Theatrical Criticism

Since [title of show] opened I have been working really hard trying to get the word out about our show and drum up an audience. In working toward this end I have been getting in touch with a couple of local critics and asking them to come review the show. One of them wrote back that he didn't like the show itself but he'd try to get someone out to see it. I think that's an interesting comment. Is he saying that because he doesn't like the show he would give it a bad review no matter how good it might be? Since when does criticism hinge on weather or not the critic likes the show, the composer, the lyricist, the director, the actors, the set designer, the costume designer or the producing organization?

Dictionary.com defines the word "criticism" as "the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc." That being said I ask the question, should critics let their personal views enter into their review? If they don't like an actor, director, etc. should that opinion play into their review. I have always been under the impression that the goal of criticism was to look at a work as a whole and determine weather or not the parts add up to that whole. Has the show reached the goal it has set for itself and do the parts, i.e. actors' performances, sets, props, costumes, sound, lighting, etc. all do their part to reach that goal? In my opinion, if a critic lets his or her personal opinion enter into the discussion then they aren't doing their job. I say, save personal opinions for your blog or an op/ed piece or a book you're thinking about writing.

More to come!