Battle of the Blurbs.

March 30, 2002 10:23 AM

Battle of the Blurbs. The producers of the badly reviewed Broadway show "The Smell of the Kill" have pissed off Times critic Bruce Weber. Good strategy or Bad Karma? Well, at least they didn't make up their own critic.
posted by adrober (3 comments total)

"This post sucks." ---General Consensus
posted by adrober at 1:20 PM on March 30, 2002

I do think it's a bad strategy, but there seems to be a growing trend by theatre professionals (at least those I've worked with), that when a reviewer doesn't like a show, it's because the reviewer "didn't get it." A director I work for on occasion always writes the reviewers who review his shows once they are printed. If the review is good, he sends them a letter thanking them. If the review is bad, he sends them a letter telling them "what they missed" and what they "didn't get," essentially just telling them they are flat out wrong. I've always found the practice appalling. If you are going to read reviews you can't be pleased with good notices and completely discount negative ones.
That being said, a professional theatre is a business like any other, and businesses have to make money to operate. Negative reviews can lead to loss of income, though I still don't think producers of The Smell of the Kill were right in taking out the ad they did. While all parties involved in artistic endeavor can have the best intentions and believe unequivocally in their work, it doesn't change the fact that some shows just suck. Some shows that suck, however, do manage to find an audience.
posted by CreequeAlley at 2:32 PM on March 30, 2002

Some shows that suck, however, do manage to find an audience.

Lord knows plenty of people go to see Phantom of the Opera.
posted by Lokheed at 7:10 PM on March 30, 2002