Issue 9, 2008
Prompt Corner 
When I first began writing Prompt Comer four years ago, I often wrote fervently about both the editorial culture that seems to think any "name of whatever kind, or any "sparky" writer, will serve admirably as a theatre critic, and the utterances of various beneficiaries of that culture. Lloyd Evans, Quentin Letts and latterly Tim Walker have all loomed large in my self-righteous sights at various times. And although I still sound off on the subject every so often (I took a minor pop at Tim only last issue), I've tried to do so less frequently. It gets boring to read, and makes me look like an obsessive using Theatre Record to air my personal grouses (grice?) in the fashion of the late, unlamented R Cubed News, a publication which wrung a seven-year lifespan out of Alastair Macaulay's bad review of the musical Napoleon in the Financial Times. Moreover, I'm already hypertensive, and if/when I finally have a stroke I'd rather the credit went to worthier folk. But the editorial climate hasn't grown any more temperate, and the utterances continue.
Marrow
There have been glimpses of Quentin Letts going native in the course of his years in the theatre seat, but every so often he mounts one of his hobby-horses – or, more improbably, several at once – and canters back and forth pretending to speak for legions of adherents to Proper Values: godliness, Englishness and... well, I'm reminded of lines written by Brendan Behan in his satirical song The Captains And The Kings: "In our dreams we see old Harrow, I And we hear the crow's loud caw, I At the flower show our big marrow I Takes the prize from Evelyn Waugh".
His review of The City is prime Quentin. He gets in the by-now-requisite pop at the fact that the Royal Court receives public funding (sometimes some things that some people don't like get some public money – deal with it), seems to feel personally insulted by the play and so resorts to insult himself (and rather infantile insult at that, suggesting Martin Crimp might better be called "Chimp") and ends with a classical old-England harrumph, "Why should this disgusting play prosper at the expense of real people?" Fact: Quentin Letts is exactly five months older than me. But I fear that on this occasion his zeal to speak for the values of the Daily Mail and its readership may have backfired. At one point he also damns city populations as a whole, as "slack jawed urbanites", exalting in contrast the decency and discrimination of "the shires". Now, I don't know, but I'd bet hard money that a significant majority of Mail readers are in fact urbanites or at best suburbanites, slack-jawed or otherwise, whose spiritual home may be the rural shires but whose reality will diverge radically from the pretended norm which underlies Quentin's remarks.
"Clearly"
The reviews of The City also yield one of several characteristic Tim Walkerisms in this issue. There's a rhetorical device which I think of as "the 'Clearly...' ploy": in order to shore up a dodgy assertion, simply claim certainty by stating that it is "clearly" so, or words to that effect. Thus Tim: "It was generally accepted that [Crimp's] Attempts On Her Life at the National was one of the worst plays to have been put on the London stage for a very long time." Generally accepted by whom? Not by the critics, who were predominantly ambivalent about it (though look at Tim's review – in 2007's Issue 6 – for some more assertion-based material). Not by ticket-buyers, who gave it solid business. Not by most of the people I know who saw it: they continue to rave about it even now, to an extent that I find quite puzzling. (For what it's worth, I thought it was wildly over-rated, but not as wildly as Tim, and certainly not wildly enough to lead me to invent a majority on my side of the question.) Generally who, then – General Walker? Similarly, in his review of Harper Regan, Tim claims that "it is true" (how "clearly" can you get?) "that for some people [...] the phrase ["kitchen sink"] conjures up memories of cutting-edge entertainment." While I'm in the betting mood, I'd wager that he couldn't name two living theatre-goers known to him who respond in 2008 in any such way. (And just to even matters out a little as regards this tactic, I'd also take issue with Michael Billington's declaration in his Taming Of The Shrew review that "[director Conall] Morhson's point is clear": as my own review illustrates, it was anything but clear to me, and several points about his staging cannot be explained by Michael's critical interpretation.)
