October 4, 2015

Can productions choose not to be reviewed?

Editor    posted 23 Aug 2015, 08:47 PM / edited 23 Aug 2015, 08:48 PM

Can professional-level performing arts productions choose not to be reviewed?

Development seasons and preview nights aside, once a show has opened to the public, charging the usual price for tickets and competing with other shows for audiences, who gets to say whether or not it is reviewed and by whom?

A producer may decide who to give comps to. And once they have given comps for review, they are entitled to expect a review to be published. That is the deal.*

But if reviewer comps are not offered, may a reviewer pay for their tickets and review it anyway, in order to

a) maintain their service to the public / potential audiences

b) contribute to the historical record of performance practice

c) maintain their ongoing commentary on the work of practitioners and/or what is presented at a particular venue?

Or would it be unwise for editors and publishers of established organs of performing arts criticism to set a precedent by paying for tickets in order to run a review?*

Also, should a production that does not invite reviewers who are judges for annual theatre awards still be entitled to be considered for awards? It those reviewer/judges are offered comps but still asked not to review, should that request be complied with?

BACKGROUND

Back in 2007 the Royal Shakespeare Company withheld invitations for the usual slew of critics to review King Lear – directed by Trevor Nunn, starring Sir Ian McKellan – until Frances Barber, who had performed as Goneril in previews but injured her knee before opening night, was able to reclaim her role on 31 May, a full nine weeks into the 12-week run. On 7 May, The Guardian published a negative review by Germain Greer (whose ticket was paid for). Two days later The Guardian published links to unsolicited online reviews and invited its readers to submit their own reviews. Of 16 responses, most validated Greer’s review (whether or not they had seen the production), some were critical of The Guardian for complying with the exclusion of professional critics, and one posted a positive opinion.  Michael Billington’s review appeared on 1 July 2007 and was very positive.  (It came to Wellington and Auckland in August 2007.)

*When Billington was a guest of the NZ International Arts Festival in 2000, he mentioned a legal opinion that being invited to review a show protected them and their publishers from libel suits, no matter what they wrote.

Jeremy Elwood posted 23 Aug 2015, 11:18 PM

Yes, of course they can. Especially in this era of website reviewers who have little or no credibiltiy outside of the abilty to register a domain name. I find it interesting that your second sentence reads (paraprasing) that when a producer provides comps they should expect a review. In many cases (and. genuinely, not applying to this website, you’re actually very reliable) that simply is not what happens. I comped at least a dozen reviewers into my recent production(s) who either RSVP’d and didn’t turn up, or came and never wrote a word. When that’s the level of respect shown, then if a production decides to ban reviewers outright, who can blame them? I have no issure with poor reviews. I can’t stand freeloaders.

John Smythe      posted 24 Aug 2015, 12:03 PM

I agree absolutely with your last point, Jeremy, having been in the same position myself this year.*

My forum question relates to a show which is opening in Auckland then coming to Wellington. Publicity suggests it approaches its subject matter in an innovative way. Theatreview is not invited to review because (as I understand it) there is a perceived inconsistency in the quality of our reviews because, in Auckland especially and everywhere during Fringe and Regional Arts Festivals, it is necessary to call on a large number of reviewers to ensure the fields are covered. 

Do I:

    Accept a comp as a Theatre Awards judge despite being asked not to review it?

    Assert that if Theatreview may not review it, I consider it ineligible for Awards considerations (see * below) and therefore decline the comp?

    Set a precedent by paying for my ticket and reviewing it anyway on the grounds that

    – the public is entitled to see reviews and

    – the historical record on Theatreview will be more comprehensive with its inclusion?

    In which case, should it return to being awards-eligible?

It is doing my head in, trying to work out what is fair and honourable, hence my recourse to the forum.

*Further to your last point, Jeremy: in Wellington four of the six awards judges are critics and I would have thought productions were entitled to expect reviews from the critics who are also judges. (As a judge myself I always try to review eligible shows but where it’s not possible to do so on opening night, another is appointed and I catch up with it later in the season. Either way, the show gets reviewed.)

Dean Hewison   posted 24 Aug 2015, 01:13 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but to the best of my knowledge a professional production has never been ineligible for theatre awards based on the fact that it didn’t get a review on theatreview… that would be an extremely weird precedent.

