So a couple weeks back, Charles Isherwood, second string critic at the Times was taking questions. I asked one, which was not answered. Then yesterday, he answered a second round, and there I was. I asked him a question about his regional theatre reviews. They put up an edited version of my question (minus the introductory statement and a question at the end about residencies in cities like Chicago, like Brantley does in London), which he sort of general way. Still, it's very fun to see my name on the New York Times webiste, especially so soon after my comment on the Plays That Changed Your Life piece got featured. Apparently, my life skill is posting on theatre blogs. Everyone needs something.
Here's the text of the question and answer, for those of you disinclined to click over (though it's worth reading the whole piece):
Q.What do you see as the benefit of the Times covering regional theater? What determines which productions are noteworthy? — Zev
A.The paper has a very large national readership, so I think it is only natural that major productions of plays and musicals (new or old) at regional theaters should be written about.
Good theater doesn’t just happen in New York, and it’s important to keep attuned to new voices and new currents outside the city. A supportive review from The Times can help call attention to a talented playwright or director, which is beneficial to both audiences and artists.
It does get a little tricky figuring out which shows to cover: new plays from noted playwrights are a priority, but good buzz or strong notices from local critics play a part too. Sometimes a busy season in New York means less outside the city will get reviewed.
Stoking the Fires
1 day ago