I've grown to respect Lloyd Evans since my early outbursts, as he does tend to do what any critic worth their salt must do: he backs up his points. He does not simply state his views, he argues them... "argues" in the sense of corroborating with evidence and/or reasoning, not simply stating them contentiously. But he does nevertheless strike me quite often as being contrary for the sake of it. When my esteemed colleague and predecessor Ian Herbert wrote this column, he would deliberately try to even things out on occasion by playing devil's advocate: either defending a show that had been generally considered to be poor, or laying into one that had been lauded. And he, too, built his case upon specific evidence. But that done was in the context of the critical discourse as a whole, as reprinted herein. It's not quite the same when you're writing in an individual, nonmeta-publication; then, it looks more as if it's done simply for the sake of providing writing that's entertaining rather than necessarily either accurate or informative.
What it's like
And surely that is what a critic must always aim for, whether they think of themselves as a chin-stroking sage or a champion of [insert your favoured social/political grouping here]. What we must do first and foremost is tell our audience what a show is like. Not whether or not they should go and see it – they can make up their own minds about that, once they know what it's like. And if we, or our editors, care more about making a splash, or about arguing matters other than those onstage, or imagine for a moment that the subject is anything but the play and production before us, then we get it wrong, and in doing so we pollute the waters not just for ourselves but for those around us and those to come.
Now, I think I'd better take a couple of aspirin to thin my blood...
Oh, and as for that caption on the front cover about proofreading: I should have realised it would be tempting fate – please don't write in to point out the errors in this issue!
Ian Shuttleworth | ian@theatrerecord.com
At the Back
Can You Hear Me In Sofia?
The setting for this year's 24th Congress of the International Association of Theatre Critics could hardly have been more opulent: the Grand Hotel in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, a five-star establishment, opened its doors to a hundred and more critics from around the world, who quickly overcame their initial disbelief at their good fortune and by the end of the week were behaving as if this were their natural habitat. Many of them had already been spoilt rotten at the Europe Prize ceremony in Thessaloniki (last issue). In Sofia we were treated to two days of colloquium on the congress theme, Theatre And Humanism In Today's World Of Violence, followed by a day devoted to discussions and videos of current Bulgarian theatre and a "business" day for the Association's General Assembly. Throughout, we were able to see a varied selection of Bulgarian shows each evening. The whole event was impeccably organised by the Bulgarian Ministry of Culture. It is quite remarkable that the Minister, still a working actor and for this reason probably the most popular member of the present Government, was so willing to demonstrate his generosity to a group who are not traditionally the actor's best friends.
Tenderness
Two distinguished keynote speakers from other target areas of the profession made valuable contributions to our discussions. The Latvian director Alvis Hermanis, whose New Riga Theatre has brought a new positivism to theatre in productions like Long Life, Sonia and most recently The Sound Of Silence, formally announced the death of Antonin Artaud's theories of violence in the theatre and with them the in-yer-face school of dramatists and directors. Violence and aggression on stage are the easiest things to produce, he said. It is so much more of a challenge to produce what is disparagingly referred to as "feel-good" theatre:
"In the 21st century, the theatre will be the only form of art which will not surrender to digitization. The theatre will always exist, not on discs, but in this exceptional situation, when live people meet live people. It is a very humane mise-en-scène. But here, too, we must be very careful and try not to confuse affectation with emotion. And if one really cannot help hitting and punching, then I offer a new slogan – punch with tenderness."
On the second day, David Edgar gave a masterclass in recent British playwriting, finding humanity in the in-yer-face writers and questioning the current vogue for verbatim, documentary theatre. His conclusion was a call for tolerance on stage: "Theatre is by its nature extreme. By enabling us to imagine what it is like to see the world through other eyes (including through the eyes of the violent and the murderous), artistic representation develops capacities without which we cannot live together in societies at all. Defence of free speech is not primarily a matter of the rights of the speaker, but the rights of the listener. In that sense, we all have the right not only to outrage and to terrify, but to be outraged and terrified. After all, what happens at the beginning of Henry V? A man shouts 'fire' in a crowded theatre."
The critics' contributions ranged between these poles of tolerance and restraint. Their presenters came from all over the world, from secure states and from nations which have recent, direct experience of violence: to name only the countries, we heard from Argentina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Finland, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, the UK, the USA. Academic dissertations stood side by side with passionate defences and attacks. One particularly moving contribution came from the Iranian critic, who pointed out how lucky most countries were to be able to portray violence on stage rather than experience it in daily life. And a phrase from the Polish critic, who asked directors not to "fornicate with the text", still sticks in the mind.