Jeremy Elwood posted 24 Aug 2015, 02:19 PM

I would consider being a critic and a judge as two different jobs, even though they’re the same person. I can imagine a situation where something you may not necessarily critically like could still be considered for an award – a best newcomer award, for example. Happens all the time in comedy, where someone may attempt an audacious show concept, and whilst they may not pull it off as well as I may like, I can appreciate the ideas behind it.

In terms of your specific dilemma, I believe that if the production has specifcally asked not to be reviewed you should respect that, but it doesn’t preclude you attending as a judge.

John Smythe      posted 24 Aug 2015, 04:54 PM

Quite right, Dean. But is there not a logic in suggesting that opting out of being reviewed means opting out of being judged in every respect?

Adam Goodall    posted 24 Aug 2015, 05:27 PM

“Quite right, Dean. But is there not a logic in suggesting that opting out of being reviewed means opting out of being judged in every respect?”

With all due respect, John, I’m struggling to see the logic you think is there. Expressly not inviting a site to review a show is not the same as expressly not inviting a judge for a community awards ceremony to judge the show. While reviewers from each region are essentially the selection panel for those awards, reviewer and judge are two different hats, and must be two different hats; I can’t imagine anyone in any region’s theatre community would celebrate an individual reviewer being able to veto someone’s work on the basis that they’d not offered that reviewer or their publisher comps for reviewing purposes. That’s a punitive response and brings an element of bad faith into proceedings.

John Smythe      posted 24 Aug 2015, 08:42 PM / edited 27 Aug 2015, 09:19 AM

I get what you are saying Adam … But when I joined the panel, the Chapman Tripp Theatre Awards were a Critics’ Awards. It was a given that the critic /judges would see every eligible show, and that putting the thought and effort into reviewing each work would add to their capacity to compare, contrast and judge.

Of course the steady increase in co-op shows over the years has meant it is sometimes hard to honour this ideal in the observance. One does one’s best. And whether I review a show or not, I do edit and publish all theatre reviews which inevitably stimulates me to consolidate my own evaluations. So for me, at least, the role of critic and judge are interconnected.

When it came to judging, when a critic had not seen a show that was clearly in contention, or when they had a conflict of interest, they would step out of the judging round – and that is still what happens with the current judging panel.

This is why my gut feeling is/was that a show that wants to opt out of Theatreview reviews yet be in contention for the awards is compromising the process. The immediate question, then, is whether I accept a comp as a judge alone, return the compliment by choosing to opt out up front, or buy a ticket and keep my options open.

Adam Goodall    posted 28 Aug 2015, 04:55 PM

John, all I can do is echo Dean’s comment – it would be a extremely weird precedent if Theatreview could veto a production’s eligibility for a regional Theatre Awards ceremony because a production had decided not to comp the site. I don’t believe any of the other judges have that veto power, and if you gave every judge that power then surely the situation would devolve into farce; I’d also be surprised if you agreed with such a policy given that you’re not exactly being shy with your view that the other judges aren’t ‘putting in work’, so to speak (“I would have thought productions were entitled to expect reviews from the critics who are also judges”, “when I joined the panel…It was a given that the critic/judges would see every eligible show”).

I think your reference to this as “returning the compliment” is really telling, and it’s disappointing. “A producer may decide who to give comps to” should really be the beginning and the end of this. Sometimes producers aren’t going to see eye-to-eye with your site’s values or execution of them, that should be a given; I would’ve expected it to be the place of the judge – a judge who is usually comped to the show separately of their capacity as a reviewer, a convention that’s dated back as far as I can remember – to deal with the work on its own terms, rather than carry into the room the producer’s view of their site. It’s not about “returning the compliment” or otherwise coercing producers into giving a writer comps for their review *as well as* comps in their capacity as judge.

One final thing: you say that when you joined, the Wellington Theatre Awards were a “Critics’ Awards”. Regardless of their origins, awards like these gain their credibility from the community. I can’t imagine a community feeling comfortable with lending an awards ceremony credibility if they feel they are being dealt with in bad faith and if they feel like they’re being judged on more than the quality of their work. Now if you feel that the producer who refused you comps isn’t dealing with you in bad faith and that overrides the fact that they offered you a comp in your capacity as a judge of the Theatre Awards, *independent* of your role as Theatreview critic, then say it. But that’s not really what you’re saying right now.

