September 16, 2014

THEATRE REVIEWING DISCUSSED

John Smythe      posted 3 May 2014, 02:07 PM / edited 5 May 2014, 11:22 AM

In response to the ‘Theatre Reviewing Discussed’ item, further discussion on the purpose and craft of reviewing is welcome here.

James McKinnon              posted 3 May 2014, 02:59 PM

I enjoyed reading the document of the discussion in Auckland, and I’d like to add a couple of thoughts, informed by my perspective as a scholar of live performance, and an instructor of both critical writing and performance analysis.

While the document speaks to the immediate purpose of the review, as a vital source of feedback to the artist, Theatreview serves another purpose, which may be less urgent but is much longer lasting. Theatre criticism is often the only durable trace of performances and entire performance cultures. Theatreview is an invaluable and unique archive of an entire nation’s live performance culture. Usually, when historians and scholars want to know more about the relationship between a society and its theatre, it takes thousands of hours of work simply to find any data, by scanning through newspaper archives and microfiche of defunct magazines. From my perspective as a scholar, Theatreview’s value as a durable, visible cultural and historic document is just as significant as its function of giving feedback to artists and advice to audiences.

With this in mind, I would like reviewers to bear in mind the importance of documenting what the performance actually IS, and taking care that their work describes the creative and critical choices to which it refers. I do not mean a plot summary. I mean documenting what the artists do, not just commenting on it. While I take your point that (immediate and future) readers find it useful to know the critic’s frame of reference and other significant but otherwise invisible contextual factors (Sunday matinee in a cyclone, etc.), in my experience the most common flaw of reviews is that what they inform us about is the reviewer’s aesthetics or politics, not those of the work. Neither artists nor posterity gains anything from reviews that merely illustrate the critic’s taste.

Worst of all are reviews that conceal the critic’s individual taste or assumption as universals precept about what constitutes “good theatre.” Critics fail the discipline when they fail to acknowledge or realize that their criticism is grounded in assumptions — about the form, its purpose, and its history — which are not universal, but unique to them. My favorite example is a review of Harlem Duet, a Canadian play (now anthologized many times over and the recipient of a Governor-General’s award) which looks at what happens to Othello’s black wife when he leaves her for Desdemona and white society. The playwright goes out of her way to signal the deliberate absenting of white characters from the play in order to focus on how Othello’s decision affects the black community — Desdemona’s voice is heard on an intercom (the setting is contemporary) but she never appears on stage. Yet the critic, a white woman, spectacularly missing the point, described the play as a failure because it didn’t show the white woman’s perspective or tell her story. The review tells us lots about the critic and her values, but nothing about the performance.

To write a vivid description of key performance choices, which will make your evaluation much more useful to both the intended recipient and future readers who want to know what new Zealand theatre was like in the past, rely more on nouns and verbs, and less on adjectives. When you describe a performance as “stunning,” a plot as “dull,” or a set as “splendid,” it reveals your opinion, not the object of the review. Write what you actually saw, heard, and experienced, and your readers will be able to understand and use your evaluation to inform their future work. Often, what you see is not what the artist intended, and they need to know that much more than they need to know what you like or don’t like.

mark houlahan posted 3 May 2014, 02:59 PM / edited 12 Jul 2014, 04:23 PM

I thought the summary of the discussion around reviewing in Auckland was very useful. A point I would add is that the Theatreview approach allows for reviews well beyond the first night of a show if that show travels, or, as frequently occurs, the same text is picked up and performed in different places. You can read the NZHerald, say, to get a first read of an Auckland production, but through Theatreview you can then compare different productions through the country and, most usefully, compare responses to the same show as it moves from venue to venue. I hope this is useful to performers. It is certainly invaluable for researchers.

Dr Jonathan W Marshall                posted 4 May 2014, 09:49 AM / edited 4 May 2014, 12:30 PM

It’s always interesting to discuss these matters, and — as ever — one should find this productive. That said, I have a few of my own issues with this discussion.

There are to my mind two key issues: fine words butter no parsnips, or if you prefer, the devil is in the detail. Many of the statements presented here are pretty straight forward and non-controversial. The issue is rather quite what this means in practice. Im not quite sure, as a sometime Theatreview writer, that this has been fully resolved. Maybe it cant be. But this is only a start.

Perhaps the most important statement within this document is the suggestion that pieces are reviewed according to “professional standards”, a statement which is immediately qualified with “while taking their resources into account”. Few would disagree with this statement, but many would disagree with how it translates into action (how much allowance is made for this lack of resources, etc).

Also I think we need to bear in mind the key point mentioned only in passing in the TheatreV document itself: namely that writers are unpaid volunteers. Having worked for over 20 yrs as both a well remunerated critic in Australia, and as an unpaid critic in Australia and NZ, I cannot stress enough the difference this makes. Few demands really can be made upon critics who do things “for the love of it.” General principals and standards can be proposed, to be sure, but since all of us have many, many, many other things in our lives, including our full time professional employment (or full time scouring for professional employment), frankly, we please ourselves — or at least I do when I write a review. I have a personal code of conduct, but some reviews are better written, longer or shorter, etc, both according to my interest, and my time commitments. You simply cannot expect otherwise until one at the very least offers a minor koha for reviewing (I should point out I have even had to fight with some publicists to receive not just one free reviewer’s ticket, but a second one so that my partner or other person may join me in my unpaid labour — this is, when it occurs, is offensive; but alas not uncommon; are our contributions valued and by whom?).

Whilst the statement “all theatre must engage” is immediately qualified/expanded to suggest this not be emotional engagement alone, the implication remains that this kind of affective link with the production and its topic/characters/form is at the heart of all theatre, a position with which I cannot agree.

Consequently whilst it may not be entirely clear to a casual reader, I do detect a certain humanist bias in the TheatreV document. Theatre apparently should “reassure us that we are not alone” apparently; theatre is a “conversation about humanity”? Really? A play about ants or global warming seems out of the question then. Moreover do people always “want to be entertained,” however this is defined? Audiences to the recent Dunedin production of Hush, a piece about family violence, I suspect did not go to the theatre with that assumption. Theatre attendance can be a deeply unpleasant and/or disturbing experience, or even a boring one on some levels (Beckette anyone?), and still be ‘good theatre’ of some kind. Similarly the suggestion that if I dont enjoy writing a review, people will not enjoy reading it. Again, of all my concerns, whether my review is “enjoyable” (as opposed to interesting, informative, critical, provocative) is typically neither here nor there.

It is moreover to my mind, as a scholar of theatre history, frankly a bit bizarre to see a discussion of theatre start very early by citing the literally ancient Aristotlean idea that theatre is defined by the three unities (unity of place, unity of time, unity of character, or in the precise phrasing given in the TheatreV document, of “action”). Surely after Brecht, Beckett, Artaud, to say nothing of the postdramatic, the idea that theatre has such unities at its core is woefully out of date. Some theatre does, but much does not. Nor does this document seem to contenance the idea that multimedia “theatre” could count as “theatre”. Try to think of the work of Wooster Group, or others who use TV screens, internet feeds, and so on, within the theatre. They celebrate the fact that theatre is quite precisely reproducable, like other cultural objects. I (and others) would contend that a good actor or dancer (esp. and old skool ballet dancer) functions much like a kind of photocopier of theatrical performance: they are drilled to reproduce as exactly as possible a pre-existing score. All of this might see a bit esoteric, but it does mean that issues like engagement, place, immediacy, collective experience, and so on, need to be considered as important to some but NOT all theatre.

Finally, the closing anecdotes with the lesson learned “the truth works” is precisely that: anecdotal. I can cite as many counter examples where the truth did not “work”, where my review led to my being treated like a pariah by artists and even some fellow reviewers because they disagreed with my perspective and/or felt I was too harsh.

The best counter example I can give is when the Made to Move season of dance tours across Australian state arts centres was in full swing (this program is now sadly defunct), and it was publicly noted at a dance forum that one very prominent (and hence potentially influential) critic had written not-positive or critical reviews of all of the pieces which toured in the first part of that year’s program, and a prominent dance artist said that if this continued, Made to Move could be disbanded and that this harmed dance in Australia (I might add the end of Made to Move was many, many years later).

My own position, to put it bluntly, is if all the new Australian dance was indeed of very poor quality, its demise was nothing to be very upset about. Both myself and the critic in question however found we were very much in the minority, and the dance community at times treated us not well because of this.

