|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
Critics v TheatregoersDateline: 9th February, 2003This week we have news of both the Critics' Circle Awards and the What's Onstage Theatregoers' Awards. There's hardly any common ground between them. Does that seem incredible? It shouldn't, because the first are chosen by a rather élite group of London critics and the second by visitors to the What's Onstage site, people who would describe themselves as "ordinary theatregoers". Here's what Roger Taylor of Queen had to say on learning that their musical We Will Rock You had won awards in no less than five categories in the Theatregoers' Awards, including Best New Musical and Best Director:
So why is there such a gap between the critics and the "real people"? For the "real people" also chose Gillian Anderson as Best Actress and thought that Madonna's West End debut was the Theatre Event of the Year. For them, the Donmar, the Royal Court and the National seem to have had little impact. In fact, with one or two exceptions, the "real people's" choice was for shows that had been panned - or, at best, greeted lukewarmly - by the critics. Why should this be so? There are many reasons. To begin with, critics see far more shows than the vast majority of the public and so are more critical and difficult to please. For the "real people", going to the theatre is something of an occasion, something to be looked forward to, and that sense of occasion adds a lustre to what they see. Critics aren't the only ones who react differently to members of the public: other theatre professionals do too. Lighting designers don't sit back and let it all flow over them like ordinary theatregoers do: they look at the lighting, what it's like and how it's achieved, and they compare it to what they would do with the show and set. And actors, directors, set designers et al do the same: they can't help it. Critics can be pretty conservative - witness their reactions to the first plays of Sarah Kane - but their conservatism is as nothing in comparison to that of the "real people", who, generally speaking, "like what they like" and find shows which disturb their ideas of what theatre should be disturbing. And, it has to be said, "real people" find celebrity attractive. Many will vote for Gillian Anderson becasue she is Gillian Anderson. However, it also has to be said that it has the opposite effect on critics, who will go to see a celebrity in a play expecting him/her to be a disaster. And, of course, we cannot discount the "fan factor". Some years ago when, in our About.com days, we ran a Best Actor's Website poll, the fan clubs mobilised, three line whips were sent out, and they voted in their thousands. Queen, we know, has a large and enthusiastic fan club: once they heard of the poll, you can bet they got their votes in. And the same probably happened with the fans of Gillian Anderson. So are the "real people's" awards worthless? Of course not - no more than the critics' awards. They reflect a different perspective on theatre, and both are, to my mind, equally valid. There are two kinds of theatre: popular (in the proper sense of the word) theatre and what one might call progessive or even esoteric theatre. Eventually the latter usually becomes the former, but it takes time. We shouldn't be quick to condemn critics for being out of touch with public taste, nor the public for being lowbrow: on the contrary, we should rejoice that there is such a variety of theatre on offer. Something for everybody - and why not? Articles Indices:
|
|
|