September 24, 2006

The Rivals and the Circa model

John Smythe      posted 2 Sep 2006, 05:19 PM

You can’t argue with bums on seats. I am reliably informed that THE RIVALS at Circa – which closes tonight – will have played to over 5,000 patrons and averaged almost 70% capacity. (These figures were offered mid-last week, when there were about 10 performances to go to complete the 32-show season.) This answers, then, my question: why this play now?

In further support of the decision to programme The Rivals (despite its having, as I contended, nothing of value to say to us now), these are priorities stated by the director:

1.    To provide the paying public with entertainment

2.     To endeavour to secure a living wage for the actors.*

And it is important to note that with a cast of 12, The Rivals fields an unusually large cast, creating a significant level of employment. Given these priorities, no-one can argue that this production has not been a success.

*The way Circa/TACT works, a co-operative is formed to produce each show and a significant proportion of the income for each member is directly related to box-office takings. Most other professional theatres pay a set wage no matter how well or badly the show goes. This means that while Circa co-op members do well out of a hit and wear the loss of a flop, Circa itself can neither fall into crippling debt nor accumulate large reserves to, for example, fund even larger shows or take greater risks with programming.

Some people argue that while this system guarantees Circa can never go broke, it also encourages a relatively conservative approach to programming. And where relatively risky material is produced under this model, the biggest sponsors of the venture are the practitioners themselves.

None of this is to suggest that anyone can predict a box-office hit – or miss. Against the myth that conservative programming ensures box-office success, we may pit the opposite proposition: that the biggest risk in the entertainment industry is not to take a risk.

Discussion welcome.

Oh, and my review of The Rivals also attracted the following statement:

“Michael Billington made the role of the critic very clear when he lectured here – your role is to review the production and performances on the night that you attend. It is not part of your brief to belabour the public with your views on theatre programming.”

Not withstanding the minor point that I would not regard Mr Billington’s interactions with us as “lecturing”, this picks up on a forum started in May, entitled May a critic challenge programming decisions?  Feel free to click on the link, read the discussion to date and add your contribution (by clicking on “Reply to this topic”).

Simon Vincent   posted 10 Sep 2006, 04:33 PM

This topic and its link to the role of the reviewer is one I find extremely interesting. It prompted me to re-look at “The Rivals” review again. The review was dealing with the question of relevance, what is the relavance of this play today? An extremely interesting question but I wondered like the person you were quoting in this forum topic if a review is the right forum.

‘Stylish but why?’ was the title, by creating this premise the review is then limited to answering it. By this I mean all the points made are in terms of it, so all the different elements, set, costume, lighting, acting, etc. are only really mentioned insofar as they relate to the parameters created by the premise.

I suppose I find this worrying because the premise of the review, while inspired by the production is removed from the experience of the performance.  It must be because it is an intellectual idea that has been constructed and overlaid on to the production. And while it may have relevance to some parts of the performance, I would argue that it doesn’t relate to what is actually happening in the theatre between the audience and the actors, which I believe deserves more acknowledgement in reviews.

So I guess what I am saying is that discussions about the nature of relevance and the wider ideas of what theatre is, and especially what New Zealand theatre is, needs to take place and this website is a brilliant forum for that. I just wonder if  productions like “The Rivals” are getting a fair go when these discussions take place in Reviews. 

Ron Kjestrup      posted 12 Sep 2006, 11:00 AM

Surely, though, a production of a play does not happen in isolation. The context in which a play is produced, the history of the play, the background of the playwright, political or social factors –  surely these are all factors that affect our experience of the production. Isn’t theatre a social event? Doesn’t theatre reflect something of our society? I don’t see how one can review a play without including at least some of these factors in our thinking.  The question – why is this play being produced? – is surely central.

Paul McLaughlin               posted 12 Sep 2006, 01:12 PM / edited 12 Sep 2006, 01:13 PM

 Billington is quoted (above) as having said the reviewer’s role is “… to review the production and performances on the night that you attend”. This would be my first point – to review exactly that – the production and performances. So often reviews can dissolve into synopses with glib one-word descriptions of the performances given by the actors and actresses. Brief acknowledgements too for the director, designers and crew.

But how often does a review really dwell on the performance of the women and men on stage who actually perform the work live in front of you? On what it was like to experience the performance?

This leads me to where I think Simon Vincent is heading –  “…(theatre) is actually happening in the theatre between the audience and the actors”. So let us see reviewers talking more about the very essence of theatre; that delicious suspension of belief when a performer engages completely with an audience, and vice-versa. 

Our vital point-of-difference in a production of any play here in Wellington, or anywhere else in Aotearoa, are the actors, crew and design teams who make the work. I concede that a new play from a NZ writer will and most certainly should generate discussion and review, and to my mind this is how it should be. But there are also other forums where the writers’ work is assessed, ie/  Playmarket news.

