Issue 12, 2007
Prompt Corner 
Well, the Critics' Circle had arranged a meeting with Nicholas Hytner before all the non-fighting broke out, and that confrontation duly took place in mid-June. It was agreed that proceedings would be off the record, but I'm not breaking confidences if I say that no blood was spilt, nor even a single expletive uttered in anger. As I've said here (even whilst I weighed in vigorously), the whole issue was principally a creation of the "mainstream" press, which likes to portray disagreements between theatre practitioners and critics as a matter of luwies brandishing handbags at each other. (How many other professions are routinely lampooned thus by their own employers?)
And so now it's time to career madly to the other extreme. No, not A A Gill's characteristically "provocative" (i.e. forcefully expressed but basically cretinous) view of theatre critics as recently published in the Sunday Times: that will probably be next issue's cannon fodder. The topic here is that even as Nick Hytner voices a preference for critics whose knowledge is wide rather than deep (and, as I've said, he'll be lucky), Susan Tomes in the Quote of the Fortnight opposite utters a much more familiar, not to say tedious, complaint. Tomes' area of activity is music, but the views she expresses and questions she raises apply just as well to theatre.
Fair comment
It would certainly seem remarkable that two recent cases in jurisdictions as far apart as New South Wales and Northern Ireland have both held that defamation law can apply to restaurant reviews. (By a curious coincidence, A A Gill is a food critic.) But look more closely: numerous online reports reveal that the Australian case hinged on a piece of procedural arcana which, even with some training in law, I can't really grasp, and the Northern Irish one is currently awaiting appeal. Neither case begins to shake the principle that reviews are by and large covered by the legal defence of "fair comment" if not outright "justification" (the latter meaning that the contents were factually true).
(There also has to be provable financial damage as a direct and foreseeable result of the comments in question, which strikes me as damned difficult to prove in almost any such case. I have seen one economic analysis which claims to identify the financial amounts of various reviewers' impact on box office takings, but the analyst admits that his calculations are based on assumptions about the proportion of a show's audience that consists of readers of a given title, the proportion of any paper's readership that reads reviews, the proportion of those that use the reviews as an aid to deciding what to go and see, the extent to which the views contained therein are accepted without question etc etc.)
Circular
In any case, Tomes writes as if the negative comments in question were by definition untrue, and moreover indefensible. Why is this necessarily so? If a meal, or concert, or play or film or whatever, is bad in a number of ways that can be detailed with confidence and precision, why is it not permissible to alert folk to the matter in the hope that they will not waste their time and money on it? This seems to me to be the return of the attitude I have heard so often from the more self-regarding kinds of student drama practitioners: "I've nothing against constructive criticism, but this isn't constructive." The unspoken definition underlying this point of view is almost always circular: "constructive criticism" is criticism that I am prepared to tolerate, so if I don't like it, then by definition it is not constructive. There's a kind of astigmatism to this viewpoint, though, in that it considers the only duty of constructiveness is owed to practitioners. What about the consumer? Isn't warning punters off a particular work or establishment "constructive" as regards helping them enjoy an agreeable experience by going somewhere else instead?
The most deeply felt part of Tomes' article, though, arises from simple snobbery and ignorance. "An arts critic needs no training," she writes. "No qualifications have to be achieved before you can become one." Any monkey can do it, in other words. Now, it's generally true in the English-speaking world that there is little or no formal training in journalistic criticism... though note all those italicised qualifications. She's absolutely right; no qualifications are required to become a critic. But how long does she think one can expect to remain a critic without showing the qualities required? (For the time being, let's assume that those qualities are discrimination [in the sense of consistently being able to tell better from worse], articulacy and percipience, rather than just the bravura phrasemaking and attitudinising which seem to be all some editors bother with.) Reviewing skills are learned through practice, just like musical, dramatic, culinary skills. I certainly don't want to compare criticism with any art form itself, but when done properly there is a good deal of craft involved.