This opens up the question never mentioned in the document: to whom or what is the critic responsible? James suggests in part to history, and since Im a historian myself, I tend to agree. Do we have a duty to the art form? As a critic of the arts in general, I feel no. IF theatre is REALLY a dying art form, let it die. I dont think it is — yet. But it may yet prove to be. And if the internet or something else takes over, fine by me really.

For precisely these kind of reasons, one of the GOOD things about NOT being paid, is that I dont have to worry too much about WHEN I submit my review (something which I know John often despairs of, but Im quite firm about this myself). It is to my mind better for reviews to be filed AFTER a show is over, since the artists themselves tend to be more philsophic and so have time to join the conversation which Theatreview states it is celebrating, and secondly because once a show is over it is IMPOSSIBLE for my review to affect the box office in either a bad OR a good way. With money and returns out of the question, it is much easier to write the “objective” review which we are encouraged to produce.

For more on such issues, see:

http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0510/08-marshall.php

John Smythe      posted 4 May 2014, 08:49 PM

Thank you for your thorough, thoughtful and insightful response, Johnathan. I’ll respond in turn as an individual and as co-writer of the summary.

For me ‘professional standards’ involve things I tend to take for granted until I see a production where some of them are absent. For text and character-based plays, for example, it includes having your lines well and truly down and knowing the job involves much more than that; having the skill to ‘be’ the character in a way that makes what they say just part of what they do. The way the cast interact with each other and the audience (in the genres that require it) is also a factor, as are levels of physical and vocal competence, not to mention an intelligent approach to the work. Well integrated design and technological elements too … or maybe they are the starting point with performance crafted to support them … (see how I am trying to include all possibilities? It’s a minefield!)  Overall, professionalism may be seen as delivering on the creators’ vision and driving objectives so that the whole becomes more than the sum of the production’s parts.

Resources-wise, it would be pointless to complain that a ‘no-budget’ a Bacchanals production on a one-night-stands tour of suburban hall does not have the production values of a Fortune Theatre, Court Theatre, Circa Theatre or Auckland Theatre Company production. The ingenuity with which a ‘poor theatre’ production delivers the essence of a play is to be celebrated and criticism is due when solutions are inept or poorly judged.

If a production is not engaging, it’s probably boring and that is usually a negative outcome unless, as you suggest by referencing Beckett, it’s inducing that state for a purpose that becomes engaging in itself when ‘interrogated’. I have often said that the only imperative I can come up with for all theatre is that is has to ‘engage’ its audience. The ways it may be engaging are multitudinous.

As for the “humanist bias”, I think I can safely say all reviewers are human (if not always humane), as are those who make theatre (whether or not they utilise whatever technology in the process) so everything created for the theatre, be it about ants or whatever, must surely come from – and be seen from – a human perspective. And isn’t global warming (your other example) also a human concern? Every language we utilise in theatre is a human construct, or at least the way we interpret it is.

Given the limited ‘shoulds’ dictated by Aristotle’s unities I purposely didn’t mention him when I adapted his terminology thus: “No matter what the genre, style or conventions employed, reviewable theatre, as an artefact, obeys the unities of time, place and action. The ‘contract’ is that those who gather at a certain place at a certain time will witness something created in the form of dramatic action for an audience to engage with simultaneously.” The point is simply that – unlike a poem, painting, sculpture, music CD, movie DVD or download, novel, etc – most live theatre takes place at an appointed time, in a designated place and usually involves some kind of dramatic action (which can include total stillness and silence, of course). As we know from Hamlet, inaction can be dramatically significant and have very dramatic consequences.

I don’t accept your “photocopier of theatrical performance” analogy. To achieve excellence, live performers – including orchestral musicians, and corps-de-ballet and chorus-line dancers, who must adhere to very strict timing and choreography – need to recreate the work afresh in every performance rather than simply reproduce it in a two-dimensional way. Likewise a technician contributing to the work needs to be more than mechanical.

There will always be exceptions so please don’t read the above as rules, absolutes or excluding other possibilities.

Dr Jonathan W Marshall                posted 5 May 2014, 10:35 AM / edited 5 May 2014, 11:21 AM

Well, of course Oscar Schlemmer, Edward Gordon Craig, V Meyerhold, H Kleist, Marcel Duchamp, May Ray, Tristan Tzara, and others would all disagree with your good self re. the photocopier analogy.

Schlemmer in particular was quite explicitly working towards turning performers into non-human (post-human?) machines for the reproduction of performance, which Kleist, Schlemmer and Craig saw as an almost spiritual act. See

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87jErmplUpA

http://www.moma.org/collection/artist.php?artist_id=5219

http://www.theasc.com/blog/2014/03/24/oskar-schlemmer-the-bauhaus-stairway-and-the-triadic-ballet/

– or even my essay on this topic

https://www.academia.edu/1489958/_Kleists_Ubermarionetten_and_Schrenck-Notzings_Traumtanzerin_Nervous_Mechanics_and_Hypnotic_Performance_Under_Modernism_

———

As for humanism more broadly, I suspect you’re being a touch disingenuous here.

By “humanism” I mean the philosophical, political, cultural and spiritual value system which emerged in the 18th cent. & which has by now become dominant within society and most of its art, despite the fact that the basic precepts of humanism — the perfectability of humanity and society, the fact that the fundamental values shared between humans of all kind are the most important aspects of what makes up an individual and which dictates the potential behaviour of that individual, freedom and hence by implication democracy as absolute values which all humans fundamentally desire once they understand them, etc — despite that all these ideas have been philosophically, politically, culturally and historically disproved, esp. following the failure of full implementation of universal human rights and the development of genocidal or ongoing repressive practices following the Holocaust and atomic war.

In short, a “faith in our shared humanity” is not something I or many contemporary theorists or philosophers share. Nor for that matter would a great many avant-garde artists, be these the Modernists and Dadaists I cite above, or the postdramatic forms to come out of Germany and Europe following the 1980s (see Hans T Lehmann).

As “humans” we have a ridiculously overblown sense of our own importance, and particularly of the importance of our affective or emotional lives. In the end, a human (philosophically and existentially speaking) has little more importance than a sea urchin, an amoeba, or indeed a rock.

Im sick of plays or art “about humans” or “about the human experience”. Frankly Id like to see art about just about anything OTHER than “a human”. In addition to Schlemmer’s incomparable “Ballet Triadische” above, one might consider one of the other great masterpieces of 20th cent., the works of Cage and Cunningham, and in particular the deeply non-human “Points in Space”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf_kLcdijz8

Whatever this work is “about”, it is not about people or humans, and as such, our response to it has relatively little to do with humans, humanity, or even normal human values.

To really “engage” with a work like this, I think one needs to get over worrying about humans, emotions, entertainment, and related values, and bein to consider other more formal, material and simply concrete things: shape, line, sound, collision, texture. These things are reproducable, and can be done in many art forms, although I’ll concede Id love to see either work live some time to guage what if any difference might arise (but I wouldnt conclude in advance any particularly significant one would in fact arise; it’s hard to tell really).

Little of which are you opposing of course, but your phrasing does rhetorically or poetically seem to place such a style of art as at the margins of the theatrical experience, whereas for me, such things should ideally be at the centre.

PS for a good example of a far more aggressively anti-humanist form of criticism, see the wonderful work of sound critic Phil Brophy

Twist and Shout: 100 Modern Soundtracks by Philip Brophy

http://www.philipbrophy.com/

John Smythe      posted 5 May 2014, 12:28 PM

Thanks again, Dr Marshall. Given Theatreview is responsive to what the makers of performing arts productions choose to create and present, and a fair bit of that involves plays “about humans” or “about the human experience” – of which you are “sick” – it remains entirely relevant to discuss reviewing from a human perspective (as well as others).

Your comment, “As ‘humans’ we have a ridiculously overblown sense of our own importance, and particularly of the importance of our affective or emotional lives” bewilders me in this context as I don’t see theatre’s purpose as being to promote such a sense of self- (or species-) importance. In fact confronting our hubris has always been a driving purpose – and as long as each generation proves fallible, gullible, vulnerable to temptation, etc, using theatre as a means of confronting, interrogating and taking responsibility for our flawed being will remain valid. Personally I see it as essential to our civilisation and survival as a species that knows it is but part of the interdependent infrastructure we call life.

And yes of course that’s not the only purpose of theatre and it is perfectly valid to see a production as an object of art in and of itself (if that is all it wants to be) rather than as a conduit to self or social awareness. (Why does “Troll, to thyself be—enough!” from Ibsen’s Peer Gynt pop into my head at this point?)

