Don't Shoot The Messenger

How a theatre performance receives a ‘review’ (and I use that in its loosest possible way) has become so much more diverse and available.

What follows is not about Theatre Adjudications and Festivals. That is a discussion for a different day and a different bottle ...

Reviews are seen for obvious reasons as a way to garner publicity, obtain exposure, advertise, showcase and above all else, sell the work, the writer, the run or all three.

The people who are providing them appear in recent years to have ballooned in number and diversified. There are SO many people, websites and organisations who will offer to review a performance. Most are a valuable asset. A few just want the comps to provide their ‘service’ and little else.

At that point, let’s just take a breath. 

In the perfect world, getting a review of a production seems fine; logical, expected.

There are so many examples where a review has assisted a production for the reasons given above.

There are just as many examples of where they haven’t.

Let me keep this really simple. If am looking to obtain any type of service, I research it first. I want the whole experience to be a positive one, so looking at the experience of others is really important.

Do your research. Ask around, go online. Read their work. They may be lovely people but you need them to be far more than that. 

That means getting to grips with the questions you need to answer. Some might be:

• What other reviews of similar productions or venues have they undertaken?
• Do they know the arts, the form, the repertoire and its demands?
• What are their reviews like? Well-constructed, fit for purpose, timely?
• What was their impact? Are they in a place where people see them? Have they gained traction with the potential audience you are trying to engage with and attract?
• Is the review posted/found in a place and in a format which you can re-use?
• Find out what other’s experiences have been. Good, bad, indifferent? The cost/benefit?
• Big one: do they have a following of their own? What is their footprint, impact, reach?
• And simply, is there any benefit (value) in you giving up seats (income) to have them attend?

If you just want a lovely person to come along and say lovely things about your lovely production, fill your boots. That might actually (seriously) meet your requirements.

If you want more, keep looking and read on ...

Local newspapers are, in the main, very positive about what they watch. If it isn’t up to the mark, they find a gentle, professional and journalistic way of saying it. Gone are the days of the dedicated local arts journo who bluntly said it how it was. But they were a huge loss. When something was good, they said so. People read it. Those people then bought tickets. And that folks is the crux of the issue. If you want to engage a knowledgeable, well-respected and ‘followed’ reviewer, expect a balanced, objective and interesting read. But also, expect honesty.

They don’t want to undermine their reputation reporting in a way which is not an accurate reflection of the truth. And they are not coming to find fault and criticise just for the sake of it. They want to see the value, the worth in what you have made and tell others about it; to celebrate your achievements.

From a professional, experienced reviewer, you will get an honest review – in all ways and on all aspects. If you don’t want that and just want something which drowns the reader in loveliness and gushiness, those boots are still there waiting to be filled. If you don’t want to know how good, bad, indifferent a production is and vitally, whether it is worth going to see it, don’t ask a seasoned reviewer.

 

We’ve all heard the adage about all publicity is good publicity, no such thing as bad publicity, blah blah blah. Well, I’m not convinced.

If you’re looking for notoriety, bad publicity might be your perverse thing. It’s not mine. Additionally, I don't want is a reviewer who owns a bizarre selection of hobbyhorses and takes great delight in taking them out for a canter all over some poor sods lovely play. The ones who are SO knowledgeable about theatre and spend more time exploring a theatrical thesaurus and waxing lyrical with their collective wisdom than they do talking about the production they’ve just watched.

 

No one wants to be told that their baby is not the most beautiful. No actor or director wants to be told that their performance wasn’t deserving of an Olivier (other awards are available!). But if all you want is someone to come along and massage egos and be your best friend, then you know what? Get a friend to come and review it? Seriously. The Grammys are popular awards. Why not The Grannies? (other relative options are available)

 

Before you self-combust, try reflecting on the fact that, if the review highlights aspects of a production which weren’t right, that the reviewer might actually be right.

 

In some quarters it appears to have become unacceptable for someone reviewing a theatre performance, to have the audacity to say that they didn’t enjoy it and why.

Hello?

And this phenomenon is evolving into an online kick-back against non-gushy reviews. A good example is the post-review outpouring on social media by the wounded party and the collective support from their family, friends, followers and favourites on how wrong, how stupid the “what do they know?’ person was.

Being told you are not perfect when you’ve asked for an opinion, doesn’t invalidate the opinion. But it does bring into question your reaction.

  

There is a language to reviewing. It’s a skill. If it’s for a newspaper and by a journalist, they will have an editorial style to follow and nasty things like word counts to meet. More so with national publications, where there is an expected body of underpinning knowledge about the art and the repertoire (as well as the industry) and which is a prerequisite. The reason the local ones are reporting the news of your production is because it has local interest and community angle. Then, consider that maybe, just maybe, the performance to the eyes of an independent person (journo or not) 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 the night they were in. 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 noticing and saying so. It doesn't invalidate your production either. 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’m guessing that if the reviewer did find the production wholly and utterly amazing and wrapped it up in a glowing review, 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 is that you are only as good as your last production. From a receipts point of view, every one counts. We all have to strive to do and be the best we can. But we’re human and we have off days and moments. It’s life. And it's certainly not the end of it because someone noticed.

 

Jeannie van Rompaey, 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.” A Review is not an adjudication, but the sentiment is 100% on the money.

Reviewing is an art. To fellow reviewers I say,  don’t destroy art for art’s sake. Leave the hobbyhorses at home. Don’t set out to be a critic. Set out to be a member of the audience. 
It’s about balance and fairness. Seek 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 in your comments. 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 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 at their disposal. Doesn’t that deserve to be acknowledged? And when it isn’t, should that really deserve to be ignored?

 

If you’re planning a production, plan for the reviewer too. Better still, build a relationship with them.

Do your homework. And if it was a good review, wallow in it. If it wasn’t, learn from it.

But be gracious in your reflections and your reactions.

And if nothing else, don’t shoot the messenger. 

After all, you invited them.