The future of professional theater criticism: An international view

I’ll be writing for Critical Stages about the three reinterpreted classics we saw (Jean Lambert-wild’s Waiting for Godot at Comédie de Caen; Sandrine Anglade’s Le Cid at Cherbourg’s Le Trident; Thomas Ostermeier’s Enemy of the People at the Théâtre National de Bretagne). But for this space, whose purpose is examining arts criticism, it was more important to ask those critics about the greatest challenges facing theater criticism in their countries.

Before I give their answers, here’s mine: the lack of professional (read: paid) opportunities, the lack of diversity among our diminishing number, the lack of space in print (which, let’s be honest, probably won’t be a problem much longer), the lack of training opportunities (the NEA/USC theater criticism and Getty Arts Journalism fellowships recently closed, which, as far as I know, leaves the Eugene O’Neill National Critics Institute as the sole early-to-mid-career training program in the United States), and the trend toward quick-hit, Yelp-style crowdsourced reviews, or worse, reviews posted and promoted by theaters themselves.

The disappearing critic

It will surprise no one to read that the greatest challenge facing critics overseas are the same ones facing critics in the United States. Japan’s Akiko Tachiki, a freelance theater and dance critic, says there are many theater critics in Tokyo, where she is based, but outlets are shrinking. She edits a quarterly magazine that for several years has had designs on bimonthly publication, but can’t find funding or a readership willing to pay for subscriptions. And to that end, she’s also noticed the disappearance of many review-based journals.

Sweden’s Margareta Sorenson, theater and dance critic for the newspaper Expressen, says there’s one full-time critic in all of Sweden, based in Stockholm. Her paper, however, will send her on overnight trips to see shows in other towns, which is far more than most U.S. papers will do for critics in their own towns. (For example, here in Philadelphia, the Inquirer once paid freelancers’ parking and travel expenses. No longer.)

In Serbia, Ivan Medenica has also seen a disappearance of critics outside Belgrade and joined forces with a group who travels up to five hours outside the city to offer reviews of regional work and host post-show discussions. “Otherwise,” he explains, “There’s no record of the performance.”

This, of course is one of the real tragedies of the loss of criticism, particularly in smaller markets. When our IATC group convened in Caen, we held a colloquium on the production history, mise-en-scène, and reception of Godot in our respective nations. Nearly all my research and most of my presentation were the result of poring over reviews of the show, and when I used secondary sources, such as books on Beckett or Godot, those authors also got their firsthand accounts from reviews. Whether the critic wrote for the New York Times or the San Quentin Penitentiary News, the mere existence of a record of what happened on that particular evening, while watching that particular production, provides a window into the past for generations to come, and a record of Beckett’s impact on his first-time audience. (And both sources offer equally valuable and eloquent perspectives, though if you’re looking for the sine qua non of Godot commentary, seek out Norman Mailer’s Advertisements for Myself, which contains his Village Voice review and subsequent sort-of mea culpa.)

Inter-criticism

While it’s great that Serbian critics travel the countryside reviewing shows, they aren’t doing it on a publication’s dime. Because there are so few publications paying for work from qualified critics, a new(ish) hybrid, “inter-criticism,” is coming to the fore. The term "inter-criticism" has evolved to mean that critics can be practitioners or academics as well as critics. This has always been the case to some extent, but now, because of the lack of full-time critic jobs, inter-critics make up the bulk of professional critics.

Of inter-criticism, Medenica says, quoting French critic Bernard Dort, “it is a critic’s destiny to permanently stay stuck between two polar opposites — to assume a simultaneous position from the ‘inside’ (immanent structure of a theatre piece) and the ‘outside’ position (referent frame of the audience).”

However, that definition has changed with the critic’s circumstances. The issue came to a head, at least in the IATC, when in 2010, the organization drafted a Code of Practice, and the primary sticking point was the conflicts of interest inherent in the idea of critic/practitioners or academic/critics. Medenica’s piece (really, go read it) quotes Richard Gilman’s The Necessity for Destructive Criticism, quoting Shaw: “loyalty in a critic is corruption.”

And I guess that’s how we find ourselves in the mess we’re presently enjoying. Who, aside from other critics, will speak up for independent critics? We are disloyal, destructive, dangerous. We are also the sole independent record of a performance, and proof that performance is worthy of passionate public discussion and debate. Maybe inter-critics are all we’ll soon have left, and if so, at least they’ll be able to buy groceries and pay rent. But I would argue that while the ethical obligations of inter-critics and journalists may be the same, the audience isn’t. Academic journals and artist-to-artist critiques represent theater’s echo chamber. Journalist critics grab their bullhorns and take theater to the streets. What will be the effect on theater when all that shouting dwindles to a whisper?