It’s good to know where your preferences lie, Jonathan. We certainly need a range of reviewers who can align with different styles and genres, critique them on their own terms, and maybe inspire others to broaden their own taste palates.

Editor    posted 10 May 2014, 12:12 PM / edited 10 May 2014, 12:13 PM

This from The International Association of Theatre Critics: 

A critic’s code of practice

Just to remind us all that this is not exactly unexamined territory:

“Theatre is among the most interactive of the performing arts. As privileged spectators, theatre critics share with audiences and performers the same time and space, the same individual and collective stimuli, the same immediate and long-term experiences.

    As working theatre commentators, we seek in our individual ways to articulate these interactions as a frame for discussion and as a meaningful part of the interpretation and significance of theatrical performance. The International Association of Theatre Critics therefore urges its members worldwide to accept as an agreed starting point the core professional guidelines articulated in this document.

    Theatre critics should recognize that their own imaginative experience and knowledge is often limited and should be open to new ideas, forms, styles and practice.

    Theatre critics should speak truthfully and appropriately while respecting the personal dignity of the artists to whom they are responding.

    Theatre critics should be open-minded and reveal (as appropriate) prejudices – both artistic and personal – as part of their work.

    Theatre critics should have as one of their goals a desire to motivate discussion of the work.

    Theatre critics should strive to come to the theatrical performance in their best physical and mental condition, and should remain alert throughout the performance.

    Theatre critics should try to describe, analyze, and evaluate the work as precisely and specifically as possible, supporting their remarks with concrete examples.

    Theatre critics should make every possible effort to avoid external pressures and controls, including personal favours and financial enticements.

    Theatre critics should make every possible effort to avoid situations which are or which can be perceived to be conflicts of interest by declining to review any production with which they are personally connected or by serving on juries with which they are personally connected.

     10. Theatre critics should not do anything that would bring into disrepute their profession or practice, their own integrity or that of the art of the theatre.”

IATC.org

Dr Jonathan W Marshall                posted 10 May 2014, 04:22 PM

Indeed. As previously noted see

http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0510/08-marshall.php

And the edition of Meanjin I cite in the article above, namely:-

search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=884426334299091;res=IELLCC

Nor indeed can I agree with the IATC here. Whilst most of this is adapted from a pretty standard journalists’ code of conduct, the line “Theatre critics should not do anything that would bring into disrepute … [the] integrity … of the art of the theatre.” As I noted earlier, this suggests theatre critics have a responsibility to protect the art form of theatre, a position I categorically reject. This is like suggesting that journalists have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of government, which they do not, esp. if they are anarchist critics or journalists.

The IATC is a good but really rather problematic institution, and does not have universal following or acknowledgement (they are less than friendly to the old TDR: The Theatre Review crew of artists, journalists and critics who helped establish Performance Studies as an academic discipline and the idea of contemporary performance as a better term for work today than a more restrictive and conservative model of theatre alone (see the suggestive claim on their website that they found the idea of contemporary performance a “challenge” to their core values

http://www.aict-iatc.org/aict-3.html

I might add it is via TDR that many of us, myself included, first heard of some of the figures and movements I mention like Schlemmer, Kleist, Craig, Cage, Cunningham, etc.

See http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/dram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDR_%28journal%29

sam trubridge    posted 11 May 2014, 10:16 AM

I would like to echo Jonathan’s observation that the document at times belies a rather dated perspective on theatre. In fact, why the exclusive focus on ‘theatre’? I review dance for theatreview sometimes, and do not know why a the AUT forum and this document deals exclusively with theatre – and a view on theatre that seems rather limited at that. – Sam

John Smythe      posted 11 May 2014, 12:44 PM / edited 11 May 2014, 03:03 PM

The hui was provoked specifically by issues of concern with theatre reviews so that is what we addressed within a small window of opportunity. The follow up commentary therefore tends to respond to that. There are many overlap areas in arts reviewing but in lots of ways reviewing dance is a very different discipline. Personally I remain in awe of those able to find the words to review dance well.

Dr Jonathan W Marshall                posted 26 May 2014, 02:29 PM / edited 28 May 2014, 11:08 AM

Interesting recent article on these topics, but cant say I agree with its upbeat conclusions: but then there are more bloggers in London!

http://www.criticalstages.org/british-theatre-criticism-the-end-of-the-road/

Matt Baker          posted 3 Jun 2014, 09:45 PM

Why was the complaint “that too many Theatreview reviews were too glowing and not critical enough” not addressed?

John Smythe      posted 3 Jun 2014, 10:40 PM

To answer that, Matt, one has to ask, by what criteria? According to which Pope?

Initially, because it was an Auckland-based complaint, I shared it with the Auckland team and we engaged in a vigorous email exchange – which covered a great deal of ground and led to our arranging the hui. 

At this point the most productive response seemed to be to check ourselves by interrogating the purpose, principles and practice of our craft. As well as producing the report linked at the top of this forum, each of us undoubtedly interrogated ourselves about how we shaped up and how we could do better. 

One by-product of it all was to add this to the homepage: “Contributing constructively to the continuing conversation …” This encapsulates our basic approach – and of course this Forum and the Comments threads allow anyone to enter the conversation.

Matt Baker          posted 4 Jun 2014, 10:49 AM

Indeed. By what criteria and in accordance with whom is an argument deeply entrenched in the writing and reading of, and response to all artistic criticism due to the subjective nature of art itself.

However, I am surprised that only the resultant report, not the vigorous email exchange, which apparently “covered a great deal of ground”, has been made available, as it does not seem to have addressed the issue that was raised. I’m equally surprised that you would rely on a question that is more often than not thrown in the face of critics in protest of a negative review, as a means of addressing my query.

You say that “At this point the most productive response seemed to be to check ourselves by interrogating the purpose, principles and practice of our craft.” I would respond by saying that while the report is certainly a constructive piece of writing and basis for further discussion, as seen in the resultant thread, you should now return to the original point raised.

Do you, personally, not believe “that too many Theatreview reviews [are] too glowing and not critical enough”? I can quite honestly say that I’ve never had a conversation with anyone about theatre criticism without it resulting in negative views towards Theatreview based on this very point.

It disappoints me that many of the people who believe this will not speak up here, either due to fear of reprisal or a reluctance to get into it on an Internet thread – though I do understand this, as I myself am loathe to get into even the most light-heartened of discussions online due to its limitations.*

I certainly do hope that those at Theatreview will indeed “undoubtedly interrogate [them]selves about how [they] shape up and how [they] could do better.”

* I am always willing to discuss my reviews with anyone. However, I prefer not to do so online. If anyone would like to discuss anything I’ve written, please e-mail James Wenley at Theatre Scenes your mobile number and I would be more than happy to call you and organise a time to buy you as many coffees for as long as you would like to talk.

Matt Baker          posted 4 Jun 2014, 11:43 AM

My point being that if this vigorous exchange generated what is (correct me if I’m wrong) the first ever established code of practice/conduct of Theatreview, surely the original provocation warrants a direct discussion.

Dr Jonathan W Marshall                posted 4 Jun 2014, 11:46 AM

I suppose the danger here is that the only way to do this is to identify specific reviews and/or reviewers as “being too generous”. One could, though Im certainly not going to. As you’ve said, one can always post below specific reviews.

It strikes me though that in fact, irrespective of this hui, no fully agreed upon or consistent criteria for quality has indeed arisen. Rather a useful, if contentious, discussion document has been produced.

It seems to me there remains some dissent amongst the Theatreview community as to whether “quality” is even the main thing we write on. Certainly it is often not my focus. I dont do star ratings, promotions, and only very rarely hatchet jobs. I do reviews.

I would suggest though that the development of a professional class of paid theatre reviewers would help (though not resolve in itself) such issues. If theatre reviewers are also active arts practitioners working within a relatively small community, there certainly can be a perception that this might affect their review. As with such things, the issue is not if it DOES affect a review or not. It is the PERCEPTION thereof. Moreover, as stated above, you cannot actually expect enforcable universal criteria if you are paying or otherwise formally rewarding your writers. That is absurd.

Partly for this reason, I never review the University of Otago Lunchtime Theatre Program (I teach at this institution, and my colleagues and staff run this program), and I rarely review works by students even if mounted independently off campus — though this is not a hard and fast rule. Im a great supporter of the initiative of some of our graduates to form the Counterpoint production house, and may well end up reviewing them some day.

The issue of “professional standards” in light of “resources” noted above is however at the crux of the suggestion that some authors may be “generous” regarding a show. If a piece is mounted by a first time theatre company on the smell of an oily rag, should we all, really, in all cases, treat them as if they are the Auckland Theatre Co or part of the Wellington Festival? I suspect not.

