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 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

The Press 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 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

The Press 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 and shows with ater contacts, but I don’t go out of my way to in London [or] they have major stars in them. 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- can often I’ll let someone else review it.” ly twice as important as advertising. But even 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,” 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.”

The Press 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 of passion in Times wants to see its name on a big show. It’s notices, and someone would say, ‘Well, why 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 1“Who Goes to Broadway, 1999-2000,” League of American theater was perceived truly to matter in print. Theatres and Producers, 2001.

76 Wonderful Town The Press 77 National Arts Journalism Program THE NEW YORK TIMES THE NEW 1.1 million) (circulation: Daily newspaper Brantley reviewer: Ben Chief theater theater reviewers:Staff Margo Jefferson, Bruce Weber who review theater: Other staffers Sarah Boxer, Gates, Neil Genzlinger, Anita D.J.R. Bruckner, Gelder Lawrence Van Wilborn Hampton, THEATERMANIA count: 250,000) site (weekly hit Web Full-time reviewers: Dan Bacalzo, Brooke Pierce, Michael Portantiere, Ben Winters Freelance reviewers: David Finkle, Marc Miller, Barbara Siegel, Scott Siegel, Ricky Spears TIME National weekly newsmagazine (circulation: 4,000,000) Theater reviewer: Richard Zoglin TIME OUT NEW YORK local entertainment magazine Weekly (circulation: 112,000) Theater editor and reviewer: Jason Zinoman Full-time reviewer: David Cote Freelance reviewers: Michael Hogan, Alexis Webster Linda Yablonsky, S.D., Soloski, Trav Younce VARIETY trade magazine with daily component Weekly (circulation: 36,000) Theater editor and full-time reviewer: Charles Isherwood Other full-time reviewers: Robert Hofler, Marilyn Stasio VILLAGE VOICE Free alternative weekly (circulation: 250,000) Chief theater reviewer: Michael Feingold Other reviewers: David Finkle, James Hannaham, Francine Russo, Alexis Soloski, Charles McNulty, Alisa Solomon THE CRITICS: A ROLL CALL A ROLL THE CRITICS: BACKSTAGE BACKSTAGE 29,000) newspaper (circulation: Weekly trade noted): Irene (freelance unless Print reviewers Eric Gluck, Frank, Victor Backalenick, Glenda Leonard Jacobs (full-time), Grode, Dan Isaac, Levett, Julius Novick, David Michael Lazan, Karl Sheward (full-time), Elias Rosenberg, David Toomer Jeanette Stimac, Esther Tolkoff, (freelance unless noted): site reviewers Web Buck, Sarika Chawla, Peter Derek Beres, Andy Piper David Sheward (full-time), Shaugnessy, (full-time) Weiss NEWS DAILY Daily newspaper (circulation: 704,463) Dominguez, Full-time theater reviewers: Robert Howard Kissel NEWSDAY Daily newspaper (circulation: 575,000) Chief theater reviewer: Linda Winer Full-time reviewer: Steve Parks Freelance reviewer: Gordon Cox NEW YORK magazine (circulation: 438,000) Weekly Reviewer: John Simon THE NEW YORKER magazine (circulation: 800,000) Weekly Reviewers: Nancy Franklin, John Lahr NEW YORK OBSERVER newspaper (circulation: 50,000) Weekly Reviewer: John Heilpern NEW YORK POST Daily newspaper (circulation: 443,951) Full-time theater reviewers: Clive Barnes, Donald Lyons Freelance reviewer: Chip Deffaa NEW YORK PRESS Free alternative weekly (circulation: 116,000) Reviewer: Mimi Kramer 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 When it comes to the New York print just over 40 percent. And not only do The 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-