Application
I'd also hazard that many reviewers get more front-line experience than performers. A few years ago, when I interviewed castrato cabaret wonders The Tiger Lillies, I was amazed to find that a decade into their career they still performed some 250 gigs a year. Well, last year was a slow one for me: I only saw 325 shows. "Oh, but it doesn't take any experience just to watch something...!" Quite right, but that itself raises two more points. Firstly, the actual watching is the tip of the iceberg of reviewing; there's the gathering and application of all kinds of knowledge (a process which is more or less endless, and certainly at least as constant and time-consuming as a musician's hours of practice outside performance), and the fashioning of it into a lucid and informative piece of writing. And secondly... well, it seems to be the negativity of an opinion that Tomes objects to rather than the details of its expression, so if anyone can watch/listen/eat/etc. and form an opinion about the experience, isn't she in effect saying that these activities themselves require training? That the artist's work can't be properly appreciated without a dedicated process of indoctrination? Isn't that massively arrogant? It is common to feel that such an arrogance underlies the entire field of conceptual visual art; consider whether this is a difference of nature from other art forms, or merely one of degree – that the conceptualists have managed routinely to get away with the flimflam that many artists of all kinds reflexively clutch at on occasion.
Once again, beneath it all is the assumption that a critic's fundamental duty is to the practitioners. But it's not. It's to readers, and to the art form as a whole... a cause which may be advanced by identifying and weeding out inferior instances as well as by praising superior ones. You don't like that? So sue us.
Faith
In any case, we live in a culture which is pervasively mediated, in the sense of being shaped by the media. It's a point which is incisively made by Dennis Kelly in Taking Care Of Baby, and one which most reviewers haven't seemed ready to face. I don't mean that in the sense of holding our hands up and admitting that we as agents of the media shape the world to our own tastes; I mean admitting that we, like all consumers, tend not to question information that is presented to us in a broadly non-fictional context. That's what Kelly plays with in his script. Several reviews note the opening caption, "The following has been taken word for word from interviews and correspondence"; nobody mentions that the caption is repeated several times through the evening, but in increasingly garbled form. And yet, because it still seems to bear some relation to the original, we likewise hang on to a vestige of faith in that claim even as we see it being ever more graphically belied.
Aleks Sierz comes close to the kernel of the play when he says it "calls into question how we can believe anything at all in this postmodern age", but I think he's looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It seems to me that Claire Allfree is bang-on when she acknowledges that the real indictment is of all of us: that we devour news, "reality" stories and all kinds of celebrity with diminishing discrimination. "The average broadsheet contains more information than someone in the Middle Ages would have assimilated in their entire lifetime," says the psychologist character in Kelly's play. This may be another invented factoid, but it rings true. Politico, chat-show guest, scientist, murderer, innocent... all are equal grist to our info-mill. And we question it all equally little; we set up filters of prejudice that pass for "questioning", but that's generally all we do.
Manipulated
This was all brought home to me some years ago, when my 1997 Edinburgh Fringe performance was the subject of a "fly-on-the-wall" TV documentary. It's interesting to note in passing that this is a form which has largely gone out of fashion in favour of competitions of various kinds where (despite the name of the genre, "reality TV") the artifice of the situation and the blatancy with which it is manipulated are ever more apparent. But still we don't question it.
The relevant thing here is not that I was thoroughly stitched up by mendacious editing and a voice-over that basically fabricated a story which happened to star someone with my name and face. What shocked me all over again was that when the television reviews came out, virtually no reviewer questioned the mendacious portrait offered to them. Even people whose job it is to see through the manipulations of the medium had utterly suspended their disbelief and gulped the fiction down without question. It was presented with all the trappings of factual coverage, so it was accepted as such. Just as we do, at least at first, with Kelly's play, as long as we believe it to be verbatim. There's no point being offended or outraged when we realise the shortcomings... because it is we who have supplied those shortcomings. Like all the best tricks, it relies on our desire to believe; we do the trickster's work for him. We have to take our share of responsibility.
Shoulders
Mark Shenton's brief print review of Betrayal touches on an issue he deals with more thoroughly in his online blog: the poor sightlines afforded by Roger Michell's staging. I had the same experience with this production, though sitting on the opposite side of the theatre from Mark: I can now give an informed opinion on the articulacy of Sam West's shoulders.
