Today's the day I've set aside to upload reviews from the past couple of months. I will back date them as I go along. This is long overdue, highlighted by a couple of my Melbourne readers as well as the misinformed comment by 'Cerberus' (what is it with anonymous or pseudonym comments??).
Cerberus made me think quite a lot over the weekend when s/he left the comment;
Sometimes critics get it wrong, or at least don't reflect the opinion of the audience. Witness "Lying Cheating Bastard" at the Old Fitz, which received almost unanimous praise except from N Pickard. Yet his Fairfax masters declared it the box office success of Sydney in today's Herald. I saw it two nights ago, had to sit in the aisle because of the overflow crowd and was transported with delight along with the rest of the audience. Nice to see that a very good show is critic proof.
Aside from the fact that they didn't bother to read my review properly, the logic of Cerberus' argument is very interesting as a way to see some of the backward steps some of us have taken when dealing with reviews or reviewers. Sometimes I think many people think the art of criticism is objective. It isn't and never will be and is the double edged sword of the profession.
Criticism is subjective and critics can only ever hope to pen what they thought and what they felt on the night. Is it possible that a critic can 'get it wrong' in the first place?
Michael Billington famously admitted he got Sarah Kane 'wrong' when he started reviewing her work back in the 1990s.
I really like the fact that Cerberus thought the show at the Old Fitz was the best thing since sliced bread without a single fault, but s/he forgets that we saw the show on two separate nights in front of two different audiences with two different performances. The magic of theatre is it is never the same and I am more interested in knowing what it was about the show Cerberus liked so much.
But the saddest part of Cerberus' comment is that in a world where critics 'get it wrong' is a world desiring a uniformity of opinion. In a Cerberus world, all reviews would be the same and a difference of opinion wouldn't be seen as constructive or illustrative - they would be seen as just 'wrong'. It is a world that wants to place the critic against the theatre practitioner.
I honestly thought we'd moved on from this type of argument - but apparently not.
A couple of months ago Guerilla Semiotics had an interesting post regarding the nature of theatre reviewing. In the post, Jana asserted that "as anyone involved in a creative practice can attest, constructive criticism is an act of extreme generosity. To receive honest, informed and in-depth feedback is invaluable if one is to grow as a practitioner of absolutely anything - and it often requires knowledge of the person, the art form, the conditions of production."
Jana, who is of a Croatian background, has a very similar point of view to me (who studied theatre directing in another ex-Yugoslavian country, Slovenia) on the role of critic. She explains that in these countries, 'critics were not seen as the enemy, or as a superfluous part of the sector, but a necessary link between an art form and an audience, both an arbiter of taste and an interpreter.'
In Slovenia the critic is theatre practitioner is playwright is director is actor. Can you imagine that happening in Australia?
When considering the nature of theatre reviewing, it's important to discern between the two very different modes of reviewing in Australia - the online discussion and opinion piece with the published review in a newspaper or magazine.
In a printed review there is a finite amount of space within the confines of an editorial policy and is subject to sub-editing. The fortune of it is you are writing to an audience vastly larger than an industry specific blog and you quickly learn the art of being concise.
In the online forum you can write a review of between 300-1000 words with the freedom of unlimited space which can be published within the bounds of your own self-censorship. But its written for a more niche reader who will have a knowledge and a more specific interest in the art form.
Both forms share the one intrinsic benefit - they add to the sharing of ideas and to the debate about what our artists and cultural industries are presenting within our community and our society.
But how should a critic write a review in a mainstream publication? Does a critic have a responsibility to the industry? To the artist? To the reader? Or does the critic have a responsibility just to themselves to publish simply what they think?
Jana's article makes the very important point that if critics portray a world "in which everything is great, and everyone wonderful [it] lets the audience down in a very serious way. The readers stop paying attention to unreliable information."
The film industry recently went through this debate when they were targeted as a collective for being too positive about locally made content against their more critical judgement of foreign films.
But as she also says, a lot criticism in Australia (whether positive or negative) attracts (most particularly on blogs where there is the ability to comment) its fair share of anonymous or pseudonym bile. Ostensibly this flows from the one essential truth about criticism - it can only ever be subjective.
As I upload my reviews, bring on the constructive debate because I am really interested in what anyone thinks about shows and where our views diverge or converge. But leave the critic v theatre industry argument where it belongs - otherwise it all gets very boring.
14 comments:
Surely when writing for a newspaper that relies on readers and advertising to pay you your 60c a word [but let's not go down that road] then you have some responsibility to the reader of that paper to a) give your honest opinion before they fork out a couple of lobsters, and, b) do it in an entertaining way. (One of things I always liked about Stephen Dunne's reviews was whether you agreed with them or not they were always a rollicking good read, particularly if he didn't like the show, but that's another road we'll bypass)
Or perhaps am I completely incorrect again?
Discuss, with reference to the texts provided by Prof. Pickard in semester one.
my point being, newspapers exist for their readers, not directors, writers or actors unfortunately...
Couldn't agree more Mr Di Fonzo.
As K Tynan said, "I am an echo, a mould which recasts things, set-pieces, atmospheres, manners, gestures into something more weatherproof. My business is to accustom every sight, or sound, or smell to the companionship of good words."
But how to do that in 200, 300 or 400 words...
Except that directors, writers and actors read the newspapers too (although they are an admittedly small percentage of the total readership). But I know what you mean.
I think the critic has a responsibility to all three groups you suggested when writing for either form. I think that the difference in review style/length/whatever comes from the balancing of these responsibilities (the readership usually the deciding factor) - newspaper readers wanting a quick and light "is it good?" review, while blog readers probably expect something more in-depth.
