
We opened Macbeth on Wednesday to a nearly full house and some nice reviews (nytheatre.com and Backstage).
Review time is always strange.
A few months back, there was a big to-do about a certain New York Times review that was unfavorably received by the show's director. She wrote a pleading letter to her mailing list, basically asking that they disregard the review and still come out to see the show. An essay on Culturebot dissected the issue, which shone the first big spotlight on the role of theater bloggers beyond the indie theater scene. (Martin Denton, in my opinion a "theater blogger" before the term came into the vernacular, discussed it on his blog here.)
I found this whole situation fascinating, with everyone buzzing about the artist/critic food chain. I have written theater reviews (for nytheatre.com and the L Magazine) since around 2000, and being an actor as well puts me in an interesting position. When I write reviews, I write my opinion. Just my one opinion. Is my opinion more important because it ends up in print?
Maybe.
But then I am (like many at nytheatre.com) also on the other side of the pen-and-paper, actually being reviewed.
Our first review for MWW was very positive. The guy got what we were going for and liked it. That feels good. The other guy's review looks like he didn't like it as much as the first guy: the initial reaction is to say that he didn't get it.
But perhaps he just didn't like it. And that's ok. (Christ, I'm giving myself therapy over two reviews where I'm mentioned as ensemble-- get a grip!)
The bottom line is that I feel really good about this show. We've worked our asses off for months, the ensemble is tight and I like what we're doing.
I'll be interested to see if I can take these grains of salt with me when reviews start coming in for SCOUT'S HONOR!, where I actually have money going into it... (not that money matters... we're all in this for the art, of course!)