Revolutionaries
The Bulgarian theatre on offer was certainly a wide variety, if of equally varied quality. Marius Kurkinski from Plovdiv offered a solo show based on tales of village life by Nikolai Haitov, and brought great charm and energy to a performance which pleased everyone in its first two stories, but perhaps outstayed its welcome in the third. The National Theatre presented a lively, large-scale adaptation of a novel by the great Bulgarian writer who gives it its name, Ivan Vazov. Outcasts, staged by leading director Alexander Morfov, showed a motley assortment of would-be revolutionaries plotting Bulgarian liberation with all the drink-hazed determination of the inhabitants of the bar in O'Neill's Iceman. At the more experimental Sfumato theatre, its director Margarita Mladenova adapted Strindberg's Dance of Death in a manner both stylish and stylised, midway between Beckett and Ionesco. Diana Dobreva's production of Macbeth for the regional Rhodopean Drama Theatre did not convince me that she had understood the play – or even read it – but she produced some remarkable stage movement and images, not least those involving a Lady Macbeth whose wardrobe called to mind more Imelda Marcos than the wife of a Scottish thane. The last two shows were simpler fare: the two actors of Credo Theatre, who have successfully travelled the world with their version of Gogol's Overcoat, had an adaptation for children of a Hans Andersen story, involving industrial quantities of cotton wool, while the country's leading director of musical entertainment, Rumen Tsonev, drilled a talented bunch of recent graduates in Rhythm And Blues, a show that would happily find its place in the theatre of a cruise liner but here provided a useful showcase for the youngsters' undoubted song and dance talents.
Postdramatic
An important event in the critics' congress was the presentation of the Association's second Thalia Prize, which is awarded by the membership to someone who has influenced critical thinking as a result of their writings. The first went last year to Eric Bentley. This year's winner was Jean-Pierre Sarrazac, a name that may not be in the least familiar to English-speaking followers of theatre criticism but which resonates well beyond his native France . As far back as 1981, his key work L'Avenir du Théâtre (The Future Of Theatre) was seeking to codify the kind of theatre we now call Postmodern or Postdramatic, that theatre which relies more on visual imagery and movement than the ordered text of a well-made, turn-of-the-lastcentury play – still the norm for many critics. Reissued in 1991, sadly still only in French, it still reads as a ground-breaking work.
The other business of the congress was to elect officers for the next two years. The rules (plus a strong feeling that a new face was needed) meant that I stood down after seven very happy years as the Association's President. I feel proud to be leaving a very strong programme of events already planned for the attention of my successor, the leading Korean critic Yun-Cheol Kim. Professor Kim has already been instrumental in opening up the Association's work in Asia ( China and India were represented in Sofia for the first time), and he will be leading what is now truly a world-wide organisation for years to come. The next IATC Congress will be in Chicago in 2010.
Ian Herbert | ianherbertknott.com
Contents / Reviews
Reviewed in issue 9, 2008: |
||||
London |
||||
THE BIRD SANCTUARY Revival of play by Frank McGuinness (StageSpell) |
Rosemary Branch |
30 Apr |
18 May |
472 |
BRING ME THE HEAD OF UBU ROI Revival of play by Alfred Jarry in adaptation by David Thomas |
Queen Elizabeth Hall |
24 Apr |
25 Apr |
466 |
THE CABINET OF DR CALIGARI New adaptation by Sarah Mann & Alex Bothwell based on the film |
