The decline in printed theatre criticism by artistic director James Haddrell

Last year I was asked to contribute an update to the Encyclopedia of Modern Theatre on the subject of the critic in modern theatre – something I have written about here, too.

The focus of the piece was the decline in printed theatre criticism.

While publications like Time Out were slimming down their coverage in order to reduce production costs and become free, other publications that remained for sale have steadily reduced the available space for criticism and the number of critics on their payrolls.

The most significant casualties to date have included Lyn Gardner (who topped the Stage Newspaper’s poll of most trusted critics) who was dropped from The Guardian, followed by Henry Hitchings and Fiona Mountford facing the same fate at the Evening Standard with the decision attributed to “necessary cost cutting”.

So, critics don’t seem to sell newspapers – but do they sell theatre tickets?

The explosion in social media usage means that theatre-goers are now as likely to look for the most retweeted 280-character review on Twitter or the Instagram photo gallery with the most likes to influence their ticket buying as they once were to turn to the newspaper and the views of one person.

Is that democracy in action, or is that quantity over quality? I have argued before that both have a place.

The seasoned voice of the critic is as valuable to the production in offering reasoned feedback as it is to the audience in telling them whether or not to spend their money on a ticket.

The ground swell of public opinion facilitated by social media offers a glimpse of what “regular” theatregoers really make of a show.

But what happens when the seasoned voice of the critic reveals a level of insensitivity that goes far beyond what is appropriate?

When the publication or media outlet for which they write grants their words a gravity that may not have been earned?

Last week, Regents Park Open Air Theatre opened its latest in-house show – a new staging of the musical Legally Blonde.

Twenty-eight-year-old director Lucy Moss (the youngest director on Broadway ever, having scooped eight TONY Award nominations for her production of SIX) has given the show an overhaul, with the production described by The Stage as “a statement piece with a generously Gen Z approach that celebrates diversity of gender, ethnicity, sexuality and body shape.”

However, not everyone has seen this as a celebration, and Quentin Letts caused a storm of outrage with his review in The Sunday Times, using horrendously dated body-shaming language and making comments about the diversity of the casting.

As a result, the venue issued a statement asserting that critics will not be invited to see the shows if they fail to show “respect and sensitivity” in their reviews.

So, what is Letts’ place in the theatre ecology? Is he offering the kind of constructive feedback that a producer would yearn for and a ticket-buyer would be swayed by?

Or is he an individual with an outdated view, being offered a legitimising mouthpiece that he doesn’t deserve?~

With theatre criticism dwindling, a canny critic would surely see the threat to their future represented by a failure to move with the times.

Nobody is asking a critic to temper their view of a show’s quality, to shy away from commenting on its artistic vision, to stop encouraging or discouraging theatregoers from attending, but any critic who uses their platform to perpetuate insensitive vocabulary should surely find themselves among the next cull.

 

Pictured: The cast of Legally Blonde – Picture: Pamela Raith