Rather, what this discussion has shown, is that significant scope for individual reviewers to interpret this as they feel is appropriate currently exists within the current stated editorial recommendations. Further clarification on this may be advisable as time continues, but having both contributed to this set of emails, and also had discussions with a large number of local Dunedin authors and artists, Im not sure a more rigorous consensus is either likely to evolve, or can realistically be expected of unpaid volunteer writers, so some scope to manoeuvre seems helpful.

Perhaps we should invite anyone who feels a show has been treated too leniently to contact John direct, as a way to develop a portfolio of examples for future discussion.

nik smythe          posted 4 Jun 2014, 03:21 PM / edited 4 Jun 2014, 03:41 PM

I’m slightly confused by the last few exchanges above, as I felt we very much did address the catalytic issue of allegedly excessively glowing reviews, both in the hui and the posted minutes.  We have concluded that a truthful and comprehensive appraisal is our objective, as a rule.  Truth be told, it always was mine.  Not to say it’s always easy, or that reading back through the archives I never think of things I could’ve added or put differently.

If anything, sometimes it gets so I’m afraid to honestly commend or praise good work for fear of reactionary accusations of sychophancy or whatever other rubbish.  Of course while that goes through my mind, I remain committed to sharing what is true for me. 

Frankly, it seems to me John puts every system in place for anyone’s view to be expressed, notably in the comments section below each and every review, and yet there’s still some perceived need to get us at the scource and prevent this agenda-driven undermining of local quality which we’re alleged to be committing.  When will this inquest end so we can get on with the important conversation?

John Smythe      posted 4 Jun 2014, 03:45 PM / edited 4 Jun 2014, 04:47 PM

Matt, it was never contemplated that the ‘reply to all’ email discussion that ensued from my sharing the original complaint email with those to whom it was relevant would be made public. Apart from the questions of privacy and ethics, to have published all that would have been like expecting audiences to witness the entire development process of a play.

When I attempted to glean specific examples of over-positive or under-negative reviewing, I was offered only one. It seems a bunch of actors in a bar thought a particular performance in a certain play was awful and were outraged the Theatreview critic didn’t say so. As it turned out, neither did the TheatreScenes or Herald critics. All chose to give praise where they thought it was due and all chose not to go into detail about the role in question. Because I did not see the production, I was in no position to pass judgement or pick an argument with the critic in question. 

We did, however, discuss whether it was sufficient comment to make no comment and the consensus was that didn’t serve anyone as well as more specific feedback would. Misguided, clumsy, incompetent, sloppy or lazy work must always be cited. As always if the critic has missed a crucial point and/or got the wrong end of the stick, chances are others have too – or maybe not. And of course the Comments facility is available right here for questions to be asked, challenges to be made, errors to be corrected, debates to be had. 

I realise there is an appetite out there to witness theatre criticism as a blood sport. There is a part of me that would love to be remembered for such pearls as: “He played the King as if in mortal fear someone was about the play the Ace” – provided it was an honest response.

Critics must be as brave as those they critique. Back in the 1980s, having been subjected to a review the critiqued the shape of her bum, Diana Rigg gathered a collection of ‘worst ever’ reviews from her friends and colleagues. As editor of No Turn Unstoned: the worst ever theatrical reviews, she wrote:

“There are so many wonderful qualities to be found in the theatre, and courage predominates … every time an entrance is made, every time an actor or actress undertakes the daring and delicate task of making an audience believe. Another great quality is generosity of spirit …”

As I see it, the qualities of good critics also include passion, generosity of spirit and courage.

Matt Baker          posted 4 Jun 2014, 03:47 PM

I don’t believe the issue was addressed at all actually, Nic, hence my query. Could you be more specific on how you believe this was addressed?

I’m curious to know what you believe the difference is between an inquest and a discourse. Also curious to know what you think is ‘the important conversation’. I think the unbalanced positivity of the majority of Theatreview reviews is an incredibly important conversation. (Needless to say I find it ironic that you mention ‘getting on with the important conversation’ in the same post as mentioning John’s system for anyone’s view to be expressed.)

Matt Baker          posted 4 Jun 2014, 03:55 PM

It’s not just a bunch of actors in a bar who have this issue with Theatreview, John. As I said before, many (if not most) will not speak up, which is unfortunate, because there is a great amount of dissatisfaction with what goes on on this website. I hear it nearly every time I go to the theatre.

I have never seen you concede to anything brought to attention in the comments section, John. You defend your reviewers admirably. Maybe it has happened and I just haven’t come across it, but, for me and many others, it seems fruitless to ‘debate’ anything on this site.

nik smythe          posted 4 Jun 2014, 04:02 PM / edited 4 Jun 2014, 04:08 PM

I feel this section fairly well covered it:

“There are some ‘don’ts’ to bear in mind:

    don’t vent, be bitchy, be nasty, be vitriolic;

    don’t pussy-foot around issues or concerns;

    don’t misrepresent the nature or quality of a show;

    don’t just tell the story (but indicate enough to represent its nature or support your argument);

    don’t include spoilers, especially for new work (we do know Hamlet dies in the end);

    don’t be ‘nice’ to the exclusion of truth.”

The Important Conversation is the ones directed at the works we do, that is responses to our opinions on any given specific play/dance etc.  The one about trying to hold us generally to account for projecting some nonsense wherein we are anything but as clear and honest as we can be about what we are reviewing is clearly never going to end until we either miraculously fit everyone’s criteria or are dismantled due to lack of confidence in our input.

Perhaps all these anonymous detractors can have their own hui and come back to us with this apparently feasible all-encompassing rulebook for unpaid online reviewers.

Matt Baker          posted 4 Jun 2014, 04:25 PM

Those don’ts give me absolutely no confidence that there has been/will be any change in the quality of Theatreview reviews. I shall have to wait and see how these guidelines(?) are enforced.

No one is asking you to please everyone, Nik. That’s a ridiculous notion to contemplate.

Your sarcastic suggestion of them coming back to you with “this apparently feasible all-encompassing rulebook for unpaid online reviewers” is equally ridiculous. Such disingenuous sentiments detract from the discourse at hand.

John Smythe      posted 4 Jun 2014, 04:32 PM / edited 4 Jun 2014, 04:41 PM

I really don’t know what else you want from us, Matt. I have instantly corrected errors when they’ve been brought to my attention. The rest is opinion. Theatreview adds links to other reviews, including yours, so that readers have access to more than one view. Theatreview allows anyone and everyone to have their say. We have convened to consider our craft and shared the results. This forum has kept the conversation going …

What are we to do with the information that Auckland’s theatres are full of people expressing “a great amount of dissatisfaction with what goes on on this website” – the problem being, apparently, that Theatreview has been way too positive – when since we ‘took stock’, no-one has taken issue with any particular part of any particular review.

The point about courage is the one we all need to consider.

Oh and how ironic that you should call Nik’s satirical comments sarcastic and disingenuous. I read it as a well-judged criticism that makes a very cogent point.

nik smythe          posted 4 Jun 2014, 04:34 PM / edited 7 Jul 2014, 11:43 AM

My sarcastic suggestion was in fact a genuine enquiry into exactly what you believe might give you the confidence you crave?

John Smythe      posted 4 Jun 2014, 09:30 PM

Picking up on this comment Matt: “Those don’ts give me absolutely no confidence that there has been/will be any change in the quality of Theatreview reviews. I shall have to wait and see how these guidelines(?) are enforced.”

Being the managing editor and facilitator of an ongoing ‘conversation’ contributed to voluntarily by informed, qualified and self-motivated theatre enthusiasts, I can’t say I see myself as an ‘enforcer’ although it seems you –  who have your own reviewer’s voice and platform on TheatreScenes – have appointed yourself as such. So be it.

Need I add the nature of it all may well be different if we were able to pay a tight team of critics whose major job was to write for us – as mentioned above by Dr Jonathan W Marshall – not to mention if publication on Theatreview qualified as peer-reviewed academic publication? But (also as referenced above by Dr J W M), career critics are a threatened species, and Theatreview does not aspire to being an academic journal.

