Don't Shoot The Messenger

When did it become unacceptable for someone reviewing a theatre performance, to say that they didn’t enjoy it and why?

When was that?

What has changed?

Theatre companies invite someone to come along and do “a crit” or receive a written adjudication as part of an organised Festival. What do they expect they will get back?

 

Let’s put to one side those who do not have the experience, the vocabulary, the wit or the wisdom to (let’s say) report on a theatre performance. There are those who are not suited to it, but they still do it. (So, why do you invite them?) Thankfully, they are in the minority. For that reason, let’s stick with the rest. The ones who know their stuff.

 

There is a language to reviewing. A skill. There is a body of underpinning knowledge about the art and the repertoire (as well as the industry) which is a prerequisite if you’re going to do it correctly AND acceptably. Because that is the basis for respect – for the reviewer and their reviews.

A review or an article for newspaper or magazine comes with specific editorial standards and expectations. Festival Adjudications have similar, but that’s a conversation for another day. IMHO, reviewers are not what they were because the breed who wrote them are no longer around. I think it's a dying skill. When it comes to local newspapers, the dedicated arts or theatre journo is now a relic of the past. Within my region, they were outstanding. A handful who knew the arts and their art. They knew their stuff. They knew how to write about it. Professional and Amateur. And above all else, whether you agreed with what they wrote or not, whether you wallowed in the plaudits or dodged the brickbats, you rolled with it. It was about respect. Emotional maturity. Because when you put yourself up there, every single person in the theatre – including the reviewer - will have an opinion and all could be slightly different. And never forget, they’ve bought a ticket and have a right to one.

The fly in the virtual ointment is, rather than that review being a couple of column inches in a newspaper, it’s now online. And it’s reposted. And by god, is it commented on.

Theatre companies and performers are increasingly vocal in being mortally offended by anything other than glowing tributes. Gushy comments. Add to the mix the ‘four Fs’: Families, Friends, Favourites and Followers. They pick up the affronted gauntlet and the online wave of reviewer retribution overwhelms social media platforms.

It seems that, unless a review is glowing, it’s not acceptable.

Let’s just pause and take a very, very deep breath.

Consider that maybe, just maybe, the performance to the eyes of an independent person who does not possess your lived experience of the production, might see the end product differently. Maybe, just maybe, all in the garden wasn’t rosy. That there were problems. Standards now and again may have not been what they could have been. That doesn’t make them the spawn of Satan for saying so. It doesn't invalidate your production. They’re doing what they’ve been asked to do. I guess the elephant in the room is, what did you expect?  Consider for a moment that the person might even have a point?

I think there’s a need to get back to basics and a reality check, even a history lesson.

Reviews and Adjudications were always read, considered and taken on the chin. There have been plenty of occasions when my acting or writing hasn’t been to everyone’s liking. But what I’ve always done is reflect on the comments and consider that they might have a point. And if not, c’est la vie. It wasn’t intentionally written to make me flounce or self-combust or message every virtual acquaintance to garner support. It was written to make comment on the value, the worth of ‘the doing.’ The review is doing what was expected.

And if you want to dismiss it out of hand with that well-worn response of “It’s just one person’s opinion. What do they know?” Then fine. But perhaps, for a brief moment, consider that this one person might be making a valid point and that they do know.

I’m guessing that if the reviewer did find the production wholly and utterly amazing, you’re not going to disagree with them? Thought not.

 

Georgina Brown wrote something in the Mail on Sunday back in 2007 which has always stayed with me: “Great theatre rearranges your conscience and occasionally changes your life; bad theatre wastes it.”

It’s blunt. I wouldn’t ever say it about a production. But she has a point. The danger in the arts climate now is that you are only as good as your last production. 

 

Jeannie van Rompaey who is a Senior GoDA Adjudicator once said, “I aim to give constructive criticism that will encourage and help the teams, praising aspects of the production that have worked well and suggesting ideas for the group to try out in areas where they have not been so successful.” 100% right.

And to those who do review in that burgeoning world of online blogs, give your heads a gentle wobble now and again to remember what you are watching and why. Theatre is an art. Reviewing is an art. Don’t destroy art for art’s sake. Don’t set out to be a critic. But equally, don’t set a precedent for everything and everybody being “A.maz.ing.” 
It’s about balance and fairness. Set out to be entertained and to enjoy. To celebrate the value and the worth. And when aspects are not where they should be, be balanced, fair. Enjoy theatre for what it is but also (and vitally) what it could have been. Understand what people do well and not so well and then help them to understand the ‘why.’

As Desmond McCarthy, a British Critic and Literary Journalist said, “I let the play wash over me and then examine the markings on the sand.”

 

A good review or adjudication takes into account those limitations about which you can do nothing but does not ignore those which can be acted upon. Irrespective, every piece of theatre should be the best it can be, with the people it has, in the venue they use, with the facilities available, within the means they have. Doesn’t that deserve to be acknowledged? 

And when it comes to Festival Adjudications, they are a competition, not a raffle. They should celebrate participation and reward success. Because there are, there must be winners. Live with it. The contentious issue is that I feel we are in a situation where everyone feels they should win. Moreover, everyone now expects (for full length Festivals) a nomination. 

The simple truth is, there are now too many nominations. Yes, my opinion and I can hear lots of folk disagreeing. But I’ve been around long enough to have the right to have an opinion.

It always brings me back to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland: “At last” the Dodo said. “Everyone has won and all must have prizes.” Sound familiar?

Perhaps that’s the problem. When you treat everyone as a winner, how can you ever provide feedback which runs contrary?

And it’s not the fault of the performer or the company either. 

I’m not a great believer in winding back the clock. But a reality check now and again for everyone might not go amiss.

And if nothing else, don’t shoot the messenger. After all, you invited them.