New Poll - To crit or not to crit

I don't know whether this suggestion was prompted by a recent production...?

"You see a show;you have friends in it. You think it was crap. Do you congratulate everyone and publish nothing? Yes/No. "




There are probably other options not catered for in this poll, but which may bear discussion here.


The Poll-tergeist

[%sig%]

I posted this just before the new poll under the Reviews area...so I'm reprinting here 'cause I think it applies to Craigs poll... enjoy!

-------------------------
Hello,

Just something that occured to me recently, given the very *average* standard of journalism that passes for criticism in this town (Perth) - with 1 or 2 notable exceptions.

Anyway, my statement for comment is this:

"Critics need to have a solid understanding and/or their own interpretation of a piece of theatre in order to write an even-handed assessment of it as a successful performance."

In one way, I can see that it would be easier to review, say, an established work but that new work would be difficult to assess.

On the other hand, wouldn't a solid understanding of the script or, at least, an active insight into the processes of putting on a piece (ie. consideration of a director/producers/casts vision) be a way of assessing whether or not that vision had been achieved?

Looking forward to some debate on this... ;o)

Warmly,
Jason Seperic

If your job is to review, then you can't really avoid it (ipso facto)

On the other hand, there is criticism and then there is critique. While criticism can either cut down or raise to great heights, critiquing is constructive and honest opinions expressed without emotional bias or intent to inflict (either good or bad).

A consistantly good (but not sensational) reviewer will stick to critiquing, if only to cover their own ass, so to speak.

A favourable reviewer will critique politely when they have nothing better to say playing down the negatives while highlighting the positives.

A sensationalist reviewer is either all or nothing. These guys sometimes (and in some cases often) invite trouble to their doorstep where they ask trouble in and offer a cup-o-tea before the gloves come off. Casus belli.

If you feel you have something to say, even if there are people you know and perhaps like involved, then there are always ways to express what you have to offer and cause minimal collateral.

Just say it.

Jeff "Vocally Active" Watkins

[%sig%]

Fair point on definition, Jeff...

And as you rightly point out, our journo's are in the business of reviewing, not criticism - to my mind, a highly inferior use of the space they are allotted.

In fact, I would go as far as to suggest that there has been a complete dearth of real theatrical criticism for many years in WA and, in its way, this dearth has contributed particularly to a decline in attendance numbers.

Why? Because the reviewer passes on their level of passion and intrigue about a particular project...even if they don't like the production, a good critic (vs reviewer) will intrigue a potential pundit by their coherent arguments, made with a passion for their field.

Sure great critics are rare...but in some ways I believe they can be 'made' via a systemised approach. For instance, couldn't a critic get *involved* in a production at a level?

In Germany, I believe it was once the practice of the critic to not only read the script and formulate an opinion on the writing, but to sit down with the creative members of the production team and really try to come to grips with what they were trying to achieve.

The critic would then assess the final product on the basis of the script and the success of the production teams approach to it as a piece of theatre.

The best analogy I can come up with is the approach taken by GODA trained adjudicators at drama festivals. Whether they feel a production "works" or not, they certainly inspire controversy, discussion and, sometimes, real "passion" amongst the spectators! ;o)

And the practitioners generally walk away determined to "do better next time" as they have genuinely learnt something...even if they didn't like what they heard.

Now, the GODA trained adjudicators generally do read the scripts being presented and formulate an opinion on them and assess the merits of the production in bringing that text to "life" - the one thing they generally don't do is to sit down with the production team...but then it is a "competitive" environment, isn't it?

In the cold war world of the two Berlins, their critics approach contributed to some truly inspirational attempts at both classical and contemporary works - mainly because directors and actors were inspired to outdo their last efforts!

The other point about real criticism vs 'surface-level' reviewing is an argument of posterity - ie. that *whatever* is written about a production is basically what survives that production...I can't remember who said it, but "Criticism is the chronicler of the time" as far as theatrical production goes, simply because performance is the most ephemeral of the art forms.

Bottom line: is what generally passes for criticism in this town doing justice to the people who give their blood, sweat and tears to this artform? Or their audiences?

Perhaps, I ask too much...? ;o)

Warmly,
Jason Seperic

I do recall a time when reviews in the local rags were actually interesting to read with energy and vibrance. Nowadays, the only reviews that have any energy and passion are those done by reviewers with a reputation for bagging things, or those columnists that talk beautifully and with a tongue firmly in their cheek about issues that really boil down to very little to do with anything.

Is this a sad side-effect of Politically correctness? Are we all becoming to "scared" about upsetting someone else less we get sued for defamation? Ad nauseum. Are we all victims of persona grata? People pleasing? Or maybe were are all perpetrators of it instead.

Are there truely victims? But I digress.

Jeff "Off Track" Watkins

[%sig%]

I like the discussion you're having about 'critiquing'....just wanted to add that it's often different to 'reviewing'.

Newspaper editors want articles that fill their columns, and that entertain & inform the public. (roughly in that order?).