Meanwhile, please also refer to the ‘dos’ in the ‘Theatre Reviewing Discussed’ document, which I remind you is notes to ourselves (yes, guidelines if you will) we have chosen to share as part of the wider conversation. I’ll reprint them here for your convenience:

In a nutshell: the truth works – at every level of theatre practice, including reviewing. Therefore do:

    acknowledge and value craft and technical excellence (name the practitioners);

    reflect back what does and doesn’t work (connecting, audience relationship, pace and structure; is it ‘landing’, are the jokes / the magic working, are the actors ‘hitting their mark’, do you believe the actors, credibility / is it credible);

    interrogate the artefact – “Who are you? Where have you come from? Why are you here? What do you want?” – in order to evaluate how it’s done;

    feel free to reference marketing material as an indication of what was purposed or promised, in the process of discussing whether or not it met its objectives or delivered on the promise;

    use language well (e.g. metaphors appropriate to the theme or content of the play);

    write the review in the present tense to represent it as live theatre;

    entertain (hold the reader’s attention).

Reviews are necessarily subjective. Where you have a clear sense that your response differs from others in the audience (not counting hyper-supportive friends and family), you do need to note that – and remember what Hamlet says: “…though it make the unskillful laugh, [it] cannot but make the judicious grieve, the censure of the which one must in your allowance o’erweigh a whole theatre of others.”

Further thoughts and comments:

By accepting the offer to write a review we take on the dual right and responsibility to contribute constructively to the ‘conversation’.

It can be a good idea to characterise yourself as an individual so that the reader gets a sense of who is ‘talking’. (When editing for sense and consistent punctuation, the editor attempts to retain and sustain the critic’s ‘voice’.)

It’s about identity: identifying the artefact, its makers, its audience, its reviewer …

What am I offering the world of theatre by being part of Theatreview?

What we do is a cultural framing; a contribution; part of the process

To be in this game you need stamina, thick skin, and a padded bum.

If you don’t have fun writing a review, people won’t have fun reading it.

Bar conversations are very different from writing a review – although overheard comments may be mentioned (but not attributed without permission).

For most practitioners (to paraphrase Oscar Wilde), the only thing worse than getting a bad review is getting no review at all. It has been said, “If we get no review, did we (our production) ever exist?”

Dr Jonathan W Marshall                posted 5 Jun 2014, 07:14 AM

Point of correction: while some professional reviwers/critics, like myself, also work in tertiary education and so may be classed as academic, many if not most do not, esp. in the past.

Michael Billington (Guardian) is not an academic — though he has been reviewing so long, he’s ended up writing books too. Leonard Radic — not my favourite reviewers, but an important Australian figure who wrote for The Age for many years — was not. Robert Brustein has worked off and on in academia, but frankly isnt much of an academic and is better know as a critic/journalist. Etc.

One should not confuse professional journalists (critics) with academics. Those who are receive financial reward for writing theatre reviews or commentary are no more academics than those who write on Middle East politics are historians or politicians. Some are of course, but most are journalists, plain and simple. And that’s actually quite something to be good at!

John Smythe      posted 5 Jun 2014, 09:02 AM

Thanks Jonathan. I certainly intended to indicate professional critics and academics contributing to journals are two distinct groups.

Lexie Matheson                posted 7 Jun 2014, 12:22 PM

Interesting. Since it’s my review of ‘The Girl in Tan Boots’ that seems to have kicked off this discussion and because Sam from the Basement believes I’ve exchanged my integrity for free theatre tickets – an especially amusing thought since I often choose to pay for my tickets – I guess I should make a comment or two. First, I couldn’t give a rat’s bum about what’s said in a theatre bar. It has no more relevance than barroom conversations about who should, or shouldn’t, be in the All Blacks. It’s talk, that’s all, and talk is cheap. I’ve spent most of the last 45 years in theatres, theatre bars, reading reviews, being the subject of reviews and generating them. If I’ve learned nothing else it’s that one persons opinion is just that, an opinion, and it should always be kept in perspective. This website has the facility for people to contribute anonymously if they choose so suggesting that someone who wants to say something can’t for fear of retribution is disingenuous and self-serving. Matt, you’ve had a bit to say on this forum but you’ve chosen, for some inexplicable reason, not to contact me direct with your criticism. You had no issue contacting me about my review of ‘Othello’ where you accused me of getting my information about the play from Wikipedia. You were wrong, but at least you did it and I respect you for that. My second point is to note that the reviews of ‘The Girl in Tan Boots’ that appeared on Theatre Scenes and the NZ Herald and my own on Theatreview were in accord about the production – no negative criticism and considerable praise. It’s not often three experienced reviewers agree but in this case we did. Maybe we were right and maybe, just maybe, the barroom bleaters are just sounding off for some reason best known to themselves. I’m surprised, Matt, that you hadn’t noticed this reviewer harmony because you write reviews for Theatre Scenes too and you’re pretty much on top of what’s happening in the reviewing world. I’m not suggesting that you have a conflict of interest in this discussion, merely that you write reviews too and often very good ones so I’d have expected you to have at least have noted this uniformity of opinion. Did we all get it wrong? My final observation, and perhaps the most important one, is that, in my case, I’m the person writing the review and I’m recording my experience as I see it, on the night that I see it and with the audience who experience it with me. If I thought for a moment that I wasn’t capable of saying what I really think I wouldn’t be doing this at all. When I hit ‘send’ to John Smythe it’s my statement that I stand by what I’ve written and I’m not especially concerned with what other’s think. It’s my reflection, not their’s. Of course the subsequent conversation is of value but that’s all it is, a conversation. We can all learn from this conversational exchange but there are times when we have to simply accept that it’s just mean spirited – and often rather nasty – sniping or self-promotion And should be treated as such.

Editor    posted 4 Jul 2014, 11:39 AM

Sent by a fan:

For not only must the text, mise-en-scène, lighting, performances, casting, music, effects, placing on the stage all be taken into account in order to arrive at a description of the stage event, but also the nature of the audience, the nature, social, geographical and physical, of the venue, the price of tickets, the availability of tickets, the nature and placing of the pre-publicity, where the nearest pub is, and the relationships between all these considerations themselves and of each with what is happening on stage. For when we discuss theatre, we are discussing a social event, and a very complex social event, with a long history and many elements, each element also having a long and independent history.

– McGrath, John. 1981. A Good Night Out. London: Methuen, p.5

Corin Havers       posted 7 Jul 2014, 12:28 AM / edited 7 Jul 2014, 12:31 AM

Matt Baker asks ‘Why was the complaint “that too many Theatreview reviews were too glowing and not critical enough” not addressed?”  If this is the comment that sparked this debate, it seems a fair enough question. Does devising a list of critics’ “rules” address the issue?

These ‘rules’ include requests that participants “contribute constructively to the conversation”; that they don’t “vent”; and that they refrain from “being nasty”.  Words defined according to which Pope? – to quote John Smythe; who later remarks to Baker – “How ironic that you should call Nik’s (Smythe) satirical comments sarcastic and disingenuous. I read it as a well-judged criticism that makes a very cogent point.”  There you go – in this case Mr Baker’s “nasty” is Messrs Smythes’ “cogent”.

This tyranny of interpretation is most insidious in the comments sections, the main place that the tiny amount of actual criticism that bravely arrives on this site can be found. The responses of Smythe and a small group of relatives and fans can be so scornful and ungenerous at times that it’s perfectly clear criticism is not welcome – witness the way Baker has been ganged up on here.

Smythe seems to have no intention of treating dissenting views respectfully, and while his idea of ‘constructive conversation’ is batting away criticism with feigned bafflement, mockery and veiled insults, who would dare or bother to join in and invite vitriol down upon their own head?  This is one way critics are silenced – and reviewers schooled in the attitude expected of them – and thus the bland culture of the site is groomed. Smythe is fond of emphasising that the site is ‘open to anyone’, but anyone’s free to jump into the lion’s den too if they’re mad enough to ignore the warnings. Public humiliation, anyone?

It sounds as if this ‘hui’ was just a front to shore up Theatreview’s position. It would be nice if Smythe could have been persuaded to encourage criticism and spirited discussion, even if it did tip over into venting and insults at times, and see its value as an antidote to those saccharine reviews. He could support those who have a go at sharing their concerns instead of muscling in himself all the time and being so defensive. He could actively seek out and nurture the brave, risky critics instead of driving them away. 

I remember a time when reviews were written for the audience, not researchers, performers or posterity. I find it remarkable that nobody in this thread has mentioned any commitment to us. What do we do now? I fear Theatreview will continue to decline into an untrustworthy historical archive for the ‘scholars of live performance’, while the audience drifts away, and the real conversations continue happening elsewhere.

nik smythe          posted 7 Jul 2014, 12:42 AM

What, are you still here?

