I would rather say that my negative reviews are like a Jesuit examen - the daily meditation of the Order that frightens protestants and has become a by-word for intellectual spiritual. An examen is relentlessly honest, but also encourages self-examination: to recognise internal processes and how they guide perception and experience.
This is a particular issue at the moment because I have seen two shows that I did not enjoy, but the audience clearly did. I am hoping to explore both of them in some detail - not to give them a further kicking, but to understand why, suddenly, I feel alienated in a theatre full of happy people. There is much of worth in the pieces - not least the pleasure they gave to most of the crowd. But while I recognise that they probably weren't aimed at me, my dislike of them is still valid.
This bout of soul-searching comes from a realisation that theatre is not a machine (although certain dramaturges might disagree), and consists of people who don't deserve to be judged harshly. It is no enough to say it wasn't 'good', and then apportion blame. The quality of a work exists in the moment of connection with the audience, and as a member of the audience, I am implicated in the making of its meaning and worth.
Deep breath. Thee two shows are Tonight's The Night and Grit, The Martyn Bennett Story. Both are musical 'bio-plays': one a big touring musical, the other a Scottish production with some funky choreography and an intriguing structure. Tonight's The Night doesn't matter to me - I hope to evaluate it cooly at a later date and my arrogant superior attitude is predictable. But Grit: I am utterly invested in that work, and my dislike for it shakes me, shakes my faith in myself and the theatre that I love.
I have enjoyed the work of the three artists at the heart of the production (Kieran Hurley's Beats charmed me, Bissett's Roadkill is my ideal angry art, Dina Gringas is an amazing choreographer). I think the core of my frustration is not in their relative abilities - especially since Gringas' choreography beautifully catches the tension in Bennett's music - but the sentiment of the play.
Is it that I disagree with their vision? Is that what makes me rage? I recognise that the same thing that made me all shouty about Grit is possibly the same thing is making other people praise it.
There is an irresolvable tension here... I shall stand up for my vision of what theatre can be, while others see this glory in the detail of Grit. If I delineate my problems with it, it is possible to see why it is going to become a beloved part of the Scottish cannon.
The intention is really clear. Martyn Bennett is being reclaimed as a Scottish hero, a brave artist who fought to rescue Scottish folk from hidebound tradition. He becomes an icon of Caledonian brilliance, a symbol of a culture that is bold, resistance and creative.
He is perfect. He respects the traditions, but gets down to the groove. He is ancient and modern. His album Grit is a fusion of memories and hopes for the future. It has the beauty of those Gaelic and Scots songs, and the immediacy of techno.
In order to emphasise this, the script only focuses on Bennett. His wife is reduced to a cypher. His teachers at the RSAMD are squares. He is cast in the form of a great romantic hero. He looks at the islands and hears their colours. The landscape is alive to this genius.
Romanticism here is Germanic - all about the sublime and the artist chasing nature's majesty.
It hits home: even before the boy piper comes on at the end, it is obvious that Grit is all about celebrating Scottishness. The audience loved in, perhaps recognising the ambitions of an nation that might be independent soon.
But it feels sentimental to me. The script avoids Bennett the person - even the famous incident when he smashed his instruments becomes an eccentricity rather than a violent act of despair. By sanctifying the artist, the human is lost, subsumed into an ideology, a saint, a messiah.
In order to make the point, the play loses nuance. The constant addresses to the audience feel like a lecture. No-one really talks to anyone else in the play, they tell the world. As Bennett falls to his final illness, he recites the sleevenotes to his last album. It make no sense that his wife fell for him, that he inspired anyone. The play does not grapple with all those little human problems that would allow Grit to speak to me.
As a final note - I expect to be hearing from various people that my inability to understand the play is something to do with my politics. Can I re-iterate my philosophical anarchism at this point... so, yes. It is to do with my politics, but not because I am a Unionist. And I fully understand why this play is simultaneously inspiring, brilliant, frustrating and propagandist.
I saw it yesterday. I saw none of what you describe in (what sounds like) your state of existential ennui.
ReplyDeleteI began my career in theatre and now I find it cringeingly hard to watch. I see the joins and rarely go. I make allowances for dance because it's not my craft and I allowed myself to move beyond that for GRIT for the sake of the story and the music and the dance, and, sentimental as it may be, for Martyn (it was his story after all)
Its "Scottishness" is irrelevant. It is hardly mentioned. It is only apparent because Martyn was a piper using pipe music and traditional Scots music. But you could take the story ( and the music) and put it anywhere else on the planet and it would fit. BUT, here's the thing, there is actually nothing wrong with Scottishness, sentimental or otherwise, whatever side of the political debate you stand. Even if it's no side at all as you say. So, yes I am afraid you hint at an element of the "Scottish Cringe" - interesting that you pointed that out before anybody else did. You also fail to mention that the show is a Scots/Canadian collaboration which IS relevant.