For this reason there is a big difference between what a good critic may write about a show and what a published reviewer may write. (The two may be one and the same; but he/she will be forced to 'wear different hats').

Think about the kind of feedback you might get from a drama teacher; the kind you might get from a professional director or casting agent; or even from an impartial (?) audience member...as opposed to the kind of feedback that someone writes for a readership that has nothing to do with the play apart from being a potential audience. There's no point in the reviewer giving the detailed critique that an actor probably wants and deserves to hear; the reader really just wants to hear if it is worth going to see. Good reviewers include an element of critique which the readers DO appreciate, but it's not the same as feedback given to the cast & crew. Also, published reviewers are probably a bit wary of the fact that their words are put down in posterity, so they probably tend to talk about 'safe' aspects...or prepare to endure the wrath of all who "know better".
In reality, if you talked to the authors of the reviews, they'd probably have a fair bit of criticism (some which you wish was printed, some which you're glad they didn't!) which just wasn't appropriate to print in a restricted word-count of a newspaper.

(That's not to say I don't think the standard of newspaper reviewing needs to generally lift its game; just that there are other agendas than giving a good critique).



And speaking of which...I'm behind on at least three shows, all concluded, which I fully intended to write about and haven't gotten around to it yet; reason being I would rather have put some thought behind it or write nothing at all...rather than be intimidated by a deadline to publish crap. (Guess I've just failed Journalism).



At least I'm still a few ahead of 'The Review Master'.


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Just poking fun at your spelling of 'criticism', Jeff....but mightily impressed by your liberal use of latin!


(hang on,... 'justice.wa.gov.au' aha, makes sense!)



Cheers,
Craigus

[%sig%]

Craig & Jeff,

Glad to see you've weighed in. ;o)

Look, I understand the time and editorial pressures on journalists.

I understand that in the perception of newspaper editors, 'Joe Lunchpail' (their distinction, not mine) isn't capable of making any distinction about a piece of performance other than "Is it good, or is it bad?"

I guess my thoughts have cleared a bit since my first posting, and the real question for me is this...

"Does the current standard of critical journalism have a detrimental effect on the quality (and quantity) of the audiences all productions play to?"

That is, should there be a greater 'obligation' on arts writers to impart their true passion for performance, rather than this 'dishwater' stuff being perpetrated now?

For the record, I would rather see a "passionately constructive damnation" of a production by a critic, who had a real 'love' of the artform at the centre of their arguments and their value system, than see the tepid, must-get-to-copy, must-get-to-press, must-appeal-to-lowest-common-denominator *BLANDNESS* currently passing itself off as arts journalism.

And I think there is a huge distinction between the sort of puff pieces, sensationalism, and vitriol we see now and the type of criticism I am envisioning above.

Would you agree/disagree?

You know, the more I think about it, the more apparent it seems to me that this issue is much more at the heart of the apparent 'decline' of things than would appear on the surface.

BTW, Craig, I applaud your stance on not writing anything rather than writing 'something' to clear the backlog! ;o)

Warmly,
Jason Seperic

Jason Seperic wrote:

> For the record, I would rather see a "passionately
> constructive damnation" of a production by a critic, who had
> a real 'love' of the artform at the centre of their arguments
> and their value system

I think there are some in the local press who do this. I find Geoff Gibbs to one of the few critics locally who actually pass muster. This is a man with about forty years under his belt as an actor, director, teacher, and administrator, whose love of the art-form and passion for extracting the absolute best in performers is what has made WAAPA the pre-eminent drama school in this country.

The only thing that makes him controversial in these illustrious e-pages is the fact that he can be... shall we say... "blunt" in his assessments. But he's never rude or demeaning, nor does he set out to attack or to humiliate, but rather to offer direct, honest (sometimes brutally so) appraisals of performances and their relative merits.

He neither pisses in pockets, nor excuses shortcomings. If you're bad, he'll tell you... but he doesn't rub your nose in it.

I would there were more like him.

> You know, the more I think about it, the more apparent it
> seems to me that this issue is much more at the heart of the
> apparent 'decline' of things than would appear on the surface.

That and the distinct lack of money available to comprehensively subsidise the local industry.

Not to mention a lack of any real classical back-bone to the repertoire, an almost psychotic obsession with new local work (sometimes with an absolute disregard for issues of quality and merit), and a resolute unwillingness to evolve the community of principal players (actors, directors, artistic directors, etc.).

But I digress.


The Meddoes.

The Meddoes wrote:

>But he's never rude or demeaning, nor does he set out to attack or to humiliate...

your joking, right?

Dean McAskil

I think I can see your approach to this argument. Is the "apathy" [my term] of journalistic review impacting upon the overall performance attendance by the paying public?

Vice Versa, audi et alteram partem.

Is the apathy of the paying public impacting upon the need for passionate reviewing? Quid pro quo.

It's a chicken and egg catch 22.

