'No longer ivory-tower aesthetes...' *

Chatting in a foyer a week or so ago, I had a brief discussion with a respected theatre practitioner about the state of theatre criticism in Sydney. For a number of reasons, we agreed that it is doing little for the art of theatre as a whole and is being left behind as an archaic element of the industry.

Theatre is constantly changing in Sydney - embracing new ways to engage with audiences from site-specific work to the presentation of new theatrical styles to the work presented by Wharf2Loud at the Sydney Theatre Company.

But not so the theatre critic in Sydney.

Throughout the web (but not on the SMH website) there is much discussion about criticism's changing relevance in the light of new technologies and the impact of email rebuttals and competing web opinions.

The arguments on the UK's Guardian website have been the most interesting. Yesterday, veteran critic Michael Billington admitted that his profession is under threat from 'madcap populism'.

He says, "everywhere you look the role of the practised critic is being undermined. One national paper now carries a daily feature called You Write the Reviews (very often a four- or five-star gush). A London evening paper gives space to blogged reviews of gigs and movies."

For a critic that has been around a lot longer than any of the critics in Sydney, his finger is well and truly on the pulse. "I am the first to concede that criticism is changing because of new technology", he admits. "Critics have always been accountable to readers: now emails and blogs have opened up a whole school of rapid rebuttal. As someone who passionately believes that criticism should start a discussion rather than be the last word, I welcome this unreservedly."

And he said all this on a blog, opening himself up to the rebuttal, argument and debate that he so obviously enjoys. He defends the role of the professional critic, as do I, and see it as a vital part of an audience's response to theatre practitioners.

But what are theatre critics doing in Sydney? What is their relevance now? As the increase of amateur criticism grows, what role do they see for themselves and who is their audience?

My late night discussion in the foyer with my esteemed colleague continued. We noted that Melbourne is fortunate to have the blogger Alison Croggon with her review:

"Mamet's 1999 play is an odd beast. It mostly resembles a Sapphic parody of Wilde, Earnest's Gwendolen and Cecily with lashings of tribadism. Except Wilde's character's never opined, even correctly, that "you have f---ed my life into a cocked hat", at least on stage. They certainly never recommended that one "tell it to the marines". In its complicated wordiness, the text may also be paying subtle tribute to Henry James's textual complications, appropriate for another famed literary cypto-sexual who wrote, lengthily, and with many subclauses, about different Bostonians of a similar era."

Talk about 'complicated wordiness'.

The Herald have all but ignored that there is a new frontier in theatre writing, as I outlined in 'SMH forgoes the arts'. It is vital that if theatre critics in Sydney want to retain a relevant position they need to start writing in a more accessible way and get some passion.

The UK's Guardian (my favourite website it seems) recently quoted an extract from Kenneth Tynan on the art of criticism:

"What counts is not their opinion, but the art with which it is expressed. The true critic cares little for here and now. The last thing he bothers about is the man who will read him first. His real rendezvous is with posterity. His review is a letter addressed to the future; to people 30 years hence who may wonder exactly what it felt like to be in a certain playhouse on a certain distant night. The critic is their eyewitness; and he has done his job if he evokes, precisely and with all his prejudices clearly charted, the state of his mind after the performance has impinged on it. He will find readers if, and only if, he writes clearly and gaily and truly - if he regards himself as a specially treated mirror, recording a unique and unrepeatable event."
(June 24, 1956)

As opposed to writing for the reader of tomorrow, the theatre criticism in Sydney is writing for the reader of yesterday. They need to start to avert their eyes from the blinding light of their own agendas and start looking at theatre as a whole. Maybe I am idealising, but one day I would love to pick up the SMH from my front step and feel a bit of passion between the lines.


* from; If you cant' write honestly, change jobs