10 replies to this topic

[Jaybee]

A friend and I disagreed about this, so I'd love to know what people think.

On Sunday, The Observer's theatre critic Susannah Clapp began her review of Equus: "Once again, this horrible play is set to have a huge success". In other words, Equus was a play she already knew she hated.

My question is: in such a case, can it be useful, or ethical, for a reviewer to review a production of a play they have already declarred to hate, or should they step aside for someone more neutral?

[Matthew Winn]

I think it could be useful. After all, she's declared her previous experience of the play up front so any reader knows that what follows will be based on that initial view. I'd rather read that sort of review than one that silently imposes its author's prejudice on the readership in the guise of an impartial account of the production.

Besides, it's possible to be impartial about some aspects of a production while detesting others. I really hate Les Miserables, but that wouldn't stop me from giving a fair review of someone's performance in the show. So long as the writer keeps things straight in her mind, differentiating between opinions of the material under review and opinions brought from elsewhere and declaring the latter, then I don't see there's a major problem.

And, when you get right down to it, you're more likely to get an informed opinion from someone who knows the material than from someone seeing it for the first time. Reviews should be detailed and slightly educational, and in my opinion "I've always hated this show, this new production does nothing to alter that, and here are the reasons why..." is a far better review than a bland statement of whether the reviewer liked it.

[Ian]

This is an age old problem, which is only very slowly changing.

In the not so distant past past theatre-reviewers were overwhelmingly:-

middle-aged to elderly

Ox-Bridge graduates

Male

It was entirely predictable that youth-oriented drama and "frivolous" musicals would generally fare badly with the critics. Things have changed, although one major national reviewer has admitted to me that he hates musicals.

There is a dilemma here though - if a paper sends a reviewer who is bound to love a show then a series of syrupy homages appear with little critical appraisal. Which is also bad news.

What annoys me most is the arrogance of the reviewers who, in their reviews, give away vital elements of the plot, and then seek to justify it by saying "they have a wider remit than just those who might see the production". As a group they hate to be criticised themselves and get very defensive. BUT there are a lot of inept reviewers out there ....

[Jaybee]

"There is a dilemma here though - if a paper sends a reviewer who is bound to love a show then a series of syrupy homages appear with little critical appraisal. Which is also bad news."

...yes... but I work in theatre marketing/pr and I've alomost completley given up predicting what critics will like what productions.

As for plot-spoilers. Absolutely. We did a promenade Macbeth and the appearance of Banquo's ghost, with an audience completley surrounding the playing area, was one of the most amazingly simple effects and made people really jump every time. I think it was Nick de J who detailed it exactly. Spoiling that kind of thing ISN'T necessary for a decent review

[pesa]

A friend and I disagreed about this, so I'd love to know what people think.

On Sunday, The Observer's theatre critic Susannah Clapp began her review of Equus: "Once again, this horrible play is set to have a huge success". In other words, Equus was a play she already knew she hated.

My question is: in such a case, can it be useful, or ethical, for a reviewer to review a production of a play they have already declarred to hate, or should they step aside for someone more neutral?

I would agree that it is absolutely pointless to have a reviewer who goes to see a show with such a negative opinion about the piece itself.

The reviewer has to be neutral (if of course that is possible) on the material itself otherwise there is absolutely no point in listening/reading what they have to say, if you want to read a well thought out review of, for example EVITA, there is absolutely no point at all sending out a reviewer who hates all Musicals because no matter how well produced, acted or staged the piece is they are still going be negative.

[Matthew Winn]

I would agree that it is absolutely pointless to have a reviewer who goes to see a show with such a negative opinion about the piece itself.

The reviewer has to be neutral (if of course that is possible) on the material itself otherwise there is absolutely no point in listening/reading what they have to say, if you want to read a well thought out review of, for example EVITA, there is absolutely no point at all sending out a reviewer who hates all Musicals because no matter how well produced, acted or staged the piece is they are still going be negative.

That's only true if it's a bad review and a bad reviewer. A good review doesn't tell you whether you should like the show. It tells you information about the show so you can make up your own mind.

