If Attila the Hun were alive today, he'd be a drama critic.
The difference between me and, say, the opera critic is that I'm charged with thinking about the world beyond opera. I could go see 'Die Fledermaus', for instance. I've never done any of this, by the way. I've never written about one opera since I've had this job.
I was pretty new to the Broadway world once I began working in it. I hadn't really grown up being too aware of that many shows or that many actors in shows. I was always obsessed with Judy Garland, though.
Theatre outings are my favourite thing to spend money on. The most influential play I saw was 'Bent,' which starred Ian McKellen. And I loved the original performance of 'The Rocky Horror Show,' with Richard O'Brien and Tim Curry at the Royal Court, when I was about 15.
I would hate to think of the theatre world without critics. Without them, we'd not have the record of each season.
I write the occasional entry for the 'Times' Theatre blog, especially when I'm in London and seeing two shows a day, but I don't tweet. I don't want to have to express my opinion in 140 characters. That's like writing haiku. You need a certain amount of legroom to review a play properly.
I don't see enough theatre.
Musical theatre history is littered with bad reviews for now classic pieces.
I've seen many shows ruined by bad reviews and good reviews, so I always tell my actors not to read the reviews until after the run is over.
We don't really need reviewers, just first-night reporters who will tell us faithfully whether or not the audience liked the show.
I've seen a lot of 'Show Boats,' but I've never seen the one that thoroughly satisfies me.
The same critics who destroyed 'Seven Streams' when we opened in Edinburgh - and yes, it was horrible - called it one of the most important shows of the 21st century six years later in London.
More often than not, theatre critics bubble with enthusiasm about plays that are, when all is said and done, really pretty average.
Theater really gets damaged when there is a paucity of good criticism around.
I like to keep up with London theatre, but it is a question of time.
My father assigned me to keep his scrapbooks. At first I was interested in reading only his rave notices, but I got interested in reading what the critics were saying about whether the play was good or not.
They're the best critics. Workshops are good, and drama teachers are fine, but the best is the audience. And even better if they're paying!
When 'night, Mother' opened, I did not know how long it would be before I would have another show on Broadway.
There are so many remarkable playwrights working right now, that I see everything I can. Annie Baker is a genius, I'll see anything she writes. The same for Lynn Nottage, Cynthia Hopkins, and Lisa D'Amour. Anything they've got going on, I'll go see.
It's incredible how London-centric the theatre world is. Certain actors won't travel away from London anymore for work; practitioners often aren't taken seriously enough unless their work is seen in London; and it's sometimes very difficult to get national critics to review shows - especially if there's a clash with a London press night.
My first role was on Broadway from 1963-64 in Chips With Everything.' It was very well reviewed but not very well attended.
I have very important phone messages that will be playing Broadway. An evening of my tweets I think is going to be booked into the Golden Theatre.
From that time through the time I was a New Dramatist, when I was something like twenty-two, I saw absolutely everything in New York. Absolutely everything.
I wish theater criticism in this country could be more of a companion piece to the experience than a warning about where not to spend your money.
When you study, as I did, every theatrical beginning in this country, none of them have been greeted well. The Royal Shakespeare Company was a disaster, Peter Hall was a disaster, Richard Eyre was a disaster, Trevor Nunn was always a disaster.
