Of course, I have to clarify this. I am not considered by some a "real" critic. My reviews are not in print, per se, and though I have been invited to Royal Openings, and am quoted by companies large and small in their advertising and press releases, unless I were writing for the Arizona Republic, I am at the mercy of the Publicity Manager, the Artistic Director, or the Box Office Manager. This is how it has been all along with AJTC. My treatment by the company, and by Ms. Arnold specifically, has run hot and cold over the past two years. Things finally came to a boil after my review of their production of Fiddler on the Roof.

I am not saying that it was a nice review. I do feel, though, that it was a fair review. Some may disagree. That is the nature of reviewing. My treatment of the company has been fair, and I have said good things as well as bad over the time I've reviewed them. Unfortunately, Ms. Arnold has taken exception to my reviews, and the result was the phone call I had this morning with Ms. Arnold herself, while calling for critic's comps to see their upcoming Social Security.

After calling her and asking for the tickets, she told me "No. I don't think your review of Fiddler was very nice, and I have no need for the things you say."

It is Ms. Arnold's right, as Artistic Director of AJTC, to deny me critic's comps for her company. There is no disputing that. However, the reason she has given to deny them taps into a bigger problem that I've discovered with the theatre community as a whole. Critic accountability.

First, how much of a show's success and failure rests on what a critic has to say? Recently, the wonderful fledgling company, The Actor's Group, staged a play, Coming Attractions, whose failure caused them to cancel the rest of their season. Some people have said that my review was particularly vitriolic, and that it may have had some hand in the production's and, subsequently, the company's failure. I shudder to think that might be true. I don't believe that enough people read my reviews to make that much of a difference, but if it was true, should I have been more understanding? Do critics for the New York Times critique nicer, now that fewer shows are opening on Broadway and many more lives and budgets are at stake? I can only call them as I see them. To do anything more would be a betrayal to the company and the audience.

It is up to readers of reviews to remember that a critic is a person with likes and dislikes. EVERYTHING a critic says is subjective. They may be more knowledgeable about theatre productions as a whole, and can spot things that an ordinary audience member would not be able to explain, but if a certain critic seems to have a tendancy to hate anything with music, then it is the reader's job to critique the critic.

Second, critics will sometimes not like a production. Sometimes, they may even hate it. Performing Artists, though, must have a thick skin, or they must give up performing publicly. When you put yourself out there to be judged, sometimes people will judge you harshly. I know. As a playwright, I've had some painful reviews written about my work. However, I would never ban a critic from my play because they've written something bad about me previously. That's the nature of the Performing Arts. I welcome them back for two, very selfish reasons. 1) Like it or not, critics help boost box office sales, and 2) There's always a chance that they will like my current work.

And now, my on-again-off-again relationship with AJTC is off, permanently. I'm sorry about this. I've liked some of their productions, and know they will put up shows that I, personally and professionally, would like to see. However, when one person's ego gets in the way of professionalism, then there's nowhere else to go. I will continue giving what I believe are balanced, fair reviews for welcoming companies like Arizona Theatre Company, Stagebrush and The Ensemble Theatre. Inevitably, there will be people within the companies I review who will not like what I have to say. But I will continue to be invited back because they, too, believe in the two reasons I've mentioned above.

Social Security may be the best show AJTC has ever mounted, but I will not know, because Ms. Arnold expects her critics to offer nothing but good reviews. Since this is the case, I'm the last person she wants in her audience. I prefer the truth to the spin.

Return to AARO