A few years ago on the Edinburgh Fringe I went to a show which was staged largely on the horizontal, with all five performers in a single rank across the stage; however, the audience were seated on three sides, and from my seat I got an excellent view of whichever one of them happened to be nearest me and damn all else. I felt compelled to point this out to the director after the performance. Her response? "Yes, I know, but I decided to stage it this way." Somehow it didn't seem to be worth asking her why she had decided deliberately to prevent more than half the audience from seeing the work it was her job to present to us; I just walked off, sadly incredulous that people can be so dim and/or arrogant. But one expects Donmar-calibre directors to know better. Yet Betrayal is not the first time that, in that theatre where no-one is more than three rows from the stage, I have nevertheless been repeatedly prevented from seeing the action by the actors' inaction... if you see what I mean...
Ian Shuttleworth | ian@theatrerecord.com
At the Back
Can You Hear Me In Prague?
Ondrej Cerny is a very busy man. Since the beginning of this year he has been general director of the Czech National Theatre in Prague, a rather surprising move for someone who has spent his career in theatre bibliography and research, although it is in his genes – his father held the post well before the Velvet Revolution. Last year, as director of the Czech Theatre Institute, Cerny Junior had to fight off a move from the Culture Ministry to transfer its activities from Prague to Brno, that well known cultural capital. On top of this, for the last four years he has supervised preparations for the 2007 Prague Quadriennial (PQ), as its director.
Maven
PQ, celebrating its 40th birthday this year, is the great meeting point for the world's stage designers. National exhibits (this year from around 60 countries) compete with one another for the prestigious Golden Triga, while individual designers, architects and now students vie for various gold medals. There were more categories this year for the jury to explore, but fewer gongs: silver and bronze have disappeared from the rack. This was but one of many changes made by an almost entirely new team, with the American design maven Arnold Aronson as General Commissioner, responsible for overall content.
The actual design element of the exhibition was an undoubted success, carried flamboyantly through with a theme of packing materials which saw parcel-tape signage everywhere, seating made from inflated protective bags, bubble-wrap curtains and a working theatre – reminiscent of a mini-Cottesloe – built entirely out of cardboard boxes. The PQ catalogue, an essential ongoing reference weighing a kilo and half, was less of a triumph, with its insistence on putting designers' names, already difficult enough to digest in their many languages, in an almost illegible typeface. It's not overloaded with illustrations, either, but this is probably the fault of the contributing countries rather than the organisers.
Naked
This year's jury, led by the great Brazilian architect-designer J C Serroni and including Britain's Richard Hudson and the USA's Mary Zimmerman, had intently scoured the whole exhibition to make their choices, as was evident from their two gold medals for "best realisation of a production''. You might expect these to reward a full suite of finished costumes, sketches, models and production photographs, but Brett Bailey's entry for MedEia on the South African stand consisted of a couple of admittedly striking photographs and a pile of stones. Johannes Schütz's 2005 realisation of Macbeth, for Jürgen Gosch in Düsseldorf, likewise made its point in one enormous photograph occupying the outside wall of the German stand and a few 10x8s inside. Schütz's entry probably didn't win on the strength of his costumes, since the majority of Gosch's cast appeared naked. Germany had to work on a tight budget, but were luckier than France and Italy, who could not even afford to participate.
There were also two golds for "best use of technology". After the last PQ, where the Dutch stand consisted only of a bank of computer screens showing DVDs, the fear was that 2008 might be so hi-tech that real physical examples of the designer's craft would disappear entirely. This was not realised, and Taiwan's winning exhibit, though swarming with screens, contained a strong number of well-made costumes as well as good sets and several miles of bamboo fencing.
