According to Jonathan Mandell, Are Theater Critics … Critical? examines the changing role of critics with a touch of subtle humor and startling honesty. The work, which is self-aware and analytically provocative, depicts a critic’s lifelong struggle between empathy and judgment. Given the changing media landscape and the fact that everyone with a keyboard has an opinion, it’s an incredibly clear reflection on the state of theater writing.
Mandell opens with an eye-opening story about being confronted on a podcast by actor Bernardo Cubria. When Cubria brought up Mandell’s previous review of a play he adored, in which Mandell called his performance “less persuasive” than others, the discussion unexpectedly became personal. Cubria acknowledged that she was deeply hurt by the criticism. It was a straightforward moment that revealed the emotional conflict between critic and artist in a very powerful way. Mandell acknowledged that detractors frequently undervalue the personal weight of their judgments, but he did not so much defend his remarks as consider their significance.
| Category | Information |
|---|---|
| Name | Jonathan Mandell |
| Profession | Theatre Critic, Journalist, Educator |
| Education | B.A. Yale University, M.A. Columbia University |
| Publications | The New York Times, Newsday, Playbill, American Theatre Magazine, NPR.com |
| Known For | “Are Theatre Critics … Critical? A Critic Re-examines His Position” |
| Writing Focus | Theatre reviews, arts commentary, criticism ethics |
| Notable Workplaces | DC Theatre Scene, Backstage, Columbia School of Journalism |
| Awards | Recognized contributor to American Theatre Critics Association |
| Online Presence | Blog: NewYorkTheater.me / Twitter: @NewYorkTheater |
| Reference | DC Theatre Scene: View Article |
That conversation raises a more general query: what is the real function of a theater critic? Mandell’s response strikes a balance between realism and optimism. He maintains that critics exist to shed light rather than to denigrate or flatter. Their goal is to lead viewers, elicit reflection, and document performances that disappear after the curtain rises. He says, “We are the custodians of an art form based on impermanence.” The critic as a historian of moments that would otherwise fade into memory makes this sentiment especially potent.
He also discusses the development of criticism in his reflection. A few print critics, such as Ben Brantley or Clive Barnes, had the power to instantly make or ruin a show in previous decades. Their impact has diminished considerably in the modern era, as a chorus of bloggers, vloggers, and online reviewers has taken their place. Mandell finds this change especially advantageous for diversity and communication, so he doesn’t lament it. The emergence of digital commentary has made it possible for voices from different identities, ages, and backgrounds to redefine the definition of theater criticism. However, he also cautions that democratization can lead to dilution because depth can be lost when everyone is a critic.
He remembers that the relationship between playwrights and reviewers has always been complex. Terrence McNally used critics as a source of humor in his play It’s Only a Play, while Mark Twain famously referred to them as “the most degraded of all trades.” Mandell is not afraid to confront this cultural animosity. He even brings up the Oscar-winning satire Birdman, in which a critic swears to “kill” a play with her pen. Actor Riggan Thomson responds angrily, saying, “You risk nothing, nothing, nothing.” Many critics have been influenced by this scene, which has made them reevaluate their function as cultural analysts as opposed to fighters.
Like many seasoned reviewers, Mandell feels that discernment, not dominance, is the true critic’s duty. He outlines three key characteristics of a good critic: the capacity to articulate ideas clearly and precisely, independent judgment shaped by experience, and taste that is in line with the audience’s sensibilities rather than dictated by them. These ideas work incredibly well to reframe criticism as an academic field based on justice and inquiry.
Nevertheless, he recognizes the suffering caused by unfavorable reviews. Critics are frequently viewed as threats rather than partners by theater professionals, particularly those involved in smaller productions. Some people even think that a critical review is sabotage. Mandell does, however, remind readers that well-written criticism can be really flexible and both reflective and helpful. He quotes playwright Adam Rapp, who at one point in his career claimed that a favorable early review “told me to keep going.” Mandell contends that in addition to being sources of discomfort, critics can also serve as stimulants for resilience.
The essay also looks at how unstable the field of theater criticism is right now. The field is facing a lot of uncertainty because of declining arts budgets, major newspaper layoffs, and the combination of pop-culture reporter and critic positions. For instance, the Associated Press now assigns its theater critic to cover music, movies, and television all at once. Although useful, this kind of multitasking runs the risk of weakening expertise, according to Mandell. He nevertheless expresses a surprising amount of optimism, arguing that a new generation of critics who are adaptable, omnivorous, and proficient in digital technology will revolutionize the field.
He compares the contemporary critic to a cultural translator, able to switch between TikTok performance reviews, musical biopics, and Shakespearean revivals with ease. Because of its versatility, criticism can effectively reach younger audiences who are exposed to art in a variety of media. He contends that rather than being afraid of this hybrid future, critics should welcome it.
When Mandell cites Pauline Kael’s assertion that “the critic is the only independent source of information; the rest is advertising,” his optimism seems especially sincere. He maintains that the critic’s greatest strength is still that independence. It’s what sets a sincere voice apart from a commercial echo. The purpose of critics is to refute presumptions, not to promote a product. They exist to challenge the assumptions that theater makes about us, which can occasionally be unsettling.
He also admits that the influence of the critic has changed as a result of social media. These days, reviews face competition from reaction videos, influencer endorsements, and real-time public commentary. However, criticism has become more dynamic as a result of this immediacy. There has never been a more direct exchange between critic and audience. Nowadays, a well-written review can start thousands of discussions on various platforms, sustaining theater long after it leaves the stage.
Despite everything, Mandell remains humble. He does not dismiss criticism as outdated or romanticize it as a form of high art. He views it as an ongoing dialogue that evolves with society. For someone in a trade that is frequently characterized by authority, his willingness to question his own voice and critique his own profession is especially novel and surprisingly vulnerable.
In the end, the essay presents criticism as a collaboration that is unquestionably necessary but occasionally tense and misinterpreted. Critics prolong the experience by reflecting on it; artists create it. Mandell ends with resiliency rather than hopelessness. Despite the decline of the traditional critic’s desk, he still writes, teaches, and participates in podcasts. His dedication highlights a straightforward reality: there will always be a need for those who interpret art as long as people are looking to it for meaning.
Mandell quotes film critic A.O. Scott in his concluding remarks, describing criticism as “miserable and full of possibility.” It’s a career that offers equal parts of fulfillment and frustration. Mandell demonstrates, however, that it is also one of the few that requires both intelligence and empathy, making it an art form in and of itself.
