Authors: Matt Windman
Michael Sommers:
I always did features and interviews in addition to reviews for the
Star-Ledger
. I also maintained listings. I even had to cover breaking news. I remember covering various Broadway strikes. I’d be outside in the cold on the street till 2 a.m. I ended up covering the New York City blackout in 2004 for the paper because I happened to be in town at the time. I even got injured doing that. A guy crashed into me, and I took a fall in the dark at 23rd Street and 5th Avenue. When 9/11 happened, if I hadn’t been in New Jersey at the time, they probably would have made me go downtown and report on it.
I never had a problem with writing features as a critic. Some of the people I interviewed didn’t like the idea, but we all had to make nice. It’s the sort of thing that journalists do. You’re either in reviewer mode or feature writer mode. I had to write previews about shows and then review them later on. I’d talk to the playwright, the director, the designer, or whoever, and then I’d see the show a couple of days later and say what I thought about it. I’ve always had a good journalist’s manner. I’ve been very fortunate to interview people like Edward Albee and Arthur Miller.
Frank Scheck:
If you interview a writer or a director, and if you really like the person, it can unconsciously affect how you write about them. Whether or not that’s such a terrible thing is debatable. But if I really like someone that I interview, and then I really dislike their show, it would produce feelings of discomfort in me that I would prefer to avoid. It’s certainly possible to still remain objective, but it’s more difficult.
Peter Marks:
Does it increase your sympathy towards the show? Yes, and that’s a problem. We’re human. We can’t help it. We’re going to feel some additional measure of empathy for what they’re going through. If you’re a little kinder than you would have been otherwise, you can still communicate your objections to the show. I would say that 90 percent of the time, it doesn’t really affect what readers ultimately glean from a review.
Peter Filichia:
I had a feature article in the paper every Friday at the
Star-Ledger
. I even decided who the feature would be about. As a result, I’d meet these people. The trick was to not be charmed by them because for the most part (Bebe Neuwirth excluded), they’d want you to like them. They’d typically tell you what they thought the play was about. I’ve always wondered whether I would have come to the same conclusion had I not heard what this person said. That’s why the
Times
has its reviewers only do reviews and its feature writers only do features. It’s more expensive that way, but it’s the right way to do it.
MATT WINDMAN
: What kind of research, if any, do you perform before seeing a show or writing a review?
Hilton Als:
I almost always do research. This is a literary art, and I like to read.
David Cote:
It’s different with every show. I may read the script. I may read reviews of the play from the past. I may watch the movie version or listen to the cast album. It all depends on how much time and energy I have.
Andy Propst:
I try to do as much research as I can before I see a show. If it’s a Shakespeare play, if I don’t read it word for word, I will at least scan the text so I can remember how the scenes play out. That way, as I’m watching it, I’ll know if something was cut. If it’s a classic where cuts normally would not happen (something like
A Streetcar Named Desire
), I’ll go back and familiarize myself with it to make sure I’m aware of its arc. If it’s a classic I’ve never seen before, I will read it very carefully.
Frank Rizzo:
With the last few new musicals I’ve reviewed, I’ve asked for a recording of the music so I can listen to the score after I see the show. It’s difficult to write a thoughtful analysis of music after just one hearing. Even if it’s a rough rehearsal piano version of the material, I find that tremendously helpful.
To give an example, my husband got the CD of the musical
The Light in the Piazza
when I was at work one day. He called me and said, “It’s just terrible.” When I called him a couple of hours later, he said, “I listened to it again, and it’s pretty good.” When I got home that night, he said, “This is the best musical score I’ve ever heard.” He literally went from dismissing the score to thinking it was brilliant after just a couple of additional listens. Writers like Adam Guettel (who wrote
The Light in the Piazza
) and Stephen Sondheim and Jason Robert Brown are writing rich, full, complicated scores and not rinky-dink songs. One quick listen—when you’re also trying to take in the story and the acting and everything else—just isn’t enough.
Charles Isherwood:
For playwrights whose work I’m encountering for the first time, but who have some kind of track record, I will usually look back at the reviews of their previous plays. If it’s an important playwright whose work I haven’t encountered before, I’ll try to read the play. If there’s a singular or very important production of the play and the library at Lincoln Center has a video of it, I’ll watch it. When it’s the first revival of a contemporary play, watching the video of the original production can be very valuable. The original production is what the revival will be judged against in the minds of the audience. With a Shakespeare play, often I will reread it a week or so before reviewing the production.
Howard Shapiro:
I try to avoid reading anything about a new play. I understand why other critics read new plays and want to know everything about them before they go in. For me, that’s not being an audience member. I want the same luxury of being as surprised as the people sitting beside me. I also never read other people’s reviews until I’ve written my own.
Alexis Soloski:
If it’s a new play, I try to go in cold and just experience it. Then, after seeing it and thinking it through, I often read the play to separate the naked script from the performance.
Leonard Jacobs:
Remember when the Public Theater produced Tony Kushner’s version of
Mother Courage and Her Children
in Central Park? Ideally, I would have reread the Brecht. I would have looked at other productions to see how Kushner dealt with it differently. How was it staged differently? How did the presence of Meryl Streep, this huge star playing Mother Courage, affect the production? But ultimately, I didn’t do any of that. I didn’t have the luxury of time.
Terry Teachout:
I don’t do any research other than just being aware of what’s been written about a production, like if there’s some buzz about it. Very often, I won’t even look at the program until intermission.
John Simon:
I do not do research. It makes a difference if you are someone who has spent hours, or even days, preparing. I think of myself as a reasonably intelligent, reasonably interested theatergoer. That’s when I can write the most useful and most uncensored review, and that’s the way it should be. Of course, if I’m reviewing something like
Macbeth
, I can’t help knowing what it’s about.
