth talking about a piece that running in an off-Broadway theater (the
hasn’t been written or even thought through,” Manhattan Theatre Club) that had just sent
Michael Feingold wrote in the Village Voice. A “The Tale of the Allergist’s Wife” to Broadway.
few critics liked “Aida,” most notably Nancy But before “Proof ” opened at MTC, not a sin-
Franklin of The New Yorker, but the overall gle preview story on the show appeared.
response was such that Variety ran an article “There was this feeling of a quiet sneak-
on the show’s lukewarm critical reception. ing-in of ‘Proof ’ for a few reasons,” said
Few features followed, save a May New Boneau, who also headed PR for “Proof.” It
York Post piece on the surprisingly low number opened on May 23, 2000, the midst of Tony
of Tony nominations for “Aida” (though it did season, and critics’ attention was elsewhere, he
go on to win four of the five awards it was up said, adding, “Mary-Louise Parker had just
for), a June Post piece crediting the musical’s gotten a lot of attention for ‘How I Learned
“extremely shrewd marketing campaign” and To Drive,’ and a lot of people said, ‘I can’t do
ancillary mentions of cast changes and tour a preview on Parker because I just did one.’”
news. Despite this, “Aida” sold well and its The reviews for “Proof ” were stellar; near-
run continues. Boneau’s work is not done: He ly every publication gave the show prominent
has a role in decisions ranging from cast space, thanks in part to MTC’s reputation.
changes to promotions that put the “Aida” “‘Proof ’ a brilliant drama,” went the headline
girls, Boneau said, “doing a song in Times in the Daily News; “The performances are per-
Square in sexy T-shirts.” fect…run and get your tickets immediately,”
“The idea is to stay on the phone and wrote New York magazine’s John Simon. Only
keep pitching.” The (Newark) Star-Ledger and Time Out New
York published less-than-enthusiastic notices.
OFF-BROADWAY PLAY GONE “‘Proof ’ became a phenomenon, the kind of
BROADWAY (“PROOF”) show people thought they were discovering,”
Now that “Proof ” has jumped successfully to Boneau said.
Broadway and captured a Pulitzer Prize, it’s To the show’s benefit, most all the reviews
easy to surmise that it had been a media mag- ran the day after the opening, which is gener-
net from the start. It starred hot actress Mary- ally guaranteed for Broadway shows but not
Louise Parker and was written by the up-and- off-Broadway ones. “You can pull them all
coming playwright David Auburn; it was together and have a great ad. Conversely, if
83
National Arts Journalism Program
INSIGHTS FROM THE CONFERENCE
INSIGHTS FROM THE CONFERENCE
“You’d be surprised how often there’s a kind of uniformity among critics, even from different
The Press
papers in town. Chances are, if we had two critics reviewing the same play and they both
panned it, it would be a double blow: A roundhouse to the head and then an uppercut to the
jaw.” - John Darnton, culture editor, The New York Times
“Any producer who counts on a New York Times review should go home. The fact is, people will
start talking, and they will decide for themselves who it is they want to see. A bad review has
not stopped people from going to see a show.” - Chris Boneau, partner, Boneau/Bryan-Brown
the reviews are terrible, you want them all to an unknown but compelling script such as
run on the same day, because you don’t want “Proof,” according to Boneau, is simply to get
them to keep trickling out over the course of critics to see the play: “It’s your best calling
weeks,” Boneau explained. card, your best way to explain it.”