To my mind readers of theatre reviews in newspapers and magazines do not want the plot spelt/spoilt out for them, they want a glimpse of the subject matter, and an objective description of how capable the performances are, and how well – or not – the players achieve this. They want to know a little about the design, the set, the direction, the music – whatever. Enough for them to come along (hopefully) – or not, this is the reviewers’ prerogative.

The G.P aren’t too interested, as Simon suggests, on the relevance of the play or the programming of said work by the theatre. I think these are important things to air, but no, not in the precious column inches of a review. My view may well be seen as swayed by the fact that I am an actor, but I also attend a helluva lot of theatre and I read and appreciate the work of the reviewers. Perhaps other readers of this site who aren’t so tied up in the business may see the subject differently; I hope to read more ideas on this.

Cheers again for the site/forum John.

Hugh Bridge       posted 14 Sep 2006, 08:04 AM

But Billington includes reviewing the PRODUCTION in the role of the reviewer. The production is the whole professional package. But even if the focus is the PERFORMANCE, if the experience of the performance is intruded upon by questions of relevance that should be included. One would do so with a book review. If one was reviewing architecture one would not ignore time and place. And the great thing about Theatreview is that “precious column inches” are not an issue.

Paul McLaughlin               posted 15 Sep 2006, 12:05 AM / edited 15 Sep 2006, 12:12 AM

I don’t wish to unnecessarily prolong this thread, but I had to laugh when reading a Letter to the Editor in today’s Capital Times (Wellington). In a response to a demand that all reviews feature the playwrights’ name, (as of course they should) the editor writes:

“…. Reviews are usually of the director’s and actors’ interpretation of a work rather than a comment on the script – thus Shakespeare might go unmentioned in a review of Twelfth Night. But reviews of new Kiwi works frequently have comments on the script and playwright. – Ed.” 

[Capital Times, 14/9/06]

I’m sure Aaron will not wish to be dragged into this little debate, but the timing and sentiment is spot on! 

John Smythe      posted 16 Sep 2006, 12:19 PM / edited 16 Sep 2006, 01:53 PM

As I see it, the creative process is driven and interrogated at every stage by three key questions: What? Why? How?

A playwright or devising group gets an idea, inspired by What concerns and/or interests them. Why should it be made into theatre? How, therefore, do we go about making it? 

A producer or director reads through plays or otherwise considers works on offer: What’s this one? Why should we do it? How might we accomplish the task?

An actor interrogates their role: What do I do? Why do I do it? How (therefore) do I do it? Designers, composers, publicists, etc, ask the same questions – directly or intuitively – in order to do their jobs in ways that serve the greater whole.

Potential theatre-goers consider their options: What’s on? Why should we choose this one? How do we go about it?

Given all this, it would be very remiss for a theatre critic not to cover the same bases: What is this play/production/performance? Why was it made / why is it being done by these people now? How are they doing it? What am I experiencing? Why does it make me respond this way? How, then, do I review it?

Simon Vincent   posted 21 Sep 2006, 09:32 AM

Yes I see your point.  When I go and see a show I take for granted that there is a good reason for putting that show on and by buying my ticket I am part of that reason. I therefore I go to theatre to have an experience and if I am not having an experience then I will ask why? The questions I come up with though are usually to do with the productions achievement of the script and the style.

In the times we live in there is huge pressure on the entertainment dollar and theatre is constantly asked to justify itself. I think this is where the question of relevance comes from. While this is an interesting question I would also ask: In the pursuit of making everything relevant to Wellington 2006 do we run the risk of blanding theatre out?

What I love about theatre is the scale of it, it’s range and its passion. Seeing people onstage taking risks and passionately believing in a cause. I agree that relevance is important but I also believe that this passion and scale is as important if not more. Where else do you see the passion Geraldine Brophy brought to Mrs Malaprop? I would like to believe this justifies itself.

Thanks John for letting us in to your process for reviewing, I commend your passion and this website. 

nik smythe          posted 24 Sep 2006, 12:07 AM

I concur with Simon Vincent’s conclusive sounding thanks to John, especially since I just saw Tao with Kate, who’s review is on the way.  My short version would be:  phenomenal. 

On giving the subject of the jurisdiction of the reviewer’s criticism some thought, I am clear that what I present as the critic is entirely my subjective impression.  I have no-one else’s to offer.  As a would-be professional I practice objectivity, but I don’t actually believe anyone can be truly objective.  So if part of my impression is feeling non-plussed as to why something is being done in the first place then that is what is there for me to express.  Not to do so would be censorship.

This has all been said really; what I really wanted to add is that I don’t necessarily always go consciously hunting for meaning, but sometimes the lack of it seems to present itself.

Tonight’s Japanese drum performance was a fine example of the sort of performance where there is no inclination to ask the question.  The classic ‘I don’t know anything about art but I know what I like’ scenario.