Thank you for taking the time to reply, Jude. Part of the reason that I wrote this piece is to open up the ways of thinking that define my response to theatre.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's 'Scottishness' is irrelevant or hardly mentioned (although this isn't my reason for being disappointing in the show): Bennett talks (in the play) about finding a Scottishness that isn't just tartan but just as colourful, the wonderfully dynamic dance scene in the disco has highland dance moves set to techno (while wearing kilts), Bennett meditates on the wonder of the Scottish landscape (poetically and eloquently), the performance ended with a boy piper coming on stage, there is a video clip of Shaun Connery and the music itself is based on Scottish traditional styles.
Of course there is nothing wrong with Scottishness, but not to admit that this play explores a particular vision of it is disingenuous. I am not quite sure what the 'Scottish cringe' means in this context, but I felt that the personality of Bennett was subsumed into a narrative that emphasised a cultural community over the lived experience of the individual.
As a play, it intended to present this vision - which is why I called it inspiring and brilliant. That it sacrifices other qualities - such as developed characterisation - is why it is problematic.
Why do you think it is relevant that it is a Scots/Canadian collaboration?
I am not sure it presents itself as a play in the traditional sense. When the music essentially defines the man, the narrative and the performance, the structure and the story weave to accommodate it. This weaving of narrative with visuals and movement that are trademarks of Cora's work ( you must have know what to expect?) and the depth of characterisation you crave is not sacrificed if you listen, because the narrative informs with music, which essentially says it all. The narration and the dialogue serve as vignettes to orientate us. Not at all problematic if you go with the flow of the piece and the narrative in the dance. Dramaturgically sound and a part of long tradition. I wish they were making this sort of theatre when I still had the energy to put up with the hours and the bullshit.
Delete"Irrelevant" was the wrong word to use about the Scottishness of the piece. Of course it isn't irrelevant, because the music is of its place, I could have said "could almost be irrelevant" given the narrative beauty and the personal depth of the story which could be transplanted to Soweto, or Bolivia or Harlem and still be relevant. But of course that's not the point. I fear I was succumbing to inverse Scottish cringe when I sought to defend it so robustly.
The Scots/Canadian collaboration IS relevant. In choosing to ignore it you speak to your prejudice Seeking to sit it on the shelf with the kiltie dolls and the shortbread. .I detect a nuance in your prediction that GRIT will become part of the Scottish Canon. " A Scottish production with some funky choreography and an intriguing structure" dismissed and diminished, because we all know that when we say "Scottish" we really mean lacking international artistic integrity?
However, such is the job of the critic, I suppose. You are allowed not to like things. But let's not forget that there is power in your words (not that the audiences seem to have paid much need right enough) and that (I am reliably informed) Martyn Bennett's mother has attended every single performance.SO when we are debating its artistic merits, a woman - a talent in her own right - is remembering her talented boy who died too young, and amazed and grateful that somebody did this for him. Perhaps that is why your urge to purge? You allude to an examin. Lofty spiritual ambitions for someone whose job is to criticise what others make. It is easy to do. We all do it. And the theatre world is rife with people that think they could've done a better job. Hence my early escape. You know all the quotes about critics. You have probably used them in ironic self deprecation many times. Self examination as a spiritual exercise is never a bad idea.
I am a blogger and I love a good old rant. Part of my practice of late has been to critique my own words by the saying “If you propose to speak, always ask yourself, is it true, is it necessary, is it kind?” It is often attributed to the Buddha on Facebook and the like, but they are not his words, they paraphrase some of the rules for speech, but you get the gist. I have also seen a cartoon saying "Buddha says, don't be a c**t!" which pretty much says the same thing! ;-)
I went to see GRIT again last night. A friend had a spare ticket. Still went into my auto theatre-cringe at the beginning ( can't help it) and still cried my eyes out at the end (and during) The mark of something worth seeing as far as I am concerned. It got a standing ovation. I can see the critics and hipsters cringing at the thought.
So, you can run past shouting that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes or you can shrug your shoulders and chalk it up to jaded overexposure.
Thank you again,Jude,for taking the time to reply. I think our relative responses to Grit won't change, although you've encouraged me to think more deeply about the production. I did think about how Cora B's distinctive directorial style drives the production and how her particular energy (seen in Glasgow Girls and Roadkill) makes her a Scottish creator of distinction.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's that word 'Scottish' again. I take it to mean 'working in Scotland,' although you might find a couple of reviews I did of Greig's Dunsinane which try to grapple with the difference between 'British' and 'Scottish' theatre. I want to be very clear that I do not use it as a synonym for anything negative. I am a Scottish critic, and when Lynn off the Guardian suggested the Scottish cohort were 'soft' on Scottish theatre, I offered her out for a fight. Scottishness is a geographical quality, and might represent a particular theatrical approach, tradition or tone (I am trying to work that out). And artists who define cultural identity is something that interests me.
The most important thing about Grit is your emotional response - and I am glad that you want to defend it. Critic I may be - but don't confuse me with a hipster - but I make no claims to have an objective position.
I'd like to understand why the collaboration with Canada is important, though? For me, it is important because I got to see Dana Gringas' work again, and I think she is superb. But I think you are suggesting something far more interesting.
Thanks again for taking the time to discuss this.