The Rise of the Blog

Blog Reviews in the New York City Theater Scene

Ulises Ramiro

Ironic, huh? Somebody writing blog reviews writing a piece about blog reviews. Boy, are we clever over here at Theatre Night Out!

It's well known that blog reviews are a big part of the New York City theater scene. There are many respected blogs with considerable readership. New York Stage Review, Theaterscene, Stage & Cinema, just to name a few. But any way you slice it, no matter how much traffic they get, nothing compares to the 13 million subscribers to the New York Times.

Blogs are still big, though, and for good reason. A good pull quote can be very valuable, especially when a show blasts it out on social media.

But what does it mean when anyone can start a blog and share their opinion? Who do you trust? How do you know if a critic is correct, or whether they're really just a bitter, evil, rich asshole who finds joy in slamming shows that don't tackle their preferred subject matter?

One thing I want to mention is that the rise of blogs in NYC is not solely due to the fact that the internet is a thing. There are other factors at work. Until recently, it's felt like The New York Times was out to lunch when it came to supporting smaller shows. I'm happy to report, though, that this is changing fast. Helen Shaw, the new Chief Theater Critic at The NYTimes, is no joke. She cares about small shows, and this is great. Really great. But what in the hell is going on over at Time Out New York? Part of the reason why blogs have become so dominant has to do with, yes, The Village Voice closing, and the internet becoming a thing, but also from places like Time Out seemingly abandoning Off-Off Broadway theater. Does Time Out actually think that I care about their current thoughts on Hamilton? Does that show really need any more attention? Boy, after Hamilton got sold to child-sweatshop-utilizer Disney for $75 million, wow, they must really need a shout out from Time Out New York. How about throwing a bone to the people risking everything on an Off-Off show?

Over the years, as press coverage of small shows has waned, blogs jumped in to fill the void. Does anyone remember when one blog committed to reviewing every single show at the then-thriving New York International Fringe Festival? 200 shows? That's a lot of shows to review, but one blog did it! And it's gotten to the point that some of the biggest theater companies in the world use pull quotes from blogs and are happy to. This is all good stuff. Any press is good press, right?

Kind’ve…

One reviewer that we've noticed publishing on Instagram and to a blog is Charles Passy over at the 100 word review. Passy writes for the Wall Street Journal, but he also has an Instagram where he reviews plays and shows in 100 words or less. In the end, he supports NYC theater in a great way. Does Passy gravitate to a certain type of show? Yes. Is it difficult to rate shows 1-5 regardless of whether it's an Off-Off show or on Broadway? Yes. Do we think that he does a pretty good job taking these things into consideration? Usually, yes, but I bring this example up, really, because you only have to peruse the 100 word review Instagram page for 10 minutes to see what shows Charles Passy gravitates towards and generally likes, and which shows he generally doesn't like.

Passy has an aesthetic. He's slammed shows that I've enjoyed, and he's loved shows that I have not enjoyed, but there's a lot he says that I agree with. What's nice about him is he has an informed perspective and I do trust him quite a bit. I trust that he points people in the right direction according to my own set of aesthetic criteria, my own value system for determining what's great theater. I like that I understand his aesthetic on a certain level, and some of this comes from reading several of his reviews. Part of why I mention this is because some of the blogs nowadays have so many reviewers and the reviewers are so all over the map that it makes it really hard sometimes to trust anything they say. I've even seen certain reviewers change their names all of a sudden. I'm reading a review on (I'm not gonna blow up this blog's spot) and then the literal name of the reviewer changes in the byline before my very eyes. Changing pseudonyms is fine, I guess, but I mention it because I think it reveals just how hard it is to truly understand what some of these blog reviews mean and who is even writing them.  

The thing I like about the 100 word review is it's simple. By someone like Charles Passy just taking things into his own hands and posting on Instagram, it allows for his audience to really get to know what he likes and dislikes, and ultimately, this is a very good thing.

Similar to the way that it's become so difficult to tell the difference between real news and total dogshit, a similar thing is happening with blog reviews in NYC. There's a side to this world that feels crowded. When there's so much online, it makes it hard to know what's real and what isn't, and it can even be hard to know where to start. I'm using Charles Passy as an example because he's done something that's very clear. He writes most of the reviews and posts them on Instagram and a website. That's it. Passy likes this show, he doesn't like this show. Here’s why in less than 100 words. Easy stuff. Simple. Clear. Nice. The same is starting to be true with Helen Shaw as well. She goes to a lot of shows and puts reviews up in all kinds of different ways. Lists of shows have started to include mini reviews. It's fun and interesting watching how and why Shaw reviews things, and it's all very direct and clear.

How can you know which reviewers you agree with?

Go to shows and read reviews. Start to notice which reviewers you align with and which ones you don't. This might seem like a simple task, but it's actually become difficult. There's just so much slop out there now. The blogs have made things feel pretty congested, but I think the way to deal with this is to focus on specific reviewers. Get to know them in their reviews and it will become a kind've continuously evolving thing.

What if you notice a critic who only likes to slam things? Or only doesn’t slam shows that focus on specific subject matter? Fuck them. They've got problems of their own they're trying to work out.

The blogs are great, and they're important, and they have some very high level critics working for them, people who used to work and write for the biggest media outlets in the world, and some that still do, and this is all great, but the top tier places need to assert themselves. Places like Vulture, BroadwayWorld, Time Out New York, The New Yorker and others need to assert why New Yorkers need to pay attention to them, and they need to do this by re-investing in Off and Off-Off Theater. If a show stinks, people should be directed elsewhere, but it's so tiring to read old, rich, bitter assholes slam show after show for reasons having only to do with themselves.

There's an Off and Off-Off Broadway revolution happening. Covid is in the rearview mirror, Broadway is full of movie stars, and there are artists in the Off and Off-Off scene doing cutting edge shit, putting it all out there, trying to change the world. Press outlets big and small need to find the new shit in the Off and Off-Off scene and shine a light on it. Working class New Yorkers need the next great American play. They need to know about the next great artists incubating genius in the Off and Off-Off scene. Theater will save us from AI slop. It will help us live in this crazy, difficult city that never sleeps. The American theater is alive and well. It’s thriving in New York City.

Why is this true?

What play proves it?

What time does the show start?

Where do I buy tickets?