John Smythe      posted 28 Aug 2015, 05:38 PM

Thank you all for helping me to think this through.  I have purchased tickets, will see the show, will not post a review, will consider it an award-eligble show.

John Smythe      posted 8 Sep 2015, 12:47 PM / edited 8 Sep 2015, 12:56 PM

So I did go to Stutterpop at Bats last Thursday night. If you judge a play by how much it inspires a dialogue within yourself the process of its performance, then this hour-long piece delivers the goods.

Best known as a prolific playwright – Goddess and Mab’s Room (Sep 2012); And I Was Like … Talk To Me (March 2013); Queen (Apr 2013 & Feb 2014); Another Dead Fag (Oct 2013); Riding in Cars with Mostly Straight Boys (Feb 2014); Wine Lips (Aug 2014)* – Sam Brooks employs a number of strategies to share his experience as a chronic stutterer and as a young gay man.

Having produced and sometimes directed the plays he has written, this is his first foray into performing. Many stutterers have taken to singing, performance poetry and acting as a means of gaining fluency in speech but that is not Sam Brooks’ purpose here. He is inviting us to understand how it is for him, not least as a person who has found the usual forms of speech therapy are not for him.

By starting with lip-synching – to Cheryl Cole’s ‘We Gotta Fight For This Love’ – he creates a meticulously crafted illusion of vocal fluency. I ask myself: is it lip-sync or could he really be singing? It’s that good. Further forays into lip-synching – ‘Teenage Dirtbag’ by Wheatus; ‘If You Gonna Go (then go)’ by Frazey Ford – culminate in Amy Winehouse’s ‘Love Is a Losing Game’. I think they are all Cheryl Cole covers, though (correct me if I’m wrong).

Two dancers – 1m, 1f (sorry I don’t have their names) – shimmy and shake the classic ‘commercial’ show-biz moves alongside Sam. While all three dance in impressive unison, he thrills at the sexiness of it all while she is resolutely poker-faced and unsexy: an intriguing twist on the usual style. These song and dance sequences give heartfelt voice to the feelings that underlie a story which otherwise unfolds in a different way.

Sam’s ‘drag’, by the way – sparkly black shift, black tights, high-heeled platform shoes but no wig or feminised makeup – is more Eddie Izzard than ‘Lilith’ or ‘Rhubarb Rouge’. While the life-to-date story he tells is laced with dry wit, it’s not stand-up comedy. It is a simple attempt to tell his story, impeded by a very vocal stutter: “Yeh yeh yeh yah …”

When phrases do slip out they are entirely natural and pleasantly modulated. Indeed he has introduced his guest actor – Simon Haren this night – and made other odd comments without impediment. So the next question I’m asking myself is: is this stutter for real right now or a recreation of how it can be for him? And does it matter either way?

Off to one side at the sound console and nursing a guitar is Adam Orge, who sets time limits on Sam’s attempts to speak. Adam’s persona is also intriguing; not so much impatient as a rigorous time-keeper ensuring the show will go on regardless. Inevitably Sam’s allotted time runs out and he is buzzed off, raising a middle finger to Adam as Simon takes over, reading from a script held by the male dancer who clearly relishes his subservient role. And now the theatrical dynamics become even more intriguing.

As Simon reads, Sam struts about in his noisy high-heels snapping his fingers at operator Uther Dean for a random change in the lighting state, and barking instructions at Simon to be like X or say it like Y. Audience sympathy vacillates between Sam, as his story is revealed, and Simon, who takes the orders in good heart, of course, enjoying the challenges thrown at him.

The sweet and sour tale of Sam’s compulsion for falling in love with straight guys, finding ‘the one’ then suffering heartbreak, takes second place to these performance dynamics – and fair enough, I guess, as it is stuff that has informed and infused his plays already. Which is interesting in itself. Is he a better writer, perhaps, for being denied vocal eloquence?

