|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles |
Barberous IgnoranceDateline: 22nd July, 2004The Observer has been known for many years as the Sunday newspaper that is most likely to support culture. Sadly, if an article published last Sunday is anything to go by, they will be handing this crown to one of their rivals in the near future. A woman by the name of Lynn Barber has been turned into a theatre critic overnight and her writing and views are far more those of the Mail or the Express than the greatly esteemed Sunday institution for whom she is writing. A thesis that announces itself with the statement that "No straight man ever willingly goes to the theatre" does not promise riches. First, it is patently untrue and, secondly, it is such a non-sequitur that one is tempted to say that television must be bad because it is watched by lesbians, not to mention cats and dogs. Television is frequently bad but it is not the people in front of the screen that should be blamed for that. Ms Barber admits that she has not been to see any serious play in her living memory. One might suggest that this makes her the very worst person to send out in effort to gauge the strength or otherwise of British Theatre today. Surely an article of this type written by the newspaper's theatre critic Susannah Clapp would make more sense. In fact, a vast space has been given to this new critic together with tickets to five plays. She has the good grace to admit that despite her better judgment, she enjoyed Alan Bennett's wonderful The History Boys at the National Theatre. She also seemed to have fun with the first half of the all female Much Ado About Nothing at the Globe but then decided, presumably in the interests of journalistic imbalance that she hated it. Like a former theatre critic of the Spectator, she also didn't make it through to the second half and therefore is possibly not the best person to comment on the production. The three other plays were not successes in her eyes. She ought to admit that this could partly be because a sample of five plays is inadequate to form a judgment, when it represents something less than ten per cent of what is currently on offer. Where Ms Barber really considers herself an expert is on the quality of the acting. While she liked Richard Griffiths (who could fail to do so?), in her judgment the rest of the acting was below the quality of that on television! I am happy to confess that my television viewing roughly parallels Ms Barber's theatrical exploits. On the rare occasions when I do get past a news or sports programme, I am often shocked by the fact that the individuals that I am watching have managed to make a career for themselves as actors. In the productions that came under scrutiny, there are some tremendous performances, even where some of the plays are rather weak. The fact that someone who announces themselves ignorant of theatre, cannot appreciate Peter Bowles and Edward Fox in The Old Masters, Roger Allam in Democracy or Frances de la Tour in The History Boys would seem to many to be more a reflection on Ms Barber than on these four thespians. This kind of blind attack on theatre can only be a bad thing. Already on The Observer's website there are a number of other people who, while they admit that they never go to the Theatre, are happy to weigh in with criticisms about what they assume that it might be like. I'm sure that Ms Barber is a nice, intelligent lady. Next time the Observer wants to pronounce on theatre though, perhaps they should leave her in front of her TV screen and employ somebody who actually understands and appreciates the art. If she is serious about becoming a theatre addict though, it would be easy to point her towards ten plays, at least eight of which even she will enjoy. I look forward to reading the results when she has taken up the challenge. As an alternative, the world can look forward to my appointment as The Observer's next television critic. Articles Indices:
|
|
|
|