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.