After that, “Proof ” garnered significant
feature coverage, including, in The New York OFF-OFF-BROADWAY SHOW
Times, a profile of Auburn and a piece compar- (“CANNIBAL!”)
ing “Proof ” with science-oriented plays such as “Cannibal!,” a Horse Trade Theater production
“Copenhagen.” Several reviews had compared that ran at the 60-seat Kraine Theater on West
the two plays, which gave writers a hook but Fourth Street, is the kind of production that has
threatened to falsely stereotype a play that to scramble for coverage wherever it can. A
addressed higher mathematics but wasn’t really review is by no means guaranteed, and an inde-
“about” math. “We didn’t push the math-play pendent feature is practically a freak occurrence.
part so much as the smart-play angle. We actu- Though you wouldn’t know from the
ally [unsuccessfully] pushed a Science Times scant coverage it received, “Cannibal!” had
article…but it wasn’t like, ‘Let’s call up Math pretty good feature hooks. The show was a
Monthly to push it,’” Boneau said. comic retelling of the story of Alferd Packer, a
When the play moved to Broadway’s 19th-century explorer who survived a disas-
Walter Kerr Theater in October 2000, there trous excursion by eating his cohorts. It was
were few advance features, but there was plenty written by Trey Parker, whose Comedy
of favorable buzz in newspapers’ fall arts pre- Central show program “South Park” had
views. The play benefited from re-reviews once recently become a sensation and spawned a
it made the jump. (The Times was alone in not feature film. And “Cannibal!” was adapted
sending a critic to see the play again, though it from a movie that itself had a cult following.
excerpted from its original rave when “Proof ” This may be why the musical was written
showed up on Broadway.) The Star-Ledger about at all.
reviewer, on second viewing, found it “a nicely Even so, “Cannibal!” was reviewed in just
offbeat jigsaw puzzle of a play,” watering down two of the publications we surveyed, though it
initial criticism of its “surprisingly simple con- did receive several reviews on Web sites and in
tents.” The play’s move to Broadway was obvi- smaller publications beyond the reach of this
ously a PR boon, as was the subsequent survey.
Pulitzer, which prompted a number of Auburn As it happens, the production was
profiles. The best way to promote coverage of immensely successful and was extended four
84
Wonderful Town
times, though no further coverage appeared Pioneers!” was fortunate to receive a 600-word
until Tara Bahrampour wrote a colorful piece article in Beatrice’s local newspaper (where,
for the City section of The New York Times among others, the theater’s superintendent
focusing on some of the musical’s “groupies,” was quoted) because of Willa Cather’s local
The Press
who were dressing up as the show’s characters, heritage. But mostly, “O Pioneers!” received
“Rocky Horror”–style. An earlier production short previews that rarely did more than par-
by the same theater company at the same the- rot the press release for the production. The
ater, “Shelf Life,” received less than half the Acting Company had to rely heavily on those
coverage “Cannibal!” garnered. who would attend based simply on interest in
Willa Cather, and on season subscribers who
TOURING PRODUCTION trust the programming taste of the host venue.
(“O PIONEERS!”) Upon returning to New York for a three-
Touring productions such as the Manhattan- week run, “O Pioneers!” received its only
based Acting Company’s early 2001 adapta- reviews, in The New York Times, Backstage and
tion of Willa Cather’s “O Pioneers!” are driven Time Out New York. The notices were not
by different media imperatives than shows great. The Times’ Wilborn Hampton found
mounted in a single venue. For one thing, the show middling to problematic, and the
Gerry Cornez, communications director for Backstage review lumped it together with a
Acting Company said, they don’t rely much workshop reading of “O Pioneers!” by another
on reviews because the production generally company. Cornez prefers that Acting
has left town by the time a review would run. Company reviews appear later rather than
“O Pioneers!” premiered in January with sooner, because they can prop up ticket sales
several performances in Queens. It received that sag in the middle of a run. “The Times
just two Newsday pieces, one on the company always comes to the first performance, but
and another previewing the performance, holds the review for a week or so,” he said.
before lighting out on a 16-city tour of subur- “O Pioneers!” was praised by one New
ban, collegiate and small-town venues such as York critic: Margo Jefferson of The Times, in
Hampton, Va., Parkersburg, W.Va. and what may have been an indirect rebuttal to
Beatrice, Neb. Hampton. Unfortunately for the Acting
In such towns, newspapers often lack the- Company, her piece appeared more than a
ater critics or even dedicated arts writers. “O month after the production had closed. ■
85
National Arts Journalism Program
