|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
The Critic's DilemmaDateline: 4th August, 2002If I were to give this article a sub-title, it would be "The problems facing theatre critics", which might well bring a disbelieving laugh from actors, directors and playwrights who have been on the receiving end of critics' barbs. Problems? What problems? Thinking of new ways to damn productions? Do they find it hard to sustain the requisite level of malice? Problems indeed! On Thursday I did two things: I gave a talk to a local Probus club about the history of the town's amateur theatre and I reviewed the first night of a musical by a local author (Fine Fine Fine! by Denise Robertson). In the talk I drew attention to the fact that, throughout its 77 year history, the society has gone through regular convulsions in which (to simplify a little) the acting members wanted to do the kind of plays which were, shall we say, too advanced for the audience members. No matter which side won, membership fell, box office receipts plumetted, and it took a number of years for the wounds to heal and for the society to get back on its feet. That evening I fond myself, as a critic, out of step with the audience. I was very happy with the performances but unhappy with the play itself. The audience, however, loved it. The next day the critics from the local press were equally enthusiastic. "An embarrassment of riches", one called it. Who was right? I think we both were, and therein lies the critic's dilemma. Back in the 1934-5 season, at the height of what became known to the society's members as "The Great Box Office Controversy", a member wriote to the local paper:
Should the critic look at the play from the ordinary punter's point of view or should (s)he assume the mantle of the expert? Should he mirror the response of the audience or remain faithful to his own response? Should he "hold, as 'twere, a mirror up to nature", or measure the play against his own experience and understanding of theatre? The local paper reviewers have no doubt: they mirror the response of the audience. Most local papers have an unwritten but unbreakable rule, in such circumstances: to emphasise the positive and ignore the negative. However the critics for the broadsheets and specialist theatre journals (including websites!), have a different approach. They judge, which, after all, is what criticism actually is, for it comes from the Greek word which means "a judge". Inevitably, therefore, there will be a strong personal element in their judgements: one has only to look at the critical reaction to Sarah Kane to see that they are far from infallible. Critics have their prejudices and - dare I say it? - blind spots just like everyone else. Essentially what a critic says is his or her own personal opinion. That opinion may well be informed by a much wider experience of theatre and plays than is possessed by the average theatregoer, but it is nonetheless personal. To me, when I saw Fine Fine Fine!, it mattered a lot that there was no motivation for a sudden change in a particular character. It jarred. It was unbelievable. Accordingly, it meant that I could not be swept along by the story, and that meant that, in my opinion, the play is flawed. For the majority of the audience, it clearly didn't matter one jot. Their response was delight that it had happened, for they were seeing an unpleasant character get her comeuppance and that pleased them no end. So, yes, critics do have problems! Perhaps the biggest - one which torments me on those nights when sleep won't come - alright, I'm exaggerating! - is whether critics serve any function whatsoever. If their opinions are just that, personal opinions, why should the reader take any notice of what they say? Why should an actor feel hurt or delighted at their comments? Why should a playwright? Or a director? Well, theatre tickets are not cheap and we don't want to waste our money going to see a play which is poor, so we find a critic whose views appear to coincide with ours and we can then make a safe (-ish) judgement about whether or not to spend the money on play A rather than play B, or even to forego going to the theatre and spend the money on beer instead! Critics do have their place: they can provide a useful guide to what is or is not worth seeing, but only if we know where we stand in relation to the critic. Does (s)he reflect our own likes and dislikes? Does (s)he have the knowledge and expertise to properly understand and respond to the play? A good topic for debate! Why not pop along to our Forum and give us the benefit of your thoughts? Articles Indices:
|
|
|