Here's something I've been wondering about for a while. A few months ago, I read an article that claimed critics' opinion doesn't really affect people's decisions to see certain pieces of theatre. A little discouraging for all professional and amateur critics, I guess... Seeing my blog is full of theatre reviews, that got me thinking: is that true in my case, too?
First of all, I figured I'm more likely to be influenced by positive than negative reviews.
Let's say there's a new musical I'm really not interested in. I'm sure it's going to be bad, there's no way I'm seeing that! But if someone whose opinion I trust, someone who I usually agree with, goes to see the show and writes a positive review... It's not unheard of that I'll revise my opinion. For example, I had decided I wouldn't go see West Side Story in Lahden kaupunginteatteri – I've been disappointed by their musicals too many times in a row now, so no more, please! But then a really enthusiastic review by a fellow blogger changed my mind. What if I'll miss the chance to see something good after all? I have now booked my ticket, so we'll find out in two weeks.
Though I read theatre reviews from newspapers, I don't really have any so-called professional critic whose opinion I count on. Instead, it's my fellow musical bloggers whose thoughts I'm more interested in. It feels many Finnish critics don't even know what they're talking about when they talk about musicals (my favourite instance was when a critic who writes for Finland's biggest newspaper was offended that Jekyll & Hyde is not a child-friendly show) – so I tend to find blogger opinions way more reliable.
But if I read a negative review, be it in a newspaper or in a blog... If it's about a show I already have little interest in, it's of course not going to change things. I wouldn't have seen it anyway. But if it's about a show I'm curious about, I rarely drop my plans of going to see it just because others say it's not worth it. What if the whole lot is wrong? Sure, usually they're not, and I end up disliking the show too. But I still want to take the chance. Even if the show really turns out horrible, I'll at least get the chance to diss it myself...
Overall though, I usually read theatre reviews to compare my own opinions to others', not to decide if I want to see something or not. Reading what others feel about a show often expands my own views and gets me thinking about different aspects of the show. The actual performance might be over, but I think reading differing opinions and maybe discussing the show afterwards is half the fun. So, yes, I suppose I'm one of the people the article I read was talking about – I don't often decide which shows I'm going to see based on critique, even though I really like reading (and writing) reviews.
I'm curious about your opinions, so here's something to maybe discuss in the comment section: do reviews affect your decisions to see certain pieces of theatre, or do you also rather follow your own judgement when it comes to picking your shows?
Mulla on aika lailla sama kirjablogien maailmassa. Toisaalta, jos luen monta arvostelua putkeen, että joku kirja on aivan kamala, se saattaa pudota lukulistaltani. Samalla kyllä jollain kierolla tavalla nautin huonojen kirjojen arvosteluista. Harmi, että lukija on joutunut kärsimään sen läpi (no, omapa oli valinta lukea se loppuun) mutta mielestäni on hauskaa lukea bloggaajan valitusta siitä, mikä kaikki mätti.
ReplyDeleteEhkei bloggauksen/arvion sisällöllä ole niin väliä, mutta ainakin siitä kirjoittaminen nostaa ihmisten tietoisuutta asian olemassaolosta.
Jep, myönnettävä on, että sekä negatiivisen kritiikin kirjoittamisessa että sen lukemisessa on kyllä oma hupinsa... Paitsi jos lukiessa sattuu itse olemaan täysin eri mieltä, tietenkin – silloin ainakin minulla päällimmäinen tunne on pikemminkin jonkinlainen kostonhimo oman suosikin puolesta!
DeleteOlen samaa mieltä kanssanne, negatiivisen arvostelun kirjoittamisessa on oma kiero viehätyksensä. Olen yleensä havainnut sen johtuvan siitä, että huonon esityksen tai kirjan aiheuttama turhautuminen purkautuu samalla kätevästi. Esimerkiksi Twilight-kirjojen arvosteluja oli herkullista lukea, kun sarjan eri huonouksien lyttäämisestä näytti jo tulevan aivan oma taiteenlajinsa. Monet arvostelut olivat parempia kuin varsinaiset arvostelun kohteet.