Meanwhile, how do we judge this dictatorial control-freak on stage? Is this also all for show – and if so to what purpose? Is this Sam’s means of reasserting power and reclaiming the space; his dramatisation of that desire? Given there are glimpses of a kind and forgiving Sam too, when the odd stuff-up occurs – that could well be an intended part of the show as well – I enjoy having these questions to wrestle with. 

What, then, is Stutterpop? It’s not therapy on stage. It’s certainly not a plea for pity. It is a highly theatrical manifestation of a state of being that enriches our understanding of how it is to live with a limit on one’s natural human desire for self-expression. It shines a whole new light on the notion and value of ‘freedom of speech’. I’m glad to have seen it.

[Sam also writes about his stutter on The Wireless.]

Hovik Knut          posted 8 Sep 2015, 01:36 PM / edited 8 Sep 2015, 01:42 PM

John, it feels really weird and gross of you to review the show you said you wouldn’t review. Especially considering you did it in the very thread where you said you wouldn’t, in the very post after you said you wouldn’t. Just wondering what you’re thinking in doing this is? I just don’t think you have the level of good will that you think you do to be pulling shit like this.

Also, just as constantly questioning whether the improv you see is actually improvised, the fact that you imply that Sam is exaggerating/faking his stutter is appallingly mis-judged and exactly the kind of behaviour that makes practitioners work hard (unsuccessfully it seems) not to be reviewed by this site. Also, the fact that you are paid to write just bizarre, unwarrented editorising, revealing more about yourself than the work, by the tax-payer really puts a bad taste over the whole thing.

Like, John, I know this is your domain and you can do with it what you want. But, what do you want?

John Smythe      posted 8 Sep 2015, 03:14 PM

Theatre can change perceptions, Hovik – and it is wonderful when it does.  Stutterpop shifted my perpective on the rights to freedom of speech/ self expression which I see as a core theme of the piece. It is not posted as a review but as personal response-cum-opinion piece in this forum. I endeavour to be quite clear at the outset that I am sharing the questions, thoughts and feelings the work provoke in me as I am watching it, moment by moment.

I was not paid to write this – nor am I paid to write any of my reviews. I am paid as Managing Editor to manage the theatre content and other aspects of the Theatreview operation. Stutterpop received Creative NZ funding to be developed as a play (which I had not realised before). It was presented in a public venue, tickets were sold, it exists to be witnessed and responded to by audiences.  That’s what theatre is; that’s what theatre does.

Angela Green     posted 9 Sep 2015, 07:41 PM

While I’m sure it wasn’t your intent to be malicious, John, I too think it gross and weird that you posted your response to the show and have this response linked to your “should I-shouldn’t I” thread above.  Especially as you say you wouldn’t review it.  It’s splitting hairs to say it’s not a review but a response, when this is a reviewing site.  It also goes against the good faith the producer extended by offering awards comps, and politely requesting it wasn’t reviewed by the site.

Shannon Friday posted 9 Sep 2015, 07:44 PM

I think, John, that this is literally not the forum for posting your opinion about a show, personal or professional. Posting a personal opinion about Stutterpop in this thread, where you make it very clear you are unhappy with an anonymous show’s decision not to be reviewed by the site, opens you up to all sorts of allegations about conflicts of interest and unfairly calls out Stutterpop as the show that didn’t want to be reviewed. If not being reviewed is the decision that the makers of such a fine piece of theatre made, they deserve to have that decision kept private.

Posting here opens you to all sorts of allegations simply because of your role as the managing editor of the site, regardless of what your opinion of the show might be or whether you got paid to review it specifically. There is an overall assumption with a site like Theatreview, which only hosts theatre-based content (and mostly reviews at that), that these are artistic judgments. And as editor, you have the priviledge of mediating those judgments, but not to override them.

I would consider it a very different matter if you were to write a post on Facebook recommending the show to any Auckland friends who are on the fence about seeing it. For me, the overall assumption of Facebook is that it is a social network and place for sharing resources and personal opinions.

This event, along with the kerfuffle surrounding “Where There’s a Will” and the fact that only half the shows that Toi and VUW do get reviewed, makes me really eager for a public, transparent editorial policy for the Theatreview website. This would answer a lot of  questions about where is an appropriate place to post a review, where to post a personal opinion, and how to handle potential conflicts of interest in reviewing.  I would find it helpful as a reviewer and as practitioner.

