With economic catastrophe looming across the globe, arts critics are being laid off faster than we can count. A recent article posited that peer reviewing might be a logical successor. This is an interesting idea although not without its flaws. Naturally, there's the danger of precious egos simply going after one another and there's an equal risk of critical reviews being reduced to a popularity contests. (That’s basically what The Oscars are, by the way.) But there is one set of artists which might actually see an increase of fair and intelligent criticism if reviewed by peers: directors.

I stumbled upon an essay written by Graydon Royce for The Ameriprise Financial Iveys not long ago that tried to answer the question: “Who is to blame when a play goes horribly wrong”. I was struck by the double standard implicit. Why when a play fails do we feel the need to pin it on one set of shoulders and yet when it succeeds we have more than enough kudos for all? Regardless of that, Royce concluded that the director is responsible but not to blame. (He acknowledged there was a distinction between those two words but utterly copped out when it came to explaining what it was.

Still, that article totally changed the way I view a play AND it changed the way I read reviews. What I’ve learned is that directors really are responsible for the success and the failures and I’ve also learned how few local reviewers (particularly the “freelance” online reviewers) know anything about what a director does.

It’s amazing how many times I’ve read gushing accolades about an actor’s rendering of a scene and yet never see any credit given to the director who possibly led that actor down that path. Of course, therein lies the rub. Do we actually know if the brilliance of the scene was due to the director engineering it thusly or was it a talented actor bringing it all with him or her? (Ask director and actors both and I’ll guarantee you’ll get varying views!) Conversely, I read far too many no-name reviewers of local sites saying things like “____ did a great job of directing” but taking no pains to explain WHY they did a great job. My guess is that they have no idea what a director does and consequently can’t say anymore.

The bottom line is that the director’s work is the most hidden of the three artists involved in a play. Unlike the playwright, whose words are being spoken and the actor, whose interpretation is being seen, the director’s input---be it great or small---is implied, hidden and hard to identify particularly if you have no experience in theater. However the overall effectiveness of the theatrical rendering IS the responsibility of the director and that should be commented upon fairly by those who actually know what is involved with staging a play.

That’s why I think directors get a raw deal. Take the film director whose project wins Best Picture, Best Acting, Best Cinematography, etc. and yet is snubbed personally. Are we to believe that all those other people worked independently?

Maybe here is where peer reviewing --- done fairly --- will start giving credit (or not) where it’s due.

All reviews

HOME

Steven LaVigne: of The Ameriprise Financial Ivey Awards and On The Purple Circuit

Dominic Papatola: A pro. A flawed pro, but a pro.

Derek Miller: Good reviewers found in unlikely places.

Matthew A. Everett: The Humble Reviewer

Graydon Royce: The Snide Critic

Reviewers Reviewed: When Critics Don't Agree

Reviewers Reviewed: Odds and Ends

How Reviews Can Cut Through The Hype

Unfair Arts Coverage

Why Directors Get A Raw Deal