RESTAURANT CRITICS AND THEATER CRITICS. Yesterday, I quoted a theater critic criticizing LES MISERABLES because he got bored with the turntable that was changing the scenery. He also proudly announced that he had never gone to see the show in the sixteen years of its first run in New York, and then gave it a short negative review. I see that another critic gave LES MIZ a negative review because it lacks irony. I am not giving names here because I want to generalize about all theater critics. The speculation: Years from now people will look back on New York (and American?) culture at the beginning of this century and conclude that this was the golden age of restaurants. Eating was important. Theater was not. Restaurant reviews are usually raves. Restaurant critics like to eat. They love to describe their meals in glowing terms. Theater reviews are usually negative. Theater critics are long suffering types who find only one or two plays a year that are worthy of their attention.
[...] SUFFERING THEATER CRITICS. My third post on this blog pointed out that “Theater critics are long suffering types who find only one or two plays a year that are worthy of their attention.” Ben Brantley says in this article “But this is the first year in my decade as chief theater critic of The New York Times in which Broadway, all by its big, bloated self, provided enough laurel-worthy shows that even a list of 10 can’t include them all.” People who like theater imagine that being a drama critic and going to the theater all the time would be a dream job. But what if you don’t like the theater very much? We should sympathize with the poor critic who year after year goes to plays that he doesn’t like. [...]