The other technology gold, like that for set design, raised the regular question of whether a national exhibit should attempt to display the last four years' work in a country's theatre, or concentrate on a single individual, even a single production. It went to Slovakia's one-man show of the young and extremely talented Boris Kudliaka, whose use of technically complex materials in a stunning series of opera designs, most of them for Warsaw, was complemented by the elegant Mylar box which contained them. The set design gold went deservedly to Joáo Mendes Ribeiro of Portugal, who used plywood to construct a three-part stand, consisting of a corridor of panels showing his excellently inventive designs in 2D, a couple of neat ply models, and a small viewing room where you could watch a short production video. The style of this presentation, albeit for a single designer, is a model worth following, something you might not have expected if you read Ribeiro's tortured jargon describing his exhibit in the catalogue.
For costume, the gold medal went to a group effort from Mexico, part of an extremely rich stand which managed to survey the country's designers while maintaining its own design coherence – the video element here was supplied by cheap portable DVD viewers in bright colours accompanying most of the productions illustrated. Mexico walked away with medals for sets, costumes and lighting at the World Stage Design in Toronto in 2005, and the same young names were in evidence here, with costume medallist Monica Raya out of competition as a jury member. That her colleagues should be convincing winners is evidence of the strength in depth of today's Mexican stage design.
The architecture gold was not awarded, perhaps in protest against the lack of opportunity for the whole architectural exhibit to spread itself: although the national design exhibits now have twice the space in which to spread themselves – and seemed rather marooned as a result – the architects had to make do with a narrow balcony.
Flooded
The major award, the Golden Triga, went to Russia. Countries were this time able to choose their own theme for their exhibits, and Russia's choice was to revisit "Our Chekhov", which won them the Triga twenty years earlier. It says a lot for the longevity of Russian designers that almost half of those exhibiting had also shown in 1987, among them the late, great David Borovsky, to whom the stand was dedicated. In 1987 the exhibit was all gauze and birch trees; the new stand reflected today's Russia by setting the models in a decaying apartment, with galoshes provided to cross its flooded floor, and not a video screen in sight. The models themselves were as superb as ever, with designers young and old showing a bright modernity – even postmodernity – in their treatment of Anton Pavlovich.
By coincidence, the much more elegant Russian student stand was also dedicated to a departed master, Oleg Sheinchis of the MKhAT scenography school. He certainly left a deep impression, and the meticulous, large-scale models of his students easily stood comparison with those of their elders on the main stand. They must have been in contention for the student gold medal, awarded for the first time this year. It went to Latvia for a collection of varied and witty, well-executed approaches to Bulgakov's The Master And Margarita from the students of Andris Freibergs, with Reinis Suhanovs winning a further gold as most promising individual talent.
If this new-style PQ was as fascinating as ever, it had its plus and minus points. Cutting its length in half meant there was no falling off in attendance, but far too many events were squeezed into the ten-day span, with the result that major speakers addressed tiny audiences, and an interesting programme of installations in Prague itself was too far away for those who wanted to spend time on the exhibits. Lighting and sound design were poorly served in almost all exhibits. Nul point for countries like Hungary and Poland who showed classy concepts instead of designs; full marks to those like Finland who put designs ahead of fancy stands; special mention to Israel and Japan, who managed to show excellent work in a clear context, with Israel setting its models in – and its costumes on – That Wall, complete with a Kalashnikov-wielding guard. And praise for Greece, whose exhibit dared to admit that even designers sometimes make mistakes.
