In Defense of Misreadings (1)

The current conversation about political theatre concentrates on the idea of a generic revival. It asks questions about whether political theatre has any meaningful impact, without necessarily finding a way to assess this impact. It observes the increase in plays that have explicit political content. And it avoids the more immediate purpose of criticism, to address the content and interpret how it is being explored.

The highest form of criticism is possibly when it engages directly with a play's ideas, and argues about them. The natural instinct of popular criticism is make assessments of theatrical quality: how good was the acting? Did the director enhance the script through his interpretation? Is this the birth of an exciting new talent?

Pantomime acts as a reminder that theatre can fail miserably in all these areas and still be successful. Snow White in Kilmarnock manages to entertain even though Craig Glover never fully inhabits the female personality of Dame Bree Brightshine and Liam Dolan sometimes forgets what the next line is supposed to be. It isn't just that pantomime has a special set of rules. Dolan, as director and co-writer, remembers that the purpose is to entertain, and the quality of the show is only a tool towards that end.

The same argument can be applied to political theatre. The style is less important than the intention. The intention can only be assessed through the critique of the ideas. That's where the assessment is important: a strong central performance can enhance the communication, a good script present the ideas concisely.

The danger becomes that the critic might not understand the play's intention - not because any lack of clarity, but because they bring their own emotional baggage to the performance. This is the famous "objectivity argument" which posits that the critic ought not to have any personal opinions, and observe theatre from a neutral point of view.

It's nonsense.

It's far more interesting when the critic notes their prejudice, and then describes the dialogue between their baggage and the work in question. If objectivity were possible - say, through the invention of a robotic critic - then every publication could feature this one review. In the meantime, the diversity of critical opinions goes some way towards reflecting the subjectivity of the critical experience.

As far as political work goes, the potential for misreading is huge: a simple idea accepted by the author might be rejected by the critic. This might mean they hate the entire thing, and see it as a terrible work, morally repugnant. Equally, it might encourage the critic to read the play in a very different light.

Times like this, it's lucky that the author is dead.