I hate Les Miserables. If I wrote a review that was fundamentally no more than "I hate this show and you should too" then it's a worthless review. (So, come to that, would be one that said "I love this show and you should too".) Suppose, however, I wrote a review that explained that I hated it because apart from the one main character everyone in the show is a flat stereotype with no depth of personality, the music is over-melodramatic, it attempts to embrace far too great a span of time to deal with any of its subject matter in sufficient detail, and the blatant emotional manipulation of having Eponine turn up at the end makes no sense within the context of the show.

Now, if you think that strong characterisation is vital, you hate melodrama, you like a show to cover a small number of events in depth and you detest emotional manipulation then you'll almost certainly agree with my opinion and you'll want to give Les Mis a miss. If, on the other hand, you're in the mood for an undemanding night out so you don't care about deep characters, melodramatic music is just your cup of tea, you prefer shows with an epic and historical feel and you adore emotional endings no matter how manipulative they are then all the things I hated about Les Miserables may be exactly what you're looking for. Because I've told you why I dislike the show you're in a position to judge whether you would dislike it as well, and the fact that I hated it isn't a problem.

A good review doesn't tell you what to think. It tells you what the reviewer thinks and why, and allows you to decide for yourself. If it doesn't do that it isn't a good review, and in that case it's worthless no matter what the mindset of the reviewer.

[pesa]

That's only true if it's a bad review and a bad reviewer. A good review doesn't tell you whether you should like the show. It tells you information about the show so you can make up your own mind.

I hate Les Miserables. If I wrote a review that was fundamentally no more than "I hate this show and you should too" then it's a worthless review. (So, come to that, would be one that said "I love this show and you should too".) Suppose, however, I wrote a review that explained that I hated it because apart from the one main character everyone in the show is a flat stereotype with no depth of personality, the music is over-melodramatic, it attempts to embrace far too great a span of time to deal with any of its subject matter in sufficient detail, and the blatant emotional manipulation of having Eponine turn up at the end makes no sense within the context of the show.

Now, if you think that strong characterisation is vital, you hate melodrama, you like a show to cover a small number of events in depth and you detest emotional manipulation then you'll almost certainly agree with my opinion and you'll want to give Les Mis a miss. If, on the other hand, you're in the mood for an undemanding night out so you don't care about deep characters, melodramatic music is just your cup of tea, you prefer shows with an epic and historical feel and you adore emotional endings no matter how manipulative they are then all the things I hated about Les Miserables may be exactly what you're looking for. Because I've told you why I dislike the show you're in a position to judge whether you would dislike it as well, and the fact that I hated it isn't a problem.

A good review doesn't tell you what to think. It tells you what the reviewer thinks and why, and allows you to decide for yourself. If it doesn't do that it isn't a good review, and in that case it's worthless no matter what the mindset of the reviewer.

I certainly don't read a review to help me to decide what to think, even if a show is slated if I want to see it I will but I still stick with my original point in that you will not get a balanced review if the reviewer cannot get past the fact that they hated it before they even entered the Theatre to see the show.
I want to read (and only read) their opinions on the stageing, acting and overall interpretation of the piece etc.

This reviewer had nothing else to say other than they had always hated the play and I'm not really interested in that point alone.

[El Peter]

Critics have their prejudices and, without the critic going on about it at length, it is helpful when a critic signals prejudice to readers. For if what follows is scathing, then the reader can make allowance for the prejudice. If, however, despite a critic's usual dislike for whatever it is, it transpires that in this case he or she is impressed or won over in some way, then the reader knows that this is praise indeed.

All the above applies when productions open and a media organisation employs reviewers who must review productions regardless, i.e. that is their well-defined job and they must do it. Then, I'm still happy that a relevant prejudice is signalled.

Different, to me, however, is the situation where a reviewer is not handed a consignment but rather expresses a desire or intention to review a certain play, film or book because he or she has an axe to grind, and then gets to indulge themself in print.  

[curzon]

A particularly bad example of predjudiced critics is Nicholas de Jongh's long term rubbishing of Antony Sher. I notice this now extends to Sher's life partner, Greg Doran.

Sebastian

[Lynette]

When oh when will the Evening Standard find a new theatre reviewer? Nde J is usually wrong. Surely these jobs are not for life? Do we have to stage a real life Inspector Hound with invited audience in order to get some new blood ?