With no fanfare or comment, English Canada lost the last full time theatre critic writing for any media, when J. Kelly Nestruck left that beat at the Globe and Mail.
At the end of 2024, J. Kelly Nestruck went from being the Theatre Critic of the Globe and Mail to being the TV Critic for the paper.
It was done quietly, almost without anyone noticing. J. Kelly Nestruck did write an exit essay about his time in the job, but that was all.
With that move English Canada became a theatre producing entity without any bone fide, full time Theatre Critic reviewing theatre in the whole country.
There are several full time theatre critics in Quebec (French Canada) because they have a robust French-speaking theatre scene and a media that values and covers it seriously.
Theatre in English Canada is also robust, with several debuts of plays in Toronto alone and audiences ready and eager to see them.
The English media, such as it is, hasn’t helped solve the problem of lack of theatre reviewers.
CBC Radio had weekly theatre reviews on both “Metro Morning” and “Here and Now.” I did weekly theatre reviews for “Here and Now” from 2001 to 2011. Then the CBC cancelled all reviews except for film because ‘the demographic changed.’ Perhaps the ‘media’ thinks theatre is too ‘niche.’ It isn’t. Theatre is burgeoning. It requires proper theatre criticism to do justice to the artform.
Since 2011 I have been doing theatre reviews, interviews and commentary on theatre for Critics Circle on CIUT.fm 89.5. I also published my own monthly theatre newsletter, The Slotkin Letter, of reviews of plays I attended in Toronto, environs and on my travels to New York, London and elsewhere. It was available in hard copy to paying subscribers, both professionals and ‘civilians’ that were interested and serious about the theatre. I made it available for free when I put the newsletter online, often posting reviews daily.
We have four daily newspapers that all had full time theatre critics-five if we count the defunct NOW Magazine. Slowly the newspapers got rid of their theatre critics citing their analytics of who was reading reviews or not, regardless of the need to actually cover the artform. John Coulbourn at the Toronto Sun reviewed theatre and ballet. When he retired the paper did not replace him. The Toronto Sun does not cover the arts at all, except film.
Robert Cushman was a freelance theatre critic for the National Post until they said it was too expensive to pay for his long reviews, no matter that he was an internationally respected theatre critic.
At the Toronto Star, Richard Ouzounian was the last full time Theatre Critic when he retired in 2015. When he left, the paper advertised for a theatre critic but at the last minute divided the job into two freelance positions. That meant the Toronto Star didn’t have to pay them full salaries or benefits and there was a limit to how many theatre reviews the Toronto Star would publish weekly.
Over time, various freelancers wrote reviews and interviews etc. for the paper to fill the reviewing void. Finally, the Toronto Star advertised for a full time Arts Reporter (not a Theatre Critic) who would review theatre productions and report on stories. The Toronto Star hired Joshua Chong whose byline lists him as Arts Critic and Reporter. I’m glad the word ‘critic’ has been added to the ‘byline’.
The Globe and Mail also advertised for a Theatre Reporter (not a Theatre Critic) (when J. Kelly Nestruck moved to TV reviewing), to review productions and report stories. Aisling Murphy was hired as the Theatre Reporter. She has been a freelance reviewer for a few years.
Even though theatre productions in Toronto are plentiful, at both The Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, the job of Theatre Critic and its importance has been demoted. It will be interesting seeing how often either paper publishes reviews daily/weekly.
It’s a worry: the worthy, bone fide critic has disappeared without fanfare, comment or notice. The decimated media has diminished its coverage of theatre and with it a strong sense that they actually care about thoughtful, vigorous critiquing of the artform.
Bloggers of varying degrees of expertise and knowledge in theatre seem to be trying to fill the gap.
Online workshops professing to teach how to be a theatre critic in a few weeks have popped up. One site indicated that a strong education in Theatre was not really necessary. Really?
Funny, I think my four-year Honours BA in History, Theatre and Criticism of Theatre from York University gave me a good background in the artform.
I recall reading a definition of ‘critic’ from one of these online sites as if you see a play and have an opinion on what you saw, you’re a theatre critic. (Uh, I don’t think so). And ‘graduates’ of such endeavors all consider themselves ‘critics’. It’s more like “wannabees.”
I worry about the folks who want to dabble in reviewing, with little rigor, theatre knowledge or background. Where is the notion of needing to do the work over the long haul before one can consider themselves proficient? And without jobs out there where will these folks post? There are a few online sites that post a few of these reviews. Where are the rest of them? Where are their blogs?
We get the theatre we deserve with such little attention and commitment.
I find these superficial pearl-clutching reviews of what they saw and how they felt to be eyeball-rolling in their naivety.
There is diligent citing of the playwright’s and director’s notes telling their intention without any rigor in analyzing if the intention was realized or worth the effort in the ‘review.’
There is a lot of confession on how they were drawn into the production instead of looking at it from a distance for an objective observation, the reasoned effort toward an objective evaluation using evidence and good reason.
Often in these superficial ‘reviews’ every performance is described as ‘awesome’ or ‘brilliant’ without variation. With no analysis of the actual work in the ‘review’, such unvarying gush is tiresome and not useful.
Where is the rigor? Where is the repeated toil and practice of seeing theatre and writing about it? Where is even a basic knowledge of what a review actually is; how it’s constructed; who it’s for; and why it’s so important to the artform?
Audiences want to know if the show was worth their time/money/and attendance. And they want to be informed on a deeper level about the production, the play and the artists who created it.
Absent is any rigor, background, history, knowledge of the artform or reason for doing it? This world of the ‘instant’ bloggers and ‘critics’ who seem to want something magic that makes them a critic without the work, is eyebrow-knitting.
“Critic” is wishful thinking. “Reviewer” is a closer definition. “Scribbler” might be more accurate.
I learned long ago that one supports oneself elsewhere to write the reviews, because there is little money in it. But I didn’t go into theatre criticism for the money. I went into it to share my love of the artform of theatre and to get people to read my work and then decide to see the show themselves.
Theatre is an artform that has lasted for millennia because the stories reflect the world we live in, in all its complexity and depth. The artform has stood up to scrutiny and developed over time because of that rigor and evaluation of solid theatre criticism. If that rigor succumbs to opinion that lacks good reason, analysis or serious evidence, and is rooted in ignorance and fashion, then we will get the mediocre theatre we deserve. There is no place for mediocrity in an artform. We need bone fide reviewers/critics who do the work and know the difference between the two terms.
Comments on my blog regarding reviews reveal a startling revelation: folks don’t actually know what a review is, who it’s for, the intention, or the formation.
I will try and clarify this and more in the next post, soon.
I think it’s fitting that this post comes after World Theatre Day.
Onward.