Here's an interesting bit of correspondence about what seem to be two worlds of theater: what the audience actually likes, and what the critics think that audiences should like. The letters come our way from viewer Mel Cook and producer Susan Haskins:
Mel Cook:
Mel Cook:
Mel Cook:
Always enjoy the show, but amazed at how so many of the critics seem to be out of touch with the theatergoing public. For example, three friends have told me they walked out of Top Girls, yet a critic on the show thought it was great theater. Critics seem to view shows through a different prism.Susan Haskins:
Top Girls was the most riveting and important play I saw all year. I don't know about being in-touch with the "theatergoing public," but I know my own heart and mind, and your friend missed out by leaving early.
I did not see Top Girls so I can't take sides, but I've seen other shows that made me wonder what standards were being used by the critics. One I recall (because I thought it was so awful) was Dying City. The NYT critic gave it a recommendation, but people stayed away in droves, I assume because the "buzz" was so negative. Even though it was in a small theatre in Lincoln Center, TDF tickets were always available up to early Saturday morning for Saturday afternoon and PM performances. What people look for in shows and what theatre critics look for might be a good topic for discussion on a future Theatre Talk. Maybe that will answer the question why critically acclaimed shows sometimes fail at the box office and shows that get panned go on to big box office results.Susan Haskins:
I'll throw my own opinion into the hat, too: I think we all have different opinions, shaped by years of exposure to various forms of theater, from high drama to the offbeat avant-garde. I saw Sunday in the Park with George with two friends: one left at intermission, the other loved the second act, I felt impressed but not emotionally so. Not a single one of us was right: there is no such thing as a correct opinion. Critics seem "out of touch" when they forget that and try to force a blanket statement onto the audience, or onto the show: they would be better served (and better serve the shows) by explaining why they prefer the hard truths of Top Girls more than the easy entertainment of Young Frankenstein, and not chastising the audience for sticking with their guts. Then you'll know what they're looking for in a show (as opposed to what you might be), and can learn to trust or shun their opinion in the future.I totally agree with you on Dying City. I sat there feeling like I'd been duped by the NY Times. In fact, I often feel that way- most recently at the HORRENDOUS Boeing-Boeing. But again, I did love Top Girls.