Jeff "Dixi" Watkins

[%sig%]

I am but a learned man with humble beginnings. English was never my strong language. Baby talk can first I belive and I excelled at that. ;-)

Now we are expected to TYPE ENGLISH AS WELL?!?!? On keyboards that were designed deliberately to be hard to use?!?!?!?!

Oh ad absurdum.

Jeff "Compos Sui" Watkins

[%sig%]

Jeff Watkins wrote:

> I think I can see your approach to this argument. Is the
> "apathy" [my term] of journalistic review impacting upon the
> overall performance attendance by the paying public?

Yes. So does it? ;o)

I think most of us would agree that the best teachers we ever had (school or life) were those who imparted their passion for their subject.

Why aren't the people who have been placed in the position of 'expert' held to the same standard? By definition an 'expert' has something to teach us if we're interested in their subject, right?

So it follows that critics/reviewers, having been placed in the position of 'expert', should have a 'passionate teachers' obligation of imparting not only knowledge, but imparting knowledge in an effective way.

Now I know that there are crap teachers as well. Fair enough. But the thing with a one-newspaper town is that ineptitude either as a critic or a 'passionate teacher' far more easily "pollutes".

Warmly
Jason Seperic

My dictionary defines a critic as one who is skilled in judging the qualities and merits of a thing, or as one who judges captiously (difficult to please, making much of trivial faults), or censures and finds fault. A critique is defined as an article or essay criticising a work: a review.

As an amateur (extremely!) actor, with absolutely no training, I would hate to be judged according to the same standards as a WAPA student or graduate, for their enforced standards are necessarily high, the value of the strategy evident in terms of graduate career success. But if I accept a role in a play where tickets are sold to the public, I donÂ’t feel I have the right to plead for mercy, or the application of different critique standards.

I would imagine, given that their duty of care must first and foremost be to their readers and listeners, the great dilemma for critics, is how to approach the performances of small and or amateur theatre groups, regardless of the meritorious arguments of inadequate funding and the moral need to encourage. A treacherous path in a small village.

I have seen first hand the effects of an overly savage review on people I have come to love as friends and admire as performers, however, IÂ’ve reached the conclusion IÂ’d rather face expert criticism, than nurture faults and bad techniques. I also suspect, that where two independent critics have a similar view of a production, (good or bad), then one must consider there is substance to their comments.

My only caution to critics, is to refrain from commenting on anything other than the performance, production and venue and to find the most civilised and compassionate way to couch constructive criticism. Perhaps I can illustrate this as follows:

“ … far too much screaming and shouting made the words impossible to decipher. I couldn’t hear anything.”
This could be:
“It’s a difficult theatre acoustically and some in the cast seem not to have heeded the director’s instructions to resist the temptation to shout and concentrate on enunciating slowly and clearly.”

Whilst accepting that some productions will always be abysmal and perhaps the kindest thing for all concerned would be an instant death, the most constructive, wonderful gift of knowledge and dignity an expert critic could give, on concluding that a production was basically sound, but with serious flaws, would be to privately contact the director and offer to assist with advice, if it would be acceptable.

So far in my ridiculously short time, stumbling across the feet of proper actors, I have learnt from and appreciated criticism from Geoff Gibbs – (I knew instinctively he was right about my lapsing into inaudible delivery), learnt from my fellow actors, learnt from the directors and learnt from the audience.

I have also learnt as an audience member. I came away from “Skin Tight” hoping that one day, I just might be lucky enough to be involved in and capable of giving a performance to the standard I witnessed. I came away from the theatre that night, as my own worst critic.
All Good Things
Greg Ross

Dean McAskil wrote:
>
> The Meddoes wrote:
>
> >But he's never rude or demeaning, nor does he
> >set out to attack or to humiliate...
>
> your joking, right?

No. I'm not.

Offence is more often taken than given.



peace,
The Meddoes
"...sometimes obnoxious, but funny and oddly likeable."

I tend to take *all* reviewers with a very large rock of salt, given that they express a single opinion that can vary wildly from the majority of opinions about a show, either in one direction or another.
I personally find Geoff Gibbs much, much harsher about shows he dislikes that other local critics, and do think he holds a tendency to write overly savage reviews when simply negative ones would do. But hey, that's just my opinion.

There's a big argument I think towards not printing negative reviews at all, since there's little worth in them beyond being able to write some really amusing and witty variations on "this show's a bit crap". After all, why waste valuable column inches on something unworthy of attention when you could use that space to rave about a genuinely good show elsewhere in town?

Grant.

ah, once again, the ITA site has won the Patrick Spicer "Pig On A Spit" Award for Comedy Website of the Year!!!!

Results of this poll : 54 participants, 75% of which think you should NOT congratulate everyone and publish nothing.


I think it was a slightly flawed question...because it was specific on two points, it was likely to get a "no" vote even if someone only disagreed with one point.

However, the discussion that ensued about the question was valuable.

Please keep sending in poll suggestions like this...otherwise you'll just have to put up with my own...


Cheers
The Poll-tergeist

[%sig%]