DeleteSuomeksi ja/tai suomalaisista esityksistä blogatessa kyllä tulee mietittyä tarkemmin, miten sanansa asettelee, koska todella moni esiintyjä kuitenkin googlaa nimellään eikä hakutuloksia ole niin paljoa, että yksittäinen bloggaus hukkuisi sinne sekaan. Jostain Twilightista tulee heitettyä läppää hieman eri tavalla kuin teoksesta, jonka tekijä saattaa osua samaan kassajonoon lähikaupassa. Tässä vuosien varrella olen aika hyvin oppinut erottelemaan mielipiteistäni, että mikä hiertymä johtuu makuasioista, mikä todennäköisesti olosuhteiden pakosta ja mikä taas on ihan selkeästi parannettavissa oleva vika. Yritän antaa kritiikin jotenkin rakentavassa hengessä, etenkin kun teatteriesitystä pystyy vielä kehittämään toisin kuin vaikkapa valmista painettua kirjaa. Välillä se jää yritykseksi, mutta joka tapauksessa tuo keskustelun herättäminen on ehkä hyvä yleispäämäärä.
Totta myös tuo suomalaisten teosten arviointi. Luen jonkin verran suomalaisia marginaalista genrekirjallisuuta, joten voi olla, että minun tekstini on yksi ainoista jutuista, mitä kirjasta googlaamalla löytyy, joten silloin ei viitsi ihan lyttyyn haukkua, koska vaikka itse en olisi niin nauttinut, joku toinen voi silti tykätä siitä.
DeleteI'm pretty much with you on this. I read reviews and they can make me book tickets or ditch my plans to see a show, but the decision is never based on just one review. I compare, try to see if the reviewers had some prejudices or if their knowledge on musicals is sufficient (I'm looking at you, J&H reviewer), and check their previous reviews to get an idea of their artistic taste. Had I enough money, I would see even the shows that have gotten convincinly negative reviews, but at the moment I have to priorize at bit. Especially newspaper reviews are interesting, because often the critics have seen the same performance, and the reviews show how differently two persons can see things. If I want more detailed reviews, comments from other people or just discussion in general, I go to blogs, because they have more space and often more freedom to express their opinions and feelings. Usually blog reviews shape my opinion more, but for many theatre-goers newspapers are still the main culture review source, so I get angry when a show doesn't get (enough) attention or when I completely disagree with the critic.
ReplyDeleteI don't go intentionally seeking reviews before I see a show, but a lot of the times, the reason I'll go see a show is because someone else I know has recommended it or mentioned liking it. Like Next to Normal. I found out that some local theater company was going to be producing it here, and I think the only reason I went to see it was because I was curious due to having read some stuff from you about it and knowing that a couple of other friends like the show. I didn't know whether it was a professional or amateur production and knew nothing about this theater group (and I still don't, haha), so I wouldn't have gone to see it without having heard about Next to Normal from friends first. I loved it and woke up with the songs in my head the next morning and I probably played nothing but "I'm Alive" on loop for the next three days. Another smallish local theater group will be doing the show this summer, and I'll probably try to go see that one, too.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after I see a show, sometimes I do go looking for reviews of the same production just to see what other people thought and sometimes to help me see a different perspective to explain some things I might have questions about.
A final note: if I'm reading a newspaper review of Les Misérables and it starts complaining about the lack of a revolving floor, I automatically discount any other negative complaints. Because, really, Les Misérables is more than a turntable. If you need a turning floor to be able to properly appreciate the show, there's something wrong. (Sorry, it's just that so many reviews I've read of the new 25th Anniversary staging mention the revolve that it's become a sort of bad joke.)
But the turntable, the turntable!! How could Les Mis ever exist without it??
DeleteSigh. Seriously? You'd think professional critics would know a little better... But apparently not.