Fringe Review guest reviewer Noah Alfred Pantano shares his opinions on anonymous criticism and the ethics of theatre arts criticism.
One of the greatest difficulties of being a critic is standing by what you write. It is painful to look at an artist in the face who gleefully asks you “what did you think?” and the only thing you can think of is “that was sh*t.” There is a dread when you watch a bad show as a critic, knowing that you will have to tear this work apart. Nobody likes a bad review. The critic hates writing it, and the artist hates reading it. Our work as critics can sometimes make the difference between a full house and an empty one. It is why one of my great joys in writing for FringeReview is that we do not write bad reviews. We are a recommendation guide to good productions, three stars or better. FringeReview lives by the old saying: if you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything.
But even a “Good Show” review can hurt feelings or damage relationships with other artists and theatres. Honesty can have consequences. An artist can and should hold great scrutiny over the opinion of critics. We are not, and should not be, immune to criticism, especially when our work falls below ethical standards or fair criticism. In my unique case, as both an artist and critic, I feel I face a higher level of scrutiny in my own productions. My work should not do what I criticize others for doing. And when I fall short, I can and should be held accountable as an artist.
It is for that reason that I have often thought to myself how nice it would be to be an anonymous reviewer. I know I have dreamt of such things in late-night conversations amongst colleagues. I would love the opportunity to state my opinion with no criticism returned to me. To be that anonymous, shadowy critic whom nobody knows and everyone fears. And unfortunately, it appears a group of secret critics has done just that at my local fringe.
That is what prompts this blog post. A moral and ethical quandary that has bothered me this week as a critic and artist. Is it ethically okay to be an anonymous critic? I should make mention that my work has not been reviewed by them. Furthermore, this is not a speculative piece on who these secret critics are. I do not care who they are. I do not care if they wrote a review calling my work the greatest (or worst) show ever written. This is a criticism of their moral ethics and why I believe groups of anonymous critics like this are a disgrace to the profession of criticism.
In some ways, I can see where the desire for anonymity comes from. Perhaps the secret critics are artists themselves and are worried about facing a higher standard of scrutiny? Perhaps they work at a theatre? Perhaps they feel by being anonymous, they can say what they truly think and be more honest than they would be otherwise? Perhaps they do not feel safe or comfortable sharing their honest opinion on local theatre in a small city where public opinion and local gossip affect artistic opportunities?
No matter the reason: it is cowardice. And worse, ethically wrong.
Art is subjective. What is not subjective is the issue of accountability.
All critics are biased. And like the fool, nothing we say really matters. We are just some opinionated asshole (In my case, an *almost* theatre arts doctorate and qualified, critical asshole… but still an asshole) with a site to post our opinion on your hard work. I hope when you read my reviews, you keep that in mind. When I criticize, you should take my criticism to have the same level of bias as you would your best friend. Even at my most unbiased (at a show I know nothing about by people I do not know), I am still human. There are things I like. Things I detest. And oftentimes, people rightly disagree with my criticism. Many times, I have rated a show on the lower end, and that production will go on to win major awards.
I hold myself and other critics to the same standards:
Do not review your close friends and family
Do not tell reviewers how to review your show (or edit their review)
Keep all criticism constructive
And stand by whatever you write, good or bad. You will be asked to defend it.
Sometimes these straightforward standards are not easy in practice. In my small town, for instance, nearly every critic and artist knows one another. How do you define what a close friend is? I’ve seen some critics have written rave reviews for a friend’s show, only to star in a different one with them the next day. But I also know firsthand how hard it can be to turn down a friend who needs a review when you are the sole reviewer in town available. Those ethics aside, I will take an ethically gray critic over an anonymous one any day for a simple reason.
When you read a review by me, you know it is by me. It is the same when I read other critics. You can think– “Oh, they are always far too harsh.” “Oh, they wrote a good review because their best friend’s wife is in the show.” “Oh, they wrote a bad review because they hate the director.” “Oh, they don’t like that type of theatre.” I can only know or infer this because I know who wrote the review. I can hold my colleagues to account when they break reviewer ethics, as I hope they do to me. I can put context on their criticism in relation to them as a person. As an artist, I can ask the critic questions or criticize their criticism. The only thing that anonymity does is remove accountability.
Ethically speaking, an anonymous critic is as biased as it comes. How do you know, reader, that the anonymous critic is not writing a review for their best friend (or even their own show)? Is that a bad review because the show is actually bad or because they hate the production team? How do you know that the review is fair and unbiased? The anonymous critic is a coward who hides behind anonymity to avoid judgment of their own opinion. They can never be wrong and can say what they want. To be an anonymous critic is to gossip behind one’s back. They want the ability to criticize without having to stand by what they said. They want to go where they are uninvited and state their opinion. They want to hurt without regard for who they hurt and judge.
The critic who shows their face defends their writing with their review history, their art, their education, their experience, and their integrity. Every artist and every reader can tell me, to my face, that I am wrong.
There are places for anonymity in journalism more broadly. In extreme cases, sometimes journalists and critics must be anonymous for their own safety in order to whistleblow. Paste Magazine once had an anonymous critic for Taylor Swift’s new album to avoid death threats. But even then, Taylor Swift, the multi-billionaire, is also a whole different breed of criticism – mainstream pop culture vs. fringe theatre. And no critic should receive threats for their opinion, period. Reporting on fringe theatre is, I hope, not a life-or-death case. And if it is, we have a greater problem.
As an artist, I often ask audiences to fill out an anonymous feedback form after my show to get unbiased feedback to improve my work. Nobody likes telling their friends (or me) their production sucked. An anonymous feedback survey can take away the stress of having to tell an artist like me what you thought face-to-face. The difference is that I have asked an audience for anonymous feedback. It is not published for the public. It is only for me. And again, they are an AUDIENCE. Not a CRITIC – a professional writer whose job it is to review theatre.
Too often, we as critics forget that we are not merely in the business of weighing artistic merit. We are marketers. We are teachers. And while every word we say should be taken with a grain of salt, every word we say must be attributable to the critic. Our unique role has the opportunity to destroy and build up artists. And because of that, we must stand by our words.
Anyone can and should be a critic. Start your own site. Write for one like FringeReview. But do it with pride, ethical standards, and without shame for your opinion. Stand by what you have to say. Diversity in opinion is a great thing, but there is no diversity in nameless figures.
If you cannot look the artist you criticize in the eyes, and allow your opinion to face the same scrutiny as you put onto the artist, you have no place here as a critic. Hold yourself to an ethical standard. You cannot be ethical and be anonymous as a theatre critic. All critics are biased. Do not pretend you are not. And if you are not prepared to do so, go back to being an anonymous audience member until you’re ready to face the spotlight.