John Smythe      posted 9 Sep 2015, 08:19 PM / edited 4 Oct 2015, 01:56 PM

All this distresses me greatly.  My attempts to be open and transparent just get me into deeper water. Three things decided me on posting about Stutterpop: it received CNZ funding as a play and therefore is accountable; it was reviewed in the Dominion Post; its central theme about freedom of self expression made it especially appropriate.  I don’t think I have said anything malicious or libellous. My observations are simply offered as part of the onging conversation about professional theatre practice in New Zealand – take it or leave it, it is not compulsory to read it or believe it.

The policy statement you request is forthcoming, Shannon.  As for your question about reviews of drama school and university shows:

Graduation shows are reviewed (3rd year acting; major productions of MTA directing students) because practitioners have invested considerable time and commitment into becoming professional and are ready to present themselves to the industry.

Some 3rd year university shows are reviewed at the discretion of the editor because they are works, usually classical, that we are unlikely to see in any other forum.

Editor    posted 9 Sep 2015, 08:20 PM

POLICY STATEMENT

Theatreview’s mission is to review professional performing arts throughout New Zealand, as constructive contributions to:

    the public for whom the work is made and on whose behalf the critics write 

    the professional practitioners who create publicly available shows and need to see what they make reflected

    the ongoing conversation of which its reviews, comments and forum discussions are parts

    the historical record of performing arts practice in New Zealand – an ephemeral art form too easily forgotten if it is not written into the record. 

Theatreview receives public funding to fulfil this mission.

It is therefore understood that any production in the professional domain is up for review (unless it is a development season offered for koha or cut-price tickets, or a special fundraising event).

When a production is listed as ‘Coming up’ on Theatreview that means it is coming up for review.

Also, given the above, it is logical that any professional production wishing to be considered for professional performing arts awards will be up for review.

Hilary Penwarden            posted 9 Sep 2015, 09:22 PM

Doesn’t this come down to respecting people’s wishes? This policy statement doesn’t say anything about conflicts of interest or ethical treatment of fellow practitioners – it reads more as a self-made licence for the site to review anything it decides to whether people want them to or not.

f prendergast     posted 9 Sep 2015, 09:56 PM

John, I’ve checked carefully and there is absolutely nothing in the terms and conditions regarding ‘reporting back’ in a contract with Creative New Zealand that says ‘Accepting this funding means you must be reviewed by Theatreview.’ Until we see newspaper headlines that say ‘Public outraged by show’s request not to be reviewed on Theatreview’ it is not up to you to decide what constitutes public accountability.  

John Smythe      posted 9 Sep 2015, 10:27 PM

The statement aims to articulate the arrangement that has existed between the professional performing arts and the fourth estate for a very, very long time, as it applies in the Theatreview context.

For me it is about professional respect for an art form that is all about connecting with audiences in the public domain in a free and open way. Clearly there are differing views about the rights, responsibilities, standards and ethics that attend each role in the process.

If someone wishes to convene a stakeholders’ meeting to talk all this through, air grievances and seek a resolution, perhaps through the agency of an independent mediator, I will make myself available at a mutually agreed time and place. Meanwhile I do have a pressing deadline so please excuse me if I leave it at that for the time being.

Barnaby Fredric                posted 10 Sep 2015, 01:22 AM

Stop being so stubborn and just respect peoples wishes as a human being. You are one of those right, not a reviewing robot?

Corin Havers       posted 10 Sep 2015, 01:17 PM

John, you say – “The statement aims to articulate the arrangement that has existed between the professional performing arts and the fourth estate for a very, very long time…”

Well, also “a very very long time” ago, everyone wanted to act like Laurence Olivier – but not any more.  Clearly – like just about every other aspect of theatre since the 1950s –  things have changed, and this “arrangement” you refer to urgently needs to be renegotiated. Accept that theatre critics no longer have the power they once had. I suggest you do yourself a favour and try to be part of the solution. 

