Critical Cowards...

Lately, I’ve noticed something troubling in the world of theater reviews—everything has become so painfully neutral. It’s as if critics have collectively decided that it’s better to play it safe than to risk offending anyone. But here’s the thing: art isn’t supposed to be safe. It’s supposed to challenge us, provoke us, and make us feel something, even if that feeling is discomfort or disagreement. So why, then, have theater reviews become so bland and cautious? And more importantly, what’s the point of creating art if we can’t receive honest feedback?

Let’s be real: not every performance is a masterpiece. Not every actor hits their mark, and not every director’s vision comes to life the way they imagined it. That’s okay—art is subjective, and not everything is going to resonate with everyone. But when critics shy away from expressing their true opinions, we lose something essential. We lose the opportunity to engage in meaningful conversations about what works and what doesn’t, and more importantly, why.

It seems like reviewers are more concerned with not hurting anyone’s feelings than with actually critiquing the work in front of them. I get it—no one wants to be the bad guy. But here’s the thing: constructive criticism isn’t about tearing someone down; it’s about helping them grow. When reviews are watered down to avoid controversy, we rob artists of the chance to learn from their mistakes and improve their craft. We also rob the audience of the chance to experience art that has been refined and perfected through honest feedback.

And here’s where I really start to question these so-called “critics.” Do they even have the qualifications and wherewithal to speak to the larger picture? Or are they just there to support their buddies and print shout-outs for them, something to show off to their proud aunties who couldn’t make it to the show? It makes you wonder if these reviews are less about providing insight and more about maintaining a social network. When critics are more interested in scratching each other’s backs than in offering real, thoughtful critiques, they’re doing a disservice to everyone involved.

Let’s not forget the audience. People rely on reviews to decide whether something is worth their time and money. But how can they make informed choices when every review sounds like it was written by someone afraid of stepping on toes—or worse, someone just trying to boost their friend’s profile? When critics refuse to take a stand, they’re not just failing the artists—they’re failing the audience too. A good review should be a guide, helping people understand what to expect and whether a piece of art will resonate with them. But when everything is framed as “not bad” or “interesting,” the real essence of the work gets lost in a sea of mediocrity.

Art thrives on passion—both from the creators and from the critics. When critics pull their punches or write glowing reviews for the sake of maintaining friendships, it feels like a betrayal of that passion. The whole point of art is to evoke a response, to stir something within us, even if that response is negative. Honest reviews should reflect that. If a play is brilliant, say so. If it’s a trainwreck, don’t dance around it—call it out. Artists deserve to know where they stand, and audiences deserve to know what they’re getting into.

Neutral reviews and self-serving shout-outs don’t do anyone any favors. They dilute the discourse and reduce art to something that’s just… fine. But art isn’t supposed to be fine. It’s supposed to be extraordinary, or at least an attempt at something extraordinary. By settling for neutral reviews or playing favorites, we’re lowering our standards and doing a disservice to the very nature of art.

So here’s my plea to critics: stop playing it safe, and stop writing to please your friends. Be honest. Be tactful. Be (gasp!) CRITICAL or don't even bother. The Arts deserve better, and so do we.