The Press 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 The Press Articles Reviews 79 er publications are best approximations. best approximations. er publications are National Arts Journalism Program was reviewed under a single heading. was reviewed (articles/reviews) National Arts Journalism Program, 2002 Program, Journalism Arts National (no articles/reviews) The New York Times (30) The New York Backstage (24) Newsday (23) (22) Variety Post (18) New York (16) Village Voice Daily News (13) (12) Time Out New York (7) Observer New York (5) New York Journal (4) Street The Wall (4) Press New York (3) The New Yorker Time (2) Newsweek 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Article Word Count Article Word Review Word Count Review Word (words) THE TIMES tallies refer to issues from 3/19 and 4/2; the 3/26 issue could not be located for this survey. to issues from tallies refer (no articles/reviews) New Yorker New Newsweek Time (160) New York (2,200) New York The New Yorker (2,770) The New Yorker New York Press (2,775) Press New York The Wall Street Journal (3,160) Street The Wall New York Observer (5,790) New York Village Voice (6,158) Village Voice Daily News (6,506) Time Out New York (6,600) Time Out New York New York Post (8,927) New York Backstage (9,380) Variety (14,252) Variety Newsday (18,784) The New York Times (20,826) The New York THEATER COVERAGE IN NEW YORK PRINT MEDIA IN NEW YORK PRINT COVERAGE THEATER IT’S NOT JUST IT’S NOT 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Notes: lengths for oth Word databases. or Lexis-Nexis Jones checked on the Dow lengths for major newspapers and magazines were Word 1) 2) Word counts include all reviews, features and news stories, and do not include theater listings. features counts include all reviews, Word 2) than one show more Often, evaluated. but to the number of productions reviews, not to the number of bylined refers 3) “Reviews” and news stories. to feature refers 4) “Articles” 5) The Press reviews than many plays More than negative received received reviews. 80 twice as positive Wonderful Town Times were amongthemostpositive. weeks inquestion. Andthebiggestpublications tive reviews thannegative reviews duringthe More thantwiceasmanyplaysreceived posi- REVIEWS would opentwoweeks later. Producers,”with leadactorsfrom “The which weeks, itpublisheda1,000-wordsurvey Q&A nothing atall,thoughintheissueafter during theperiodsurveyed. thumbnail reviews inits“Short Takes” section nation’s newsweeklies. include other publications.Other heavyhitters than thecombinedoutputofallbutfour seven reviews totaling8,672words—more least theoneallottedmostspace.He wrote was by farthemostprolific reviewer, orat the twoweeks we analyzed. during tions were ineachcategory running though roughly thesamenumberofproduc- appear thananoff-off-Broadway review, even Broadway review wassixtimesmore likely to hard timeattractingreviewers. Anoff- Broadway productions. theater-related features andpreviews are of ing coverage. It remains thatthemajorityof true terms ofmarketing muscleandsavvyinattract- increasingly resemble Broadway productions in ater; andtwo,majoroff-Broadway productions to “alternative” or“serious” off-Broadway the- media thesedayshave becomehighlyattentive ures indicatetwopossibletrends: One, thatthe reviewed by mostpublications).But thesefig- Broadway openingsofthatperiodwere greater quantityofoff-Broadway openings(all off-Broadway plays. This wasmainlyduetothe most approving ofpublicationswe studied. ● ● Other findingsinclude: Certainly, fringeproductions stillhave a The vast majorityofreviewed playswere Don’t expecttoread abouttheaterinthe New York Times —along with Newsday ’s Linda Winer andGordon Backstage chief criticBen Brantley Time —was amongthe Newsweek ran onlytwo The New York ran negative. positive, onewas neutral,andjustonewas most positive critics: Five ofhisreviews were than positive reviews. York ed nearlyasmanyproductions astheylauded. to one,the survey’s compositelove/hate ratiowasabouttwo negative thanmainstream ones. Though the Voice the sixshows shesaw. On theotherhand, Simon) carriedtheload. just two. seven productions hesawandapproving of crankiest, writingnegatively