Christine Dolen:
I believe in preparing as much as possible. If it’s a world premiere, I might read the script first. If I’m doing a feature, I’ll talk to the playwright. When the touring company of the musical
Once
came here, I talked to the creators, read feature articles about it, listened to the cast album, and watched the movie.
Dan Bacalzo:
I don’t do research for every single review, but it’s important for certain shows. One of the functions of a critic is to be the informed voice for the reader who doesn’t have the time to read the book, or watch the movie that something was adapted from, or do research about something that winds up being the focal point of a new play. The critic really should be doing that kind of work. I’m not saying I’ve done that for every show that required it, but the reviews where I actually did that kind of work came out better because of it.
Elisabeth Vincentelli:
It can become a problem when you compare something to its source and whether it was faithful or not to the source. A show needs to stand on its own.
Jesse Oxfeld:
I didn’t tend to do a lot of research beforehand, which was partially a function of being a freelancer who wasn’t doing it for a lot of money. I saw and wrote about anywhere from two to six shows in a week while also having a full-time job. If the
Observer
wanted to pay me a full salary instead of a flat weekly fee to be a theater reviewer, I would have approached it very differently. Then I would have been compensated for the time to put in a different level of focus and energy.
Michael Musto:
I do research without trying because I read the Broadway message boards and the press releases. I’ve also seen the original productions of all these plays now being revived, so I have all the research in the little microchip in my brain.
Rob Weinert-Kendt:
When I was writing for the
Los Angeles Times
, if I saw a play based on a book, I would read the book without fail. I was writing for the paper of record, and I felt like I couldn’t render this big judgment without knowing everything I reasonably could.
Robert Hurwitt:
If it’s an adaptation of a film, I’ll see the film. If it’s based on a well-known book, I’ll read it. If it’s based on a historical event, I’ll find out some things about it. Also, when you’re dealing with an experimental group, you want to know what the theory is behind its practices.
Ronni Reich:
Sometimes I’ll read something in another review along the lines of, “Twenty years ago, I saw such-and-such production.” As a younger critic, I can’t do that. I try to compensate as much as I possibly can. I’m fortunate to have access to everything at the Library for the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center and YouTube videos.
MATT WINDMAN
: Do you take any notes during a show?
Alexis Soloski:
I do, but my handwriting is pretty horrible. Sometimes I come out of the theater, look at my notebook, and can only make out one word out of three.
Robert Feldberg:
I used to write down lines of dialogue. But within the last five years or so, the press agents have been supplying copies of the script to critics.
John Lahr:
I think I was the first critic to ask for a copy of the script because I didn’t want to have to take notes during the show. This was back in the 1960s. When you’re backstage on opening night, you become very aware of the presence of 50 critics. If the critics are taking notes, they’re not actually spending a whole lot of time watching the play. Their heads are going up and down. They’re not in the moment.
Marilyn Stasio:
I never look at my notes, but taking them keeps me focused, and reviewing is very much about staying focused. If you’re a play, I’m yours. I am with you. I’m paying every bit of attention to you that I possibly can. That’s my job.
Charles Isherwood:
When I started writing, I was fanatical about taking notes. I was one of those people who always seem to be scribbling notes throughout the show. That’s waned as the years have gone by. I still take notes, but I don’t consult them as much. For me, the act of note taking is really about fixing something in my mind.
Chris Jones:
I write down more at some shows than others. I write a lot down at Second City, Chicago’s famous improv comedy theater. Something at Second City is essentially 40 short plays in one. It’s very difficult to remember all of that, so I tend to write down everything that I’m seeing. If I’m watching
Hamlet
, I probably don’t write down anything. I just listen and take it all in.
Michael Musto:
It’s hard to take copious notes during a show because you don’t want to distract other people. There’s also that awkward moment when a great piece of dialogue is said and every critic is writing it down. And you think, I’m going to have the same review as everyone else.
Peter Filichia:
I take an enormous number of notes. It’s like electroshock therapy for me. Whenever anything crosses my mind when I’m watching a show, I write it down. You never know what’s going to turn out to be important. The next day, I always see something I would have forgotten about had I not written it down. But there is a downside to taking notes. I can’t tell you how many times the audience has roared with laughter as I’m writing something, and then I’ll look up, and it’s too late—I missed the moment.
Jesse Green:
In the beginning, I took voluminous notes out of nervousness, worrying what my theme would be, what my kicker would be, what jokes I might make, what insights I might convey. I was looking so hard at the mechanics that I would start to not pay attention to the show properly, so I trained myself to take fewer notes.
Linda Winer:
I take a lot of notes in the theater. I write in shorthand, which my mother made me learn. It would be very cool if I was like Claudia Cassidy, who could just sit there and remember everything, but that isn’t the way I am. Not only do I read my notes, I do a wacky kind of outline where I write down different kinds of information on different corners of the pad. When I’m writing the review, I can just refer to the part of the page where I know the information that I’m looking for will be.
Matthew Murray:
I tend to take very few notes. I don’t want anything to get in the way of watching the show. That’s why you’re there, after all: to see what’s onstage and write about it. I have seen some reviewers (who shall remain nameless) spend basically the entire performance looking at their pad and writing, only glancing up at the stage occasionally. To me, that’s completely useless and insulting to everyone involved.
Peter Marks:
Even if I don’t take a lot of notes, I keep a pad and pen in my hand. It’s like a crutch. It’s also reminds me of the distance between myself and the show.
Michael Sommers:
The very few times I go to the theater without a notebook, my hand twitches.