Most of the time, criticism is an easy game. If I stick to plays by established companies (Rapture, NTS, Dominic Hill at The Citizens), the rules of engagement are simple. The cast, the backstage crew, the ushers, the press office are all getting paid and this payment allows me to focus on being critical. I can be as harsh as necessary, and the review is directed not for the benefit of the company but potential audiences. If I am unkind about a particular performance, or performer (within the bounds of social acceptability - there is no space for personal insults), their wage ought to provide a buffer.
If I decide to review a community or youth company, it becomes more difficult. First of all, any harsh criticism is being directed at individuals who do not claim to be professional. It isn't their job to be on stage. Besides, youth and community theatre is not just about the end product - the journey of the company is equally important. Saying that Show X is not up to standard denies the process that went into making the work. That actors who fluffed their lines? Three weeks ago they couldn't stand up in a room in front of six people. The usual standards are not relevant.
Even that doesn't provide a real problem. First of all, these shows are easy to spot - and be avoided, if I don't have a solution to how to review them. Furthermore, when I had a bad knee, I worked out an answer to integrating process and product. Get in touch if you would like to buy this information.
The difficulty comes from Works-in-Progress. Again, if they are clearly labelled, it is not a problem. I'd argue that those critics who give stars to WiPs are missing their point - the artist is putting the piece into the public realm for feedback, not definitive ratings.
The real problem, the flame to my receding hairline, is when a work is not properly labelled, or exists in a festival like Arches Live! In the latter, artists are encouraged to take risks, and are likely to make mistakes. For many years, there was chat about how The Arches offered a 'freedom to fail.' The phrase isn't a good one - it suggests that The Arches' programme is full of actors deliberately making bad work, which isn't true. But its spirit is valuable.
September is always Arches Live month, and I am going back for the second night tonight. The first night reminded me why I always get in a tizzy during the early autumn. A quick breakdown: I saw four works. All of them were artistically interesting. Half of them would also be interesting to a wider audience.
The division here is between art that is interesting to people who have a vested interest in the art form, and art that would appeal to people outside of the industry.
As a critic, I do have a vested interest in the art form and I am supposed to understand what the hell is going on - I don't have a normative, or average, perception of performance. So, I can look past the shaky performances, the incomplete theatricality, and see the vision. I can make the grand statement: this is worth moving forward.
I also recognise that it is a WiP - so it gets a pass on the 'classic review' with star ratings and that...
However, if I review it from this position, how do I make it clear that this is not the sort of piece that is going to appeal to an audience that is used to the polish of a full professional production?
I am asking performers to tell me what they think I ought to do. There is a space for dialogue here. Should I go in, studs out, and point out which acts could do with a spot more training at the RCS? Or should I be gentle, recognise that the investment of the performer deserves respect, and that support at this stage will enable them to pursue the ideas to fruition?
(If I get some replies, I do have some non-negotiable positions - I'll save them in the hope they intrigue. And as for the first artist who claims they 'just want an honest review': they will get one.)
No comments :
Post a Comment