Dr Jonathan W Marshall                posted 7 Jul 2014, 04:50 AM / edited 12 Jul 2014, 04:22 PM

As one of the reviewers who may or may not be included in the critique offered above, I want to commend the perspective (if not altogether the tone, if for nothing else because of issues of professional loyalty) the last posting.

While John is nearly the ONLY one of us who IS paid and hence whom it might be appropriate to ACTUALLY critique, Id nevertheless point to this online forum, and the divergent views — including those “within” the publication (ie writers as well as editors) — as a pretty damn generous and open way to respond. Sure, I myself dont agree with John either, but hey, he’s trying, and without Theatreview, frankly (excuse my French) we’re fucked. Australia is STILL struggling to fund and suppost Realtime Australia (my prevous publisher), and to at least have Theatreview here is frankly something we can only champion and support.

Having said that, I can only hope that amongst the divergent offerings Theatreview might give, we can move beyond what I consider an unhelpful distinction between “record” (archive, history, research) and “lay reporting”.

Let’s not kid ourselves (which I might add Realtime Australia still does)— those who read Theatreview are a very specific, and arts–if not specifically theatre and dance—audience. Of COURSE the writing is esoteric, because in the end who whom does not know something about Theatre, Dance, Performance, Art, etc, would even find Theatreview on a hashtag? This aint the Otago Daily Times folkz. Let’s admit that and move forward, not by being exclusive — I make a point of describing the show in my reviews so those who haven’t seen it might understand  my work — but not by false claims of universal accesssibility either. A specialised audience reads Theatreview.

As such, “researchers” (perhaps inadvertently? denigrated in the last posting) are an entirely appropriate audience. I am NOT a publicist. Go to the ODT for that. I AM a critic. This takes time, long reflection, a posting often long after a show is over, and sometimes too a reconsideration and rejection/recanting of earlier positions. This DISCOURSE always was and is why I am a part of this community.

JM

John Smythe      posted 7 Jul 2014, 08:43 AM

“He could actively seek out and nurture the brave, risky critics instead of driving them away,” writes Corin Havers. I would love to meet you, Corin, and better understand where you are coming from – and perhaps even manage to explain myself better. Let’s meet for a coffee and talk it all through. If you are in Wellington, that will be easily arranged. If elsewhere – just let me know and we’ll see what’s possible.

John Smythe      posted 7 Jul 2014, 12:28 PM / edited 7 Jul 2014, 02:43 PM

Corin Havers also writes, “I remember a time when reviews were written for the audience, not researchers, performers or posterity. I find it remarkable that nobody in this thread has mentioned any commitment to us.” May I suggest you read it all again, Corin? For example, 9 panels above this posting there is a list of bullet points, all of which directly address the interests of the audience.

It is fundamental to the craft of reviewing that the critic perceives and responds to each production from an audience perspective. How can we not? That’s where we sit. We have a primary responsibility to reflect the experience on behalf of the audience. Beyond that it is also useful, and professionally responsible, to interrogate a work, contextualise a production, and argue a position with a reasonable degree of specialist knowledge. Any further and lasting value a review has for researchers, etc, must surely be predicated in its meeting those core responsibilities. 

In this day and age most producers and/or productions have their own websites and/or Facebook pages where audience members can post responses without having to justify them, be they at the “That was awesome!” or “It totally sux” ends of the spectrum or anywhere in between. And some add their comments to Theatreview – which, by the way, is regularly visited by many people who are not personally involved in the performing arts except as audience members. The audience voice is more freely present than ever before in the ‘conversation’.

Personally I do not share every aspect of Dr Jonathan Marshall’s approach to reviewing (and I especially abhor the truncating of Theatreview to TV, which can be very confusing) but I wholeheartedly welcome his voice in the ‘conversation’. There is no ‘party line’ our reviewers are obliged to tread, although the present tense is preferred. Diversity is as valued here as I’d like it to be in our wider society, which is not to say vigorous debate may not ensue when divergent opinions collide.

It may be because all Theatreview reviewers (including myself) are voluntary that it could be said we do share a love of, and commitment to, excellence in the performing arts. Why else would we go out so much (at our own expense, apart from the comps) in search of excellence? The flipside, of course, is that this makes us very aware of when something is less than excellent (to which please add all the usual qualifications regarding all ‘criticism’ being necessarily subjective, which is why we publish links to other reviews and welcome comments). 

I will also admit to this (and I know many of my colleagues share this view, although it is by no means compulsory): I greatly value the contributions the performing arts community makes to our lives. I truly believe our world is the better for having their work – and all the training and expertise it takes to bring it to fruition – within the fabric of our society. That is why it is Theatreview’s mission to see it fairly acknowledged, constructively critiqued and put on the searchable record for posterity.

nik smythe          posted 5 Sep 2014, 07:19 PM

Firstly I want it to be understood I hoped to avoid having to write what equates to an unofficial affidavit, hauling over what he said and she said and I said and they said and so on.

The Fact is the reason I took on this task of reviewing was to discuss theatre. Many reviews on this website are followed by lengthy comments threads discussing the different perspectives and opinions surrounding the work itself, as is generally agreed to be the point.  In addition these work-specific threads, for some time now, we have been subjected to this persistent suggestion that we (Theatrereview and in particular Smythes) are wilfully engaged of some conspiracy.  ?!

In themselves, these remarks are mere theoretical hyperbole, unless proffered in reference to actual productions, being the reason for which these controversial principles exist after all.  We have done our best to engage openly and honestly to the general issue, ‘general’ being all we have to work with, given there have been very little in the way of specific examples accompanying these accusations levelled at our work.

The one loose example I was offered directly, regarding my review for Three – https://www.theatreview.org.nz/reviews/review.php?id=6698 – ultimately seemed to come down to a genuine difference of opinion, although again I was never actually told what my detractor thought I’d specifically said or failed to say about it.  I found it a truly powerful and original in its raw state, to the point I felt that to polish the production values too much might ultimately lose some of the work’s real essence provided by its uniquely casual, home-spun aesthetic.  But that’s just me, and I know it.

I certainly welcome any practical suggestions for how we might refine or improve our MO, as opposed to flat condemnation.  But here’s the thing – I might have a differing view myself.  If every time we respond less than agreeably to anyone else’s response to our reviews and comments we get labelled as defensive megalomaniacs, then just whose points are being unfairly disregarded here?

In this particular forum, I responded to Matt B’s concern regarding our lack addressing the issue of our reviews purportedly being excessively glowing, by pointing out that in fact we had.  He incredulously asked for evidence, and I gave it with a tacked-on remark to the effect that I have no idea what specifically might satisfy all these anonymous haters given all the effort we have made to strengthen our ideology and integrity is apparently not enough.

Was my clear evidence treated respectfully and responded to at face value?  No.  All I got was a vote of no confidence, case closed with a tacked on rebuke for being sarcastic and disingenuous, the latter of which I refute.  Both John and I asked him to clarify What More Do You Want From Us?   No response.   It’s impossible not to feel properly trolled.

Hence my comparatively terse response to Corin H’s accusatory rant, by which point I concluded he’s got it in for us and is out to get us, for reasons he knows better than me.  It seems clear he gave up on us long ago, so my blunt question is in fact genuine; pointed but not sarcastic.

I daresay those who’ve already made their minds up, or who think I have some reason to be lying about all this, will accordingly take my words here to be nothing more than defensive self-obsession.  It sure reads like that to me, hence my resentment at feeling the need to write it to clarify my position to anyone who might still give a damn about my point of view.

Herein, I declare I’m only interested in discussing matters directly relating to the work we cover.  ‘Conversations that matter’, as Corin puts it.  The focus has been unfairly drawn from their efforts to our agenda for too long now.   If we are really so toxic, it ought not be such a hard task to catch us in the act.

Robin Kerr           posted 12 Sep 2014, 11:57 AM

I’ll put my hand up! Most criticism in Auckland hosted on this platform is more of then not, too generous.

I find most reviews rarely reflect if a piece isn’t engaging or affecting, if there is some clue in the review there’s rarely any analysis of why. As a result I now distrust most reviews as a means of qualifying a work before I see it and have become a far more risk averse theatre goer. I would say in my experience that Auckland reviews end up misleading an audience to believe a piece is engaging when (most often) they are not. This is a damaging disconnect for audiences and artists and needs to be addressed.

A lack of critical anaylsis from critics prevents theatre practitioners from having a touchstone for discourse and personal professional development – and contributes to an over polite, cautious culture of dialogue about each others work. This isn’t just in the fringe/independent scene – I’ve found that the larger corporate theatre’s work tends to get glowing reviews even when the actual quality of the staged productions fluctuates.

