Critique on Theatre Critics
Tue, 23 Jan 2001, 10:41 pmWalter Plinge1 post in thread
Critique on Theatre Critics
Tue, 23 Jan 2001, 10:41 pmI would like to start a critical dialogue on theatre critics and reviewers from the artists perspective, given that if it wasn't for the artists, the critics would be writing food columns or back page dialogues on day to day trivia. One well known and soon to be un-employed Festival Director already does!!
It seems to me that 90% of Australian critics and reviewers don't even understand their role, which is, if I'm not mistaken, to deliver some sort of guide to the general public as to the worth of seeing such and such a production. We do not need a blow by blow description of the show, nor do we want to be reaching for the thesaurus or dictionary just to be able to make sense of their budding linguistic talent.
Of course it is their opinion, (unfortunately) we can't get away from that. But, pray tell, what is that opinion based on?? How many performances is one required to see before that first review is delivered??
On the same point. If the Australian Opera can spent a few hundred grand from the public coffers to deliver a turgid re-hash that gets as well panned as a smaller, less financial companys production, why don't they include the budget for each production they review?? It would give us some form of indication as to the end value of Arts funding and a comparison as to the hardships faced by each.
To the best of my knowledge, there has only ever been one review of Street Theatre in the history of Australian journalism. For the Blue People in a shop window in Melbourne. (Hasn't that been done before??). Surely we ought to be applying the same criteria to Street Theatre as we do for the indoor stuff?? After all, isn't Street Theatre the parent company and were we to have some form of critical dialogue on Street Theatre, maybe we would get some decent fare on that particular menu, 'cause at the moment, it's in dire straights. There are lots of Walk Around Characters in places like Darling Harbour etc., hardly streets and hardly what one could call theatre. Where is the drama, pathos, questioning and probing, issues and all that stuff that good theatre is made of??
When asked why the Sydney Morning Herald would not review Street Theatre, I was told, "because there is no box office!" So it would appear that critical dialogue is only warranted when monety is at stake. But wait, methinks Festivals spend a fair amount of un-recouperable funds on Street Theatre. Is it worth it??
It seems to me that 90% of Australian critics and reviewers don't even understand their role, which is, if I'm not mistaken, to deliver some sort of guide to the general public as to the worth of seeing such and such a production. We do not need a blow by blow description of the show, nor do we want to be reaching for the thesaurus or dictionary just to be able to make sense of their budding linguistic talent.
Of course it is their opinion, (unfortunately) we can't get away from that. But, pray tell, what is that opinion based on?? How many performances is one required to see before that first review is delivered??
On the same point. If the Australian Opera can spent a few hundred grand from the public coffers to deliver a turgid re-hash that gets as well panned as a smaller, less financial companys production, why don't they include the budget for each production they review?? It would give us some form of indication as to the end value of Arts funding and a comparison as to the hardships faced by each.
To the best of my knowledge, there has only ever been one review of Street Theatre in the history of Australian journalism. For the Blue People in a shop window in Melbourne. (Hasn't that been done before??). Surely we ought to be applying the same criteria to Street Theatre as we do for the indoor stuff?? After all, isn't Street Theatre the parent company and were we to have some form of critical dialogue on Street Theatre, maybe we would get some decent fare on that particular menu, 'cause at the moment, it's in dire straights. There are lots of Walk Around Characters in places like Darling Harbour etc., hardly streets and hardly what one could call theatre. Where is the drama, pathos, questioning and probing, issues and all that stuff that good theatre is made of??
When asked why the Sydney Morning Herald would not review Street Theatre, I was told, "because there is no box office!" So it would appear that critical dialogue is only warranted when monety is at stake. But wait, methinks Festivals spend a fair amount of un-recouperable funds on Street Theatre. Is it worth it??