onfourofthe already-open “Riverdance.” Broadwayeach new show, revisited the New YorkPost cation intermsofitsreviewing profile wasthe with theaverage. The mostmainstream publi- off-off-Broadway shows wasroughly insync age of exclusively tomainstream shows. The percent- receive fournegative reviews. “Follies” were theonlyshows ofthatperiodto “No Niggers...” andStephen Sondheim’s the headlines).But perhapsitshouldhave: in eachreview, butabbreviated orcensored in from reviewing it(thetitlewasnamedinfull none oftheNew York area’s fourmajordailies “No Niggers, No Jews, No Dogs,” dissuaded At man’s diversity isanotherman’s inconsistency: cation withthemostcriticaldiversity. One critics duringtheperiod,makingitpubli- writer, churningout6,700words ofcopy. Blake Green wasthemostprolific feature Hofler andCharlesIsherwood. Voice Cox, the New York ’s John Simon alsowrote more negative ● ● ● ● ● ’s Michael Feingold wasamongthe ’s Michael Feingold and Alternative publicationstendtobemore The Times Mainstream publications didnotstick The controversial titleofoneproduction, Backstage New York Times New YorkPost Time Out Newsday Voice magazine, asinglereviewer (John , which,alongwithappraisalsof ran reviews from ninedifferent ’ Brantley wasalsooneofthe , Time Out ’s Linda Winer likedfive of ’s Jason Zinoman and ’ reviews thatwere of ’s Clive Barnes, the and the ■ Variety Newsday Press ’s Robert derid- ’s New The Press Reviews 81 This ranking, which assesses the level of of a publica- approval was reviews, tion’s compiled by subtract- ing the number of negative reviews positive from and dividing reviews, that sum by the total number of reviews (including reviews determined to be neutral). A +1 score indicates all positive a –1 score reviews; indicates all negative. Positive National Arts Journalism Program ve of that publication’s typical critical response. of that publication’s ve National Arts Journalism Program, 2002 Program, Journalism Arts National (neutral) (neutral) (neutral) Time (1) Backstage (.6) Times (.523) The New York Journal (.5) Street The Wall (.333) The New Yorker Newsday (.285) Post (.273) New York (.2) Time Out New York Daily News (.125) (.071) Village Voice Observer New York Press New York Newsweek (-.2) New York (-.23) Variety POSITIVE VS. NEGATIVE REVIEWS NEGATIVE POSITIVE VS. Negative -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Broadway Off-off Broadway Off-Broadway (reviews) (no reviews) Newsweek Time (2) The New Yorker (3) The New Yorker New York Press (4) Press New York The Wall Street Journal (4) Street The Wall New York (5) New York New York Observer (6) New York Daily News (8) Time Out New York (10) Time Out New York New York Post (11) New York Variety (13) Variety Village Voice (14) Village Voice Newsday (15) Backstage (15) The New York Times (21) The New York Note: Tonal judgments on reviews are, by nature, subjective, and the plays reviewed during this period may not be representati and the plays reviewed subjective, nature, by are, judgments on reviews Tonal Note: BROADWAY & OFF-BROADWAY REVIEWS & OFF-BROADWAY BROADWAY CRITICISM BY THE NUMBERS CRITICISM 0 5 10 15 20 25 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 The bigger the blockbuster, the more exten- CD soundtrack, a set snafu in the Chicago 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

The Press 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 (35) to dole out story ideas equitably to reporters. 35 The Press “I’m good at saying, ‘Someone else is writing Pre-opening feature/preview coverage this exact story, so I don’t want you to feel 30 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) (15) magazines. To the opening, Boneau invited 15 (14) not only reviewers but gossip columnists, tele- (11) vision personalities and celebrities. “When 10 people read about ‘Aida’ and broadcasters and 5 (4) (2) (2)

anchors are there, they’re not going to review (1) no previews no

no features 0 the show so much as say how the evening Aida Proof O Pioneers! Cannibal! went,” Boneau said. The Musical 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 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

The Press 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