Finally some reviews, Pickard! Well done! Feel the breeze as Melburnians sigh contentedly. And thanks for the nod.
The nasty anonymous comment is the evil twin of the cloyingly positive review. One creates the other. The more intelligent, balanced reviewing we have, the less flaming and foyer bitchiness there may be. Not that this is the only purpose of criticism; just good collateral.
Excellent post Nicholas, thank you ... and the wealth of content recently uploaded to your blog only confirms that you have, in fact, been a very lazy boy of late.
But enough of that until it happens again! I'm sure you know what I mean.
By way of response, it's often not the case to have a conversation about theatre you review (whether here in the guts of the New Frontier) or 'there' in the newspaper because the theatre you go to see we don't necessarily get the opportunity (or in the case of some things, chose not to). This is one of the critical points with regards to why blogs are full of such possibilities for conversation. I'll say it again: conversation. Blogging (as typified I am sure you'll agree with Ms TN's theatrenotes as one prime example) provides us with an opportunity to discuss our views, ideas, thoughts and vast and various points of view. They are also an incredibly valuable resource. They are like vaults of experience we can unlock when we please ... unlike the Sun Herald of the first Sunday in January 2008. It's not even online!
It is a mistake to say that reviewing is any different online as it is in the print media. Anyone, like yourself, who has spent time in the theatrical and cultural capitals of the world (London, New York, Paris, etc) will remember having been overwhelmed by the amount of coverage (ie space) allocated to the Arts in their array of print media. No-one's squeezed in The Guardian for example. I respect that Fairfax pay for to write, but trust me ... it makes those words no more valuable, worthwhile, memorable, right, wrong or important than the ones you so generously and expansively gift us here.
As for the readership ... oh let's not go there tonight.
As for the anonymous comments on this and many other blogs ... my own opinion is this: they are people who don't know how to have a conversation ... and like cultural terrorists, sneak in when no-one is looking and lob their little piece of opinion into cyberspace hoping it might mean something more to someone else than it does to them. The art of conversation is sadly decimated in our society these days ... and that makes me sad. The fact that you bother to go to the theatre and bother to sit for hours to shape and share your thoughts with us about it, is worth more than any snide bitchy little culturally-retarded hand grenade tossed into the frey at the expense of an original thought.
Cheers!
Thanks for this conversation. I find myself agreeing with everyone. There must be something wrong with me.
It's one of the curses of the trade that you're going to be misread. I remember someone telling me, in shocked tones, that I had claimed that Eliot was a minor poet when what I'd actually said was that Eliot was a poet who often wrote in a minor key. (Some people do claim that Eliot is a minor poet, but not me). But ah me. The brilliance of blogs is the archiving, at least what one actually said is on record.
As far as I'm concerned, Geoffrey, blogging is the real game. I do my best with print reviews, but in the end I render up to Caesar what is Caesar's.
... and all hail Caesar!
But then again, I recently reviewed The History Boys for Stage Whispers and had to practically force myself to resist the temptation to plunder theatrenotes for other ideas about the play. Once I had written and submitted my review, I read through your rv, Alison, and the wonderful conversation that ensued. It was fascinating. That would never happen in print. That would never happen in almost any other archival form whatsoever. What it did do, and one of the reasons I am so cross with you Pickard, is stunned me with the breadth of insight, conversation and ideas that blogs that KEEP GOING hold. Someone, somewhere, sometime will more than likely put a dollar value on it. And that might well be Caesar.
... but not if The Punch is anything to go by! Dear God, what a miserable attempt. Haven't they learned anything?
Thanks for all the great comments. It's like a welcome home party for a prodigal blog.
Alison - I couldn't agree more - blogging is the real game, but its bloody hard to keep up day after day. I certainly lost the wind from my sails last year but thankfully a little dose of the Cerberus is enough to get me fired up and back in the game... (Misread? Selective reading more like.)
One of the things i'd love to do, if I ever find the time, is to be able to post expanded reviews of those printed in the SH. But that's not going to happen anytime soon - but who knows what may change.
Nicholas, as the director of "Lying Cheating Bastard" may I assure you no one associated with the show took umbrage at your generally positive review or your right to express an opinion, which is of course what criticism should be about. We are big boys and girls and understand that when you put the work up for public examination and ask people to pay money to see it, then it is only fair to expect critics to express their views freely. Of course we are delighted the season has been such a success with the public, but it is unreasonable to expect uniform and unqualified praise.
Thanks for your comment Nicholas. And I am delighted LCB was such a great success. It deserves it.
Great to see you back and blogging Nick. Let's have that beer when next I am in Sydney ;)
Ben E.
Art is one of the most important human pursuits- and accompanying it, is an equally important pursuit- reflection and reportage of art. We must discuss, we must write, we must disagree, we must debate and ruminate. What a sorry place it is if the arts must be kept in a vacuum from conversation! What intellectual tyranny if we are not able to freely articulate opinion. For me, it is often not what is said but how. Tone is everything. I review shows that that may not get the column space in the print press: not as a means of marketing: but as a means of engagement: conversation with the artists and the audience. So when nameless (spineless) individuals throw verbal bombs at those brave enough to articulate a perspective on art they are missing the point. Art is to stimulate reflection, conversation and realisation: not to encourage a homogenous world view. Viva la difference. Let us be brave in our conversation and generous with listening. Let us be honest about what we understand, what we don't... and encourage each other to articulate and practise articulating what it is we experience in our theatre. Good on you Nick. And to all those who lay themselves open for ridicule and outcast through being brave enough to speak: thank you.
Post a Comment