All too little is known about early American drama critics. Newspapers of the 18th and even early 19th century were published as much for the convenience of classified advertisers as they were for the dissemination of other news, so there was little room for theatrical reviews, and these were often written to please advertisers. Most criticism was unsigned or at best given a fictitious byline. Eola Willis, in her history of the 18th‐century Charleston stage, records what she claims was “the first dramatic criticism given of an American performance,” but the unsigned excerpt she quotes from the Charleston Gazette of May 28, 1737, simply acknowledges that a performance of The Recruiting Officer had taken place and was well attended and passes no judgment on either the play or the mounting. It was typical of many later notices. Not until the early years of the 19th century did a few critics such as Stephen Cullen Carpenter of the Charleston Courier, J. W. S. Hows of the New York Albion, or, more importantly, Washington Irving begin to make names for themselves with what today would be perceived as proper criticism. Yet even here, they and others frequently published initially under pseudonyms (although cognoscenti undoubtedly were aware of the real authorship), and their work was often first given major recognition when republished in contemporary theatrical magazines or in book form. Indeed, much of the more interesting criticism of the period came not in newspapers but in the usually short‐lived theatrical journals that sprang up in larger theatrical centers. As a rule newspapers remained largely uninterested or blatantly partisan in favor of (or against) certain theatres or performers. Not until after the Civil War and the emergence of William Winter did American theatrical criticism come of age. His lead was followed by the appearance of such noted writers as T. Allston Brown, Henry Austin Clapp, E. A. Dithmar, William Dean Howells, James Huneker, Laurence Hutton, J. R. Towse, and A. C. Wheeler. Many, though not all, of these early critics were archly conservative, relating dramatic merit to moral standards and observance of traditional forms. The arrival on the scene of Ibsen and realism sharply divided critics into essentially an older, unyielding school and a newer, more open one. The controversy probably played a significant role in rushing American dramatic criticism into final maturity by broadening the scope of interest and knowledge required of critics, sharpening their reasoning and writing faculties, and attracting new readers. At about the same time, the flowering of American newspapers and the concurrent rivalries caused papers to seek better critics, thereby improving standards everywhere. Only Clapp, among the critics just named, was not based in New York, but the simultaneous proliferation of both theatres and newspapers led to the rise of any number of fine critics away from New York. As a rule, these men rarely achieved national celebrity, but they were known and respected in the trade. Cincinnati's Montgomery Phister is a typical example.
The list of great 20th‐century drama critics might include Brooks Atkinson, Robert Benchley, John Mason Brown, Claudia Cassidy, Percy Hammond, Walter Kerr, George Jean Nathan, Dorothy Parker, Henry Taylor Parker, Ashton Stevens, Alexander Woollcott, and Stark Young. Many of these critics departed from the Brahmin‐like aloofness and impersonal approach of their predecessors, giving their writings a fresh vigor and feistiness. However, not all newspapers maintained a totally impartial approach, and as late as the 1920s there were papers that refused to review plays if not advertised, and, in the same spirit, some papers bent over backwards to be kind to advertisers. In more recent years several problems have arisen. The marked shrinkage of theatrical production, especially on Broadway and in major road houses, has given critics fewer chances to hone their art. Moreover, in many cities newspaper competition has disappeared and the surviving paper has often viewed what is left of local theatre with indifference, even to occasionally appointing men or women with no real theatrical background as critics. The result has been a drastic falling off of the quality of dramatic criticism in several major cities, sometimes marked not only by ineptitude and ignorance but coupled with a monopolistic arrogance as well. Of course, some newspapers and national magazines have retained high standards. Television has attempted to take up some of the slack, but the brevity of the reviews and television's insistence on attractive, lively, and personable reviewers rather than knowledgeable ones does not bode well for the future. By the 1960s and the demise of several New York papers, the New York Times became the most powerful voice in theatre criticism; in consequence, the Times critic yielded more weight than any reviewer in the past. Walter Kerr was the best of the Times staff and, sensing the disproportionate clout he had, resigned from daily reviewing and concentrated on weekend features. Clive Barnes, a British journalist whose background was in dance criticism, was the most influential critic of the 1960s, his opinion alone determining the fate of many shows. In the 1980s the Times's Frank Rich dominated the theatre scene to the point that if Rich disliked a play in London, producers would not bother to bring it to New York. Since Rich left in 1993, the paper has seen a series of reviewers who have failed to carry the same amount of influence. Ben Brantley, for example, is much feared and remains an influential force, but many shows that he disapproved of have been supported by other critics and the public and have gone on to long runs. Although a few critics have been accorded biographies or other studies, the whole field of American dramatic criticism remains ripe for scholarship.
No comments:
Post a Comment