I’m not interested in a partisan tit-for-tat but I do find Matt Baker takes a more accurate stance, and as a result I find myself more drawn to the theatrescenes website then this one – I’m glad this discussion has been provoked – and hope that those theatreview reviewers in Auckland take it to heart.

Do us all a favour and tell the world what we all really think about a piece.

John Smythe      posted 12 Sep 2014, 01:58 PM / edited 12 Sep 2014, 02:46 PM

While I am bemused as to why you have resuscitated this, Robin – hasn’t everything been said already? – I will endeavour to respond productively.

I have little doubt each Theatreview writer is sincere in the views they express.  Beyond that it is meaningless to generalise. Most of us write on behalf of audiences first and foremost and most are unlikely to see their role as giving the sort of rigorous feedback a tutor at drama school might, to challenge practitioners to greater levels of excellence. It’s fine if once chooses to do so, but that’s not our core purpose or responsibility.

Those who met to discuss what we do – as reported on 2 May – found consensus in stating (as declared on the homepage) that our aim is to be “Contributing constructively to the continuing conversation…”

In a reciprocal arrangement Theatreview and TheatreScenes have always posted links to each other’s reviews, so Matt Baker contributes to the conversation whenever he reviews a show. It’s not a competition, there is no reason to set up factions and foment antagonism, and quite a few of us are perplexed and to why this beehive of honest industry keeps getting prodded.

As for “Do us all a favour and tell the world what we all really think about a piece” …! Do you really think there is one true omniscient judgement we all share but are afraid to voice? Or are you asking for us to be pontificating demagogues who tell you what to think? 

It somehow seems relevant to add that if there are practitioners out there who fret and rage at what is being produced by major companies while they are denied the resources to get their own projects up, they must work out how to deal with that themselves. The opinions they share come from a very particular perspective and they cannot expect Theatreview to speak their views for them – although the site is available for them to have their say, preferably about specific aspects of productions rather than our reviews of them..

It’s a conversation – about performing arts productions …

Matt Baker          posted 14 Sep 2014, 12:26 PM

How dare you profess to be contributing constructively to the continuing conversation with such replies as Nik’s “What, are you still here?” to Corin, and John’s “[H]asn’t everything been said already?”to Robin.

Sam Brooks         posted 14 Sep 2014, 12:51 PM / edited 14 Sep 2014, 12:55 PM

I think the issue here is less glowing reviews and less not contributing to the public conversation than it is, as both an audience-goer and a producer, I don’t trust Theatreview reviews because of the huge amount of reviewers that review for the site. As someone who reads almost all the reviews that come out of this site out of hobby more than anything else, I find it alarming how the quality of some reviews can vary from being very well-written, thought-out and balanced to merely being a synopsis with some critique as an addendum to being three thousand word essays with little relevance to the actual production.

As an audience member, especially in Auckland where there is a large amount of reviewers for the site, I find it hard to trust the site as a whole because I find many of the reviews to be utterly unhelpful in determining whether I should see a show or not. I am very rarely allowed the opportunity to build a relationship with a reviewer, he or she has liked these shows that I have also liked so I can trust that I will or won’t like this new show that they have reviewed, which is very much the case with other places that review theatre like Metro, The Herald or Theatrescenes. I’m aware this is a logistical issue with the amount of theatre that goes on in Auckland compared to the amount of reviewers who are available or willing to commit their time, but it’s an issue I have with this website and I find it’s one that is very key to why people might distrust Theatreview as an institution.

As a producer, I have been reviewed by five different reviewers from this website (four in Auckland, one in Wellington), and while I haven’t had any major problems with the reviews I’ve received, it’s difficult as a producer to build trust in a publication when a relationship between a company’s work, whether it’s as small as my own or as large as ATC, is unable to be kept up. To contrast (but, and I stress, NOT COMPETE) I feel I can trust the reviews of Theatrescenes because I know that all three reviewers there are familiar with the work of my company and can see a progression or at least know the history of where the work is coming from. I can’t say the same for Theatreview.

None of this is intended to be vitriolic or bitchy. I am criticizing in a way that I hope is constructive and draws attention to an issue that I, and I feel other people, have, for a website that, for better or worse, does contribute to the way an audience receives theatre criticism in this city.

nik smythe          posted 14 Sep 2014, 01:51 PM / edited 14 Sep 2014, 03:35 PM

Sam, what you say is true – we are an eclectic voice, both out of logistical necessity and also because of the potential value it can provide.  As there are already 3 publications you cite with more ‘consistent’ voices on a more select range of works, I suggest our position as a less predictable perspective is worthwhile as a point of difference, if nothing else.

Matt, if you read back you can see I’ve answered every question you’ve asked, and also explained my terse response to Corin’s vitriolic rant above.  You have answered none of our direct questions, preferring instead to continue your grossly generalising unqualified denouncement of our work.  Also note what John felt professionally obliged to reiterate above had already been said. 

Apparently in your view, these isolated remarks manage to entirely discredit all the remaining paragraphs of discussion we’ve contributed.  That is your prerogative, but I ask you to consider which attitude is the less constructive.

Editor    posted 14 Sep 2014, 04:09 PM

I too understand your concerns, Sam. If Theatreview was able to pay its contributors and thus cultivate a close coterie of erudition, the whole enterprise could develop in a very different way. So let’s assume, for the sake of argument, we wanted to do that – what would it cost?

In 2013 Theatreview commissioned and published 832 performing arts reviews. At a modest fee of $250 per review, that would have cost $208,000 per annum.  If anyone knows of a sustainable source of such funding (which would not otherwise go to performing arts practitioners), please let us know.

Meanwhile we operate in a very frugal fashion. We are not a large “institution” – my management stipend is about a third of a modest management salary; the dance editor and webmaster are on very small retainers.

Nor do we claim to be ‘the authority’ handing down ‘truth’ from above. We simply aim to generate and contribute to the ongoing ‘conversation’ in a comprehensive way, including by drawing in multiple voices where available.

Where none of the reviewers explicitly recommend a show or seek to dissuade you, it is usually possible to glean enough about the nature of a work and its production to deduce whether it might be to your liking.

Dr Jonathan W Marshall                posted 14 Sep 2014, 09:50 PM

With respect John, it is problematic at best to suggest that funding which goes to reviewers takes money away from artists. I would like to suggest that

A) this is not true; arts funding is arts funding, it is not targetted to artists; most orgtanisations have “public programs” which involve paying commentators to come in and give seminars, etc; until critics are not valued in the same way, it is understandable if the level of criticism is not going to rise

B) do we really want to foster an “us vs them” mentality here; my own position as a commentator is that I am a struggling critic; they are struggling artists; we both struggle for art — ie. we’re in it together

Ive said it in these posts before, and I will reiterate here: until criticism is valued, and hence paid, it cannot be held to standards. Lobby to put your money where your mouths are, please.

Editor    posted 14 Sep 2014, 10:12 PM

I am simply trying to point out why it is that the net is spread so wide in order to get all productions reviewed. If we knew where to find $200k+ annually to pay reviewers (including myself) I would. But The Theatreview Tust will not be applying to CNZ for it in the forseeable future.

Matt Baker          posted 15 Sep 2014, 03:52 PM

I have, in the past, both publicly and privately, addressed specific issues with reviews and reviewers on Theatreview. As I have mentioned before, not once has a point been conceded. Not not retracted – not conceded. I would never ask a reviewer to retract a statement, but I would appreciate their concession in, at the very least, understanding a point raised by a commenter. Conceding to another’s viewpoint without necessarily having to abandon their own.

Many times I have reviewed people who have not agreed with things I have reviewed. We’ve chatted – in person, mind you – and come to an “Oh, I see what you mean – I don’t agree with you, but, yes, I see why you wrote that” conclusion. Likewise, I have misinterpreted things (yes, interpretation is subjective, but sometimes we are blinded by our own foibles/ignorances/etc.) and, again, having chatted in person, come to an “Oh, I totally missed that – that make complete sense to me now” conclusion.

The lack of this ability to concede from Theatreview is, I believe, why it has come to what Nik correctly considers to be generalisations. When people are specific, they are met with, as Corin says, “…feigned bafflement, mockery and veiled insults…” It is completely understandable that an offensive defence is an automatic response for many of us, myself included, but it seems that what occurs on Theatreview more often than not is a downward spiral of cyclical deterioration from the initial, and specific, comment. It goes against the idea of a “contributing constructively to the continuing conversation”. It takes away from those who truly contribute – the commenters. And, yes, Nik, you did explain you terse response to Corin’s (arguably) “vitriolic rant”, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that you still reacted that way in the first place.