Shannon Friday posted 10 Sep 2015, 05:34 PM

I couldn’t sleep last night for thinking about this, so I stayed up and made a draft reviewing policy that expands on (and occasionally contradicts) the policy John proposed.  John’s idea of a stakeholder meeting to create such a document is an excellent one — how do we arrange that?

Since my day job sometimes involves writing/proofreading and assessing policy documents, I thought it might be easy to start with a draft and work from there.  Here is my submission:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1roV6wKSR8j6eXCJVzP6FO-ly-bGqQdmt4J9bFSwa_4w/edit?usp=sharing

Anyone with the link to the document can comment; please keep it professional and respond to the document rather than making personal comments about each other.

I’d write it all here, but it is 5 pages long because that’s what happens when I can’t sleep.  It covers such topics as Theatreview’s mission statement (hate that phrase but don’t know a better one), what shows are eligible for review, quality expectations for reviews, complaints, conflicts of interest, and other resources for documenting theatre in New Zealand.

The material in the draft policy comes from the “Request a review” page on Theatreview, the news item “Theatre Reviewing Discussed”, and the forum threads “Theatreview’s management of conflict of interest”, “WHY THEATREVIEW AVOIDS THE STAR SYSTEM IN RATING REVIEWS”, “THEATRE REVIEWING DISCUSSED”, and comments on this thread.

My goal in writing this is not to undermine the work done here or by this site in the past, but rather to create a way we can keep artists and reviewers (some of whom flip back and forth between roles) working together in the future.  I think Theatreview is amazing — I wish most cities in the USA had something like it — and I want to see it keep going in way that is valuable for the folks coming to it.

John Smythe      posted 10 Sep 2015, 06:02 PM

Thank you Shannon! There is no way I will be able to engage with it until mid-next week so I’m looking forward to everyone else’s responses too.

Chris O’Neill        posted 16 Sep 2015, 03:55 PM

Hi All,

BATS is happy to provide a free space for a mediated meeting if there is a desire to explore this further. We can also arrange a trained facilitator from outside the sector at no cost.

If someone wants to take the lead on organising this please post below and get in contact with Harriet (harriet@bats.co.nz) to work out possible times.

John Smythe      posted 17 Sep 2015, 10:30 AM

Thank you Chris. I look forward to getting the call.

Shannon Friday posted 18 Sep 2015, 04:30 PM

Awesome — thank you, Chris!  I’ve just emailed Harriet, and we’ll see what we can work out.  Hopefully we can get something going soon.  The offer of space and mediator are both totally appreciated.

Harriet Denby    posted 22 Sep 2015, 12:52 PM

Kia ora All,

I have been in contact with a possible mediator for this forum, and will be able to confirm a date and time shortly. I will update as things come into place.

The proposed possible dates for this forum are as follows: Wednesday 30th September, Thursday 1st October, Saturday 3rd October. Watch this space.

Cheers,

Harriet.

Harriet Denby    posted 25 Sep 2015, 02:44 PM

Kia ora All,

We have a confirmed date and time for our forum on this topic:

Saturday 3rd October, in The Studio on the top floor of BATS Theatre, 1 Kent Terrace. The morning will start at 10.30am sharp and we hope that the discussion will come naturally to a close by about 1pm.

More details on the morning’s agenda and our mediator for the forum to follow on Tuesday 29th September – I will post them here.

Many thanks,

Harriet

On behalf of Harriet Denby          posted 3 Oct 2015, 10:13 AM

10.30am start, 1pm finish at BATS on the groundfloor (not the Studio after all).

Becky Rogers is the name of our mediator. She mentioned that she thought it would be useful to build a collective agenda and go from there.

Adam Goodall    posted 4 Oct 2015, 09:34 PM / edited 4 Oct 2015, 09:56 PM

Hi everyone,

I’ve compiled a Google Doc here that charts the course of the discussion here – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1es0JVdCnLfpPVG2Ac0B0nLuQ1werdRDhVQoEtfwGcjI/edit. The link allows people to comment if they feel I’ve accidentally misrepresented something they’ve said or if they want to highlight something for discussion in the upcoming Loomio thread. I’ve tried to capture and summarise the flow of the conversation as accurately as possible, so please rest assured that any mistakes or fudges are totally unintentional. Cheers!