White Bear |
24 Apr |
11 May |
472 |
THE CITY New play by Martin Crimp |
Royal Court |
29 Apr |
7 Jun |
483 |
DE MONFORT Revival of play by Joanna Baillie |
Orange Tree |
2 May |
31 May |
500 |
DINA MARTINA New piece by Grady West |
Soho |
28 Apr |
10 May |
479 |
THE FALL AND RISE OF LENNY SMALLMAN New piece by Richard Lumsden |
Arts |
22 Apr |
4 May |
488 |
GONE WITH THE WIND New musical by Margaret Martin, from novel by Margaret Mitchell |
New London |
22 Apr |
|
460 |
HARPER REGAN New play by Simon Stephens (NT) |
Cottesloe |
23 Apr |
9 Aug |
467 |
HELLO AND GOODBYE Revival of play by Athol Fugard |
Trafalgar Studio 2 |
24 Apr |
17 May |
473 |
HOMELAND New piece by Laurie Anderson |
Barbican |
30 Apr |
3 May |
487 |
KING LEAR Revival of play by Shakespeare |
Globe |
2 May |
17 Aug |
495 |
THE LADY FROM THE SEA Revival of play by Henrik Ibsen in new version by Frank McGuinness |
Arcola |
2 May |
31 May |
501 |
THE ONLY GIRL IN THE WORLD Revival of play by Glyn Maxwell (Fractured Venus) |
Arcola |
1 May |
24 May |
499 |
ROMEO AND JULIET Revival of play by Shakespeare (Antic Disposition) |
Jermyn Street |
24 Apr |
17 May |
502 |
STATIC New piece by Dan Rebellato (Suspect Culture / Graeae) |
Soho |
24 Apr |
10 May |
477 |
STRANGERS Revival of play by Ninaz Khodaiji |
Hackney Empire Studio |
24 Apr |
24 May |
472 |
THY KINGDOM COME Performance piece by Dries Verhoeven |
Chelsea |
3 May |
5 May |
472 |
TINDERBOX New play by Lucy Kirkwood |
Bush |
28 Apr |
24 May |
480 |
TROJAN WHORES New play by Dawn Rose, peppy Barlow and Sally Wilden (Woven TC) |
Courtyard |
29 Apr |
5 May |
488 |
VULA New piece by The Conch |
Pit |
23 Apr |
3 May |
471 |
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WORLD New piece by Julian Maynard Smith (Station House Opera / Phila 7) Soho |
23 Apr |
4 May |
|
482 |
WITCHCRAFT Revival of play by Joanna Baillie |
Finborough |
25 Apr |
10 May |
494 |
THE YEAR OF MAGICAL THINKING New play by Joan Didion, adapted from her memoir (NT) |
Lyttelton |
30 Apr |
15 Jul |
489 |
Regions |
||||
BIG IN FALKIRK Street arts festival |
Falkirk, Callendar Park |
3 May |
4 May |
517 |
A DOLL'S HOUSE Revival of play by Henrik Ibsen in version by Frank McGuinness |
Newcastle, Northern Stage |
24 Apr |
3 May |
507 |
EDUCATING AGNES New version of Molière's School For Wives by Liz Lochhead (Theatre Babel) |
Glasgow, Citizens / touring |
25 Apr |
3 May |
513 |
HOW TO TELL THE MONSTERS FROM THE MISFITS New play by Paul Lucas |
Birmingham Rep. Door |
28 Apr |
17 May |
508 |
JOURNEY'S END Revival of play by R C Sherriff |
Colchester, Mercury |
21 Apr |
3 May |
504 |
NOVA SCOTIA New play by John Byrne |
Edinburgh, Traverse |
29 Apr |
24 May |
514 |
ON THE LEDGE Revival of play by Alan Bleasdale |
Liverpool, Royal Court |
29 Apr |
24 May |
508 |
ON THE WATERFRONT Revival of adaptation by Budd Schulberg & Stan Silverman, from screenplay |
Nottingham Playhouse |
22 Apr |
4 May |
503 |
PENTECOST Revival of play by Stewart Parker (Lyric Belfast / Rough Magic) |
Belfast, Old Northern Bank |
26 Apr |
17 May |
508 |
PEOPLE SHOW 119: GHOST SONATA New piece based on the play by August Strindberg |
Liverpool, Palm House |
22 Apr |
27 Apr |
507 |
THE TAMING OF THE SHREW Revival of play by Shakespeare (RSC) |
Stratford upon Avon, Courtyard |
1 May |
25 Sep |
509 |
THAT NIGHT FOLLOWS DAY New piece by Tim Etchells (Victoria) |
Glasgow, Tramway / touring |
1 May |
3 May |
517 |
THE WASP FACTORY Revival of adaptation by Malcolm Sutherland from novel by lain Banks |
Glasgow, Tron / touring |
21 Apr |
26 Apr |
512 |
WHEN TO RUN Solo piece by Sophie Woolley |
Manchester. Royal Exch. Studio |
24 Apr |
26 Apr |
507 |
YARN New piece devised by Ben Harrison and the company (Grid Iron / Dundee Rep) |
Dundee, Verdant Works |
22 Apr |
3 May |
512 |