Do you want to know the real irony, Nik? You have taken this all very personally (“…and in particular Smythes…”) when, at the very least, I, have never had any considerable objection to your work as a reviewer.

One of my major issues, which Sam so aptly addressed, is the plethora of reviewers on this site – including self-professed plebs on the subject of theatre criticism. I do not believe money will change it, John. I work as a critic for free and do not expect to ever make a cent from it. It is my vocation, but it is not, and I highly doubt will ever be, a remunerative one.

While we’re on the topic of funding, when Theatreview had its PledgeMe drive, they were asked “…what the money goes towards [sic] exactly?” John replied that “Theatreview pays retainers to [him] (Managing Editor and Theatre Editor) and Raewyn Whyte (Dance Editor) plus whatever is needed for web maintenance plus ongoing hosting/ domain name costs and the usual overheads.” He also said that Theatreview was “…facing a funding gap at its busiest time of year…[and]…To accomplish this work load we need a minimum of $5,000 by 14 February. Anything over that target will buy us more time as we pursue more secure funding options.”

The PledgeMe drive was set to expire on February 14th 2013, where it successfully raised $6,656.00 ($1,656.00 more than requested).

On February 1st 2013, Theatreview received $7,500.00 from the Creative New Zealand Quick Response Grant.

On March 1st 2013, Theatreview received an additional $28,206.00 from the Creative New Zealand Arts Grant.

This totals $35,206.00 of CNZ funding.

On February 28th 2014, Theatreview received $35,000.00 in CNZ funding (a year without the fringe).

Three questions:

1. Why were the PledgeMe contributors led to believe there was a funding gap and not made aware of the CNZ funding applications or the success of the Quick Response Grant?

2. When you budgeted for the CNZ applications, were you able to give a more concise breakdown than “retainers/web maintenance/ongoing hosting/domain name costs/usual overheads”?

3. If you’re only paying for retainers/web maintenance/ongoing hosting/domain name costs/usual overheads, and not paying reviewers, why then did you need an additional $5,000.00 for fringe reviewing in 2013?

Matt Baker          posted 15 Sep 2014, 04:19 PM

Oh, one last thing. Nik, I think the reason no one has told you what more they want from you, is because no one is going to go ahead with the presumption that they know without a doubt what theatre criticism or reviewing should definitively be. I certainly never would, but I would certainly be open to the discussion.

Also, I don’t know about you, but I often find it harder to review good shows over bad shows, because, for me, at least, it’s easier to identify when something doesn’t work as opposed to when it does (especially in theatre).

I think what people might appreciate is a conversation that’s not just a hui of Theatreview reviewers.

nik smythe          posted 15 Sep 2014, 06:41 PM

Thank you for your detailed overview of your position Matt.

I can state categorically that I’m always willing to listen to and consider divergent opinions and have only ever responded to people’s comments honestly and almost always in good faith (except perhaps once or twice when I have sensed my good faith being mocked or abused).  Any bafflement I have expressed has been authentic and unfeigned.

I can certainly, as I have always in principle, concede that we are all on the same side, that of Good Theatre, and that we all know differences of opinion are inevitable.  And I respectfully acknowledge that your own continued input comes from a genuine point of view, committed to the ongoing development of the artform, regardless of said differences.

In contrast, the ‘in particular Smythes’ comment was a direct address to Corin’s undisguised malice; not to cry victim about it (though I can’t truthfully deny that it irks me) but just to acknowledge the fact that it was unmistakably personal, over and above the fact that I wholly refute all his accusations and do not believe the nurturing and advancement of Good Theatre is truly at the heart of his comments.  While unorthodox and a bit cheeky, I maintain my short response most succinctly sums up my genuine point of view regarding his ‘input’, and I sincerely hope we’ve heard the last of him.

I have to leave the funding politics to persons more qualified to crunch such numbers.  It’s a fascinating debate though; like Matt, I have no expectation of being paid for my reviews.  But I definitely support any movement towards increasing the generally held perceived value of our work, as Dr Marshall suggests.

As for the shortcomings with having an eclectic voice with varying degrees of experience and eloquence, I reiterate that the situation has the capacity for distinct advantages.

For instance, one would hope any given production will have a certain percentage of non theatre-literate audience members, so there’s real potential value in getting to a novice’s perspective.  True, under this model we can’t guarantee satisfaction every time, but we continue to strive nonetheless.  With John as mentor, any passionate, dedicated newcomers have an invaluable training arena right here.

Yes I do find it hard to articulate what makes things work sometimes; then again, identifying why things fail can be equally tricky.  Good or bad, reviewing is never a complacent act and I don’t imagine it ever existing inside my ‘comfort zone’.

In summary Matt (or anybody else), if you really feel I’ve insensitively disregarded anybody’s worthwhile contribution at any time, I willingly apologise as it was never my intention.  I have certainly felt the same way on occasion, but I’ll gladly let all that go if we can just agree that The Play’s the Thing! (out of context I know…).

Raewyn Whyte posted 15 Sep 2014, 08:09 PM / edited 16 Sep 2014, 10:40 AM

A small note in response to Matt Baker who says:

On February 28th 2014, Theatreview received $35,000.00 in CNZ funding (a year without the fringe).

 There is no year “without the fringe”. There is an annual NZ Fringe based in Wellington, an every second year Auckland Fringe; an annual Dunedin fringe; and annual Hamilton fringe.

The overload points in the performing arts year for Theatreview’s writers come in Feb-March-April — with major regional festivals and fringe festivals overlapping, hugely increasing the normal rates of production in theatre and dance and comedy ; followed by Comedy Fest/Laugh festival ; and the mid-August to -late October period when the major regional dance festivals overlap with regional arts festivals, vastly increasing the normal daily rate of dance production. In these periods there is a grealy increased need to have an adequate supply of reviewers to cover these productions

Theatreview operates as a national publication — as widely as we are able within our resources and the availability of suitably experienced writers.

Matt Baker          posted 15 Sep 2014, 09:09 PM

Apologies for my Auckland-centric interpretation of John’s words.

The questions, however, still stand.

Here’s another one:

How does the increase of normal rates of production affect Theatreview’s writers in a way that necessitates additional funding?

John Smythe      posted 15 Sep 2014, 09:16 PM / edited 15 Sep 2014, 10:22 PM

Further to Nik and Raewyn’s responses, Matt:

We used to work to a calendar year.

When we didn’t get CNZ funding, the PledgeMe appeal was to bridge the gap until the next Quick response round which CNZ allowed – indeed encouraged – us to apply for. This meant we could carry on until the next Arts Grant round allowed us to get back on track – now operating on a July to June fiscal year.

The CNZ budget template certainly requires detail and of course we comply.

We report back to CNZ and Charities Services (The Charities Commission) and once lodged the latter is publicly accessible – so I don’t propose to discuss these matters further here.

Regarding your complaint that “not once has a point been conceded”, all I can say is I usually alert reviewers to comments posted to their review and it is entirely up to them as to whether or not to engage in a conversation about it.  Your latest comment concerning a Short+Sweet musical is very welcome and seems entirely valid. I do hope others join that conversation. 

To your more recent question: What we call retainers and stipends cover a fraction of what the time, effort and expertise is worth in sourcing, formatting and uploading production information; sourcing and scheduling reviewers; receiving, editing and publishing reviews; maintaining the archival record … I would like The Theatreview Trust to achieve a level of funding that would make the jobs attractive to others when I, Raewyn and/or Sascha move on – and frankly I wouldn’t mind being the beneficiary of funding more commensurate with the workload for a year or three before I hand my job over. (Theatreview is like rust: it never sleeps.)

Finally, Matt, I will be in Auckland next week on private business and attending Everest Untold (as a guest, not to review). If you are also booked in, let’s meet at Q for a chat before or after. Please email me on john@theatreview.org.nz so we can agree on a plan.

Matt Baker          posted 16 Sep 2014, 09:43 AM

Thanks. I really hope people from the production I commented on speak up as I’d love to hear if these viewpoints every crossed their minds.

I’m not really satisfied with either of those replies, so, yes, a meet before or after Everest Untold would be good. I will e-mail if I’m confirmed to review.

Editor    posted 16 Sep 2014, 11:42 AM

On the advice of The Theatreview Trust this forum thread is now closed.