I just received an email offering me press comps to a show opening next month in New York City. While the idea of free tickets is exciting, I do not write reviews. Further, I feel that as a working professional in the theatre industry it would be an inherent conflict of interest to write reviews, as everyone’s work I am reviewing is either a potential client or competitor.
I know many people do not care about such things as this, or do not have the same set of standards. Many of the reviewers for NYTheatre.com are freelance playwrights and directors. But for me I find it crosses a line I am not comfortable crossing.
As I said in reply to the email “I do not do reviews on my site and as a working freelance lighting designer would consider reviewing someone else’s work to be an inherent conflict of interest. However, if it is simply a matter of goodwill I would love to accept a pair of tickets for . . . ”
I would be curious what other people think of this issue.
Further, I feel that as a working professional in the theatre industry it would be an inherent conflict of interest to write reviews, as everyone’s work I am reviewing is either a potential client or competitor.
I somewhat disagree here and agree with Harold Clurman’s fifth “qualification” for anyone wishing to review theatre: “He should have worked in the theatre in some capacity (apart from criticism).” (Encore, Dec. 1964). Now, this does maybe imply a “has worked” (past tense), but Clurman himself spent most of his life directing at the same time as reviewing — even writing a mixed-to-negative review of Kazan’s original Broadway production of Streetcar Named Desire with Brando and Tandy while Clurman himself was directing the touring company (Anthony Quinn and Uta Hagen). Clurman wanted to direct the Broadway production so, that mixed-to-negative (pretty much solitary among the production’s reviewers) . . . sour grapes? Maybe, but the perspective he brings to the show is deep and perceptive – especially his amazing criticism of Brando’s landmark performance as a work of genius that has nothing to do with what Williams wrote, and that it is actively destructive to the play itself (Brando, years later, said he agreed with Clurman). This is an insight I believe only someone familiar with the play from a creative perspective would have, and a valuable one.
Despite this (and thumbing through the collected Clurman I find many more examples of terrific insights only a working professional would have on his colleagues’ work in his reviews), I say “somewhat” because the ethical line does seem somewhat . . . dicey, here. But that’s instinctual rather than logical, perhaps.
At the same time, since you don’t really do “reviews” at all in the first place, for YOU it’s maybe over the line, unless they’re just happy to hand you tickets even when you outright say you’re NOT going to write anything about it here. I don’t write reviews generally myself, but I consider a vague running account of what I’m seeing (and, more important, what I’m GETTING from what I’m seeing) to be important to the mission behind my blog, so I say things from time to time.
YMMV
Well, just because it has been done does not mean it should. Further, his writing might be great criticism and deserve to exist within the larger world of literature surrounding the theatre, but as a review, direct and inthe moment. As a document in dialog with a living work of theatre, the grapes might be too sour for that recipe.
Of course ultimately it is personal, which is why I asked the question. I have no interest in writing reviews. I have interest in lighting plays. I enjoy discussing theoretical issues as I do in my journal and will reference shows that are relevent but that is where I see the line. But that is just for me.
I agree that “having worked” in theatre is a good criteria for reviewing it. One would hope the reviewers have a working knowledge of what goes into the making of the plays. “You mean the actors don’t just make all those words up themselves!”
MattJ
I don’t think it’s a question of ethics, as you say, so much it is a question of one’s concern about their career. Is it an ethical matter for us as bloggers, or the producers offering us tickets? We pose ourselves as public in some way, so we have to make personal/editorial choices based on the repurcussions of that.
As far as producers are concerned, I applaud them for reaching out to the internet community. As for us, I don’t feel it’s unethical to review the work, artists have been doing that since the beginning of time. But there are, I suppose, potential repurcussions for one’s career, which is personal choice/risk. Personally, I sometimes take these offers but email the producer back stating specifically that I am under no obligation to write about it.
I don’t know just my opinions on the matter.