Ian Herbert | Ian@herbertknott.com
Contents / Reviews
Reviewed in issue 12, 2007 |
||||
London |
||||
AROUND THE WORLD European première of musical by Orson Welles/Cole Porter from Jules Verne |
Lilian Baylis |
10 Jun |
8 Jul |
688 |
BE MY BABY Revival of play by Amanda Whittington |
Upstairs at the Gatehouse |
5 Jun |
1 Jul |
701 |
(BE)LONGING New piece by Leslie Hill and Helen Paris (Curious) |
Toynbee Studios |
13 Jun |
15 Jun |
703 |
BETRAYAL Revival of play by Harold Pinter |
Donmar Warehouse |
5 Jun |
21 Jul |
683 |
BUT BEAUTIFUL New play by Gary Robson and Ornella D'Agostino (Signdance Collective) |
Warehouse Croydon |
8 Jun |
24 Jun |
703 |
CALIGULA Revival of play by Albert Camus (Talon Arts) |
Union SEI |
5 Jun |
23 Jun |
710 |
CATS-PAW Première of play by William Mastrosimone (New line Maverick Stage Prods) |
King's Head |
14 Jun |
1 Jul |
713 |
THE CHRIST OF COLDHARBOUR LANE New play by Oladipo Agboluaje |
Soho |
5 Jun |
23 Jun |
687 |
THE DROWSY CHAPERONE New musical by Lisa Lambert I Greg Morrison / Bob Martin I Don McKellar |
Novello |
6 Jun |
|
691 |
FROM THE HART New compilation musical by David Keman and John Kane of songs by Lorenz Hart |
New End |
12 Jun |
2 Sep |
702 |
GASLIGHT Revival of play by Patrick Hamilton |
Old Vic |
14 Jun |
18 Aug |
704 |
GET AWAY New play by Greg McArthur |
Old Red Lion |
14 Jun |
7 Jul |
686 |
THE LAST PRIEST New play by David Walter Hall |
King's Head |
7 Jun |
1 Jul |
703 |
MACBETH Revival of play by Shakespeare |
Open Air |
4 Jun |
16 Aug |
678 |
MEN WITHOUT SHADOWS (Morts Sans Sepulture) Revival of play by Jean-Paul Sartre |
Finborough |
15 Jun |
7 Jul |
708 |
A MIDSUMMER NIGHTS DREAM Revival of play by Shakespeare |
Open Air |
8 Jun |
18 Aug |
697 |
OUT OF THE HEART OF DARKNESS Adaptation by Gren Middleton from Joseph Conrad (Movingstage) |
Puppet Theatre Barge |
6 Jun |
7 Jul |
699 |
PERA PALAS Revival of play by Sinan H Ünel |
Arcola |
15 Jun |
7 Jul |
709 |
TAKING CARE OF BABY New play by Dennis Kelly |
Hampstead |
4 Jun |
23 Jun |
680 |
TOO CLOSE TO THE SUN New musical by B A Robertson |
Jermyn Street |
11 Jun |
15 Jun |
710 |
TRANCE UK première of 1993 play by Shoji Kokami, translated by Amy Kassai |
Bush |
8 Jun |
30 Jun |
700 |
THE TWELVE-POUND LOOK / THE TINKER'S WEDDING / PLAYGOERS / SHAKES VS SHAV Revival of plays by J M Barrie / J M Synge / Arthur Wing Pinero / Bernard Shaw (Trainee Directors Showcase) |
Orange Tree |
8 Jun |
23 Jun |
682 |
TWO MEN TALKING New piece by Murray Nossel and Paul Browde |
Trafalgar Studio 2 |
6 Jun |
23 Jun |
696 |
YA'AKOBI AND LEIDENTAL UK première of 1972 play by Hanoch Levin |
Oval House |
7 Jun |
23 Jun |
699 |
Regions |
||||
BABES IN ARMS Revival of musical by Richard Rodgers And Lorenz Hart, book by George Oppenheimer |
Chichester Festival |
7 Jun |
7 Jul |
716 |
BOLLYWOOD JANE Revival of play by Amanda Whittington |
Leeds, WYP Quarry |
6 Jun |
30 Jun |
715 |
CLOSER Revival of play by Patrick Marber |
Northampton, Royal |
29 May |
16 Jun |
714 |
CROWN PRINCE New play by John Godber |
Hull Truck |
1 Jun |
23 Jun |
714 |
MACBETT Revival of play by Eugene Ionesco, transi. Tanya Ronder (RSC) |
Stratford, Swan |
30 May |
21 Jul |
713 |
NOISES OFF Revival of play by Michael Frayn |
Liverpool Playhouse |
12 Jun |
30 Jun |
715 |
WUTHERING HEIGHTS New adaptation by Jane Thornton from novel by Emily Brontë |
York, Theatre Royal |
5 Jun |
23 Jun |
714 |