Will Theatre Critics Face the Axe?

THE best review I ever received came from critic Dominic Cavendish, who recently described me as “the modern-day Kenneth Tynan—broad-minded and objective.”

Believe me, I was surprised. I’ve been called a lot of things in my time (wasp at a picnic, necessary evil etc), but broad-minded and objective are not usually among them. 

I often say i’m an influencer with influence. 

My life in the dress circle and stalls has coincided with one of the most thrilling periods in our theatrical history. But in the end, critics (at least good critics) don’t write their reviews for producers—just as great producers shouldn’t create their shows for critics.

For all the shows I champion—those I love, praise, and try to get people excited about—it’s the ones I loathe that people remember. (Top 5? The Band, Waitress, Heathers, Lyonesse, and Elektra.) How does a critic stay honest without giving offence? I’d say it’s almost impossible. 

Anyway, Tynan once said that a good drama critic is “one who perceives what is happening in the theatre of his time, “while a great drama critic “also perceives what is not happening.”

In Britain, it’s well known that a theatre review will quickly let you know if a production is worth attending. Often, a star rating accompanies the review, offering a quick gauge of approval or criticism, typically on a scale of five. It can be a difficult line to walk.

Across the pond, The New York Post’s Broadway critic, Johnny Oleksinski, alleges that the producers of Denzel Washington’s Othello rescinded his invitation to review the show after he criticised its $921 ticket prices in a column.

Moreover, I was shocked to learn this morning thatThe Guardian was denied review tickets and had to pay $400 for a middle orchestra seat. 

Furthermore, WhatsOnStage—often regarded as the Radio Times of British theatre—described Jesse Green’s New York Times review of Operation Mincemeat as “snooty” in its Broadway roundup.

For the love of God. 

With theatre posters now just as likely to feature quotes from random people off the internet (best thing: everyone has access to it; worst thing: everyone has access to it), has the rise of enthusiastic amateurism sounded the death knell for professional criticism?

Still, seeing things like this, a part of me withers—it’s disheartening and continues the race to the bottom. It feels like commercial theatre is eating itself. 

We rely on critics to explore, analyse, and question the value and impact of the work, providing essential context and insight. And I’d argue that more people are writing about theatre—and sharing their thoughts—than at any other point in history.

That’s not a crisis—it’s a tremendous advantage that can only enrich theatre.

But if theatre reviewing is to survive, critics must know more than their readers.

Happily, there is pushback occurring against such anti-intellectualism. My own belief, for what it’s worth, is that there is a hunger for vetted, informed and authoritative opinion and journalism.

How did we reach a point where proper theatre criticism is held in such low regard? What the hell happened? 

Answers on a postcard, dear reader, please.