This is taken from a paper I wrote about 'The Embedded Critic' for my MA Theatre Studies:
In the Style of The Stage
Analysis and
Opinion Section
The “Embedded
Critic”
What
Do They Write and Where Do They Stand as Critics?
The sub-culture of Theatre Critics and
Theatre Criticism that exists in London is a special little community. This community
consists of all sorts of writers, from some of our newspaper favorites like
Michael Billington, who has been reviewing since my parents were children, even
to the online bloggers, like Matt Trueman whose articles are even commonplace
here on The Stage. I myself am fairly
new to this world of London Theatre Criticism and currently exist within the
sphere of the common, unpaid blogging reviewer with the occasional spot in a
student newspaper. To the average reader, the Blogger may seem to be the newest
incarnation of the Theatre Critic, but it may be a surprise to some, as it was
to myself, that bloggers are now commonplace and a new type of ‘critic’ has
come into the theatrical community.
It wasn’t until this past September when
I attended the Critic’s Circle Centenary Conference that I first heard the term
“Embedded Critic.” In my mind, I pictured a member of the company, one of the
actors or the director, secretly and frantically pounding away at a typewriter
in their rickety old room opposite the Moulin Rouge, writing criticism on their
own and their colleagues’ work. As bohemian and romantic as I like to think
this daydream is, it turns out that the Embedded Critic is a type of theatre
journalist. From what I understand, the Embedded Critic is still a somewhat
ambiguous role and can be approached from a number of different angles. The
standard, from what writers like Matt Trueman and Melissa Poll have led me to
believe, is a person who sits in on the rehearsal process, but is not directly
involved in the creation of the work.
They comment on and write about the work from the perspective of someone
who has seen the entire process through to performance. But I find myself wondering,
is this true criticism? To explore possible answers to this question, I shall
discuss the role of an Embedded Critic and try to decipher whether their work
can be filed under the tab of “Theatre Criticism,” and where the future for this
type of theatre writing may lie.
With such a new term, I find I must
strive to be indisputably clear by what is meant when I speak about the
Embedded Critic. As I understand the role, it is a critic or theatre journalist
who goes beyond the small “insider” pieces where a journalist may sit in on a rehearsal
or do an interview in order to gain a more in-depth view of the process within
creating a production. According to an article by Matt Trueman in The Stage,
this is a style of theatre writing where ‘the critic reports on the process
alone… Embedded criticism extends beyond a single day’s glimpse of the whole
process –sometimes even longer, over several such processes’ (2012). Trueman is
distinguishing between the critics that write an interview here or a rehearsal
report there, to pick out the critics who sit in as an outside eye on the
entire process of creation that a production undergoes and are “embedded”
within that production. Somewhat like an interview or profile of one of the
actors, Embedded Critics are often invited in as a way for the show to gain
publicity. However, unlike a simple interview, this journalist writes with a
deeper understanding of the production rather than a snapshot view. It seems to
vary, with some Embedded Critics sitting in for a week, to others being
involved from the first reading to the last dress rehearsal. Simply put, I am
speaking about a person who sits in on a number of rehearsals, and then writes
about what they perceive (and receive, as viewer) from watching these sessions.
In this vein, it seems like the embedded
critic plays the same role as the “Special Features” of a DVD, but for the
theatre. I will admit, as a spectator I do like to sometimes know what went
into the making of a production. Often times, without an embedded critic, we
rely on the notes within a programme from the Director or Designer within a
production, and I would say that they are even more embedded than the journalist
that’s been invited in. This ‘outside eye’ could perhaps give audiences an
insight of the changes that occurred and led up to the production they are
seeing on the stage. It could be beneficial and interesting for some, to
understand why and how this piece was created and the changes that occurred
overtime - changes that someone like a designer or director may be too involved
in to see. But let me repeat, ‘beneficial and interesting for some,’ like the
special feature of a DVD, not every audience member wants this insight, so
perhaps this would be best to keep on a theatre website or in the programme,
for those audience members hungry for more than what they see on the stage.
If these writings are being posted on the
website or in the programme, though, then we move further from criticism and closer
towards marketing. This is not to say that mainstream newspaper reviews can’t
be used as marketing, of course they often are, but the average critic comes to
a show with the same first-night perspective as an audience member who may be reading
these reviews in hopes of deciding how to spend their time and money. This
problem has also been addressed in the article, Who’s Really In Bed with this embedded critic? by Melissa Poll on
The British Theatre Guide website, where she addresses this use of “Embedded Criticism”
in publicity materials. In fact, Poll brings up the very relevant issue of
where the money for these Embedded Critics is coming from. While possible
interesting, it is very doubtful that a newspaper or blog website would pay for
their arts journalists to sit in on rehearsals full-time for up to three weeks.
Often these companies pay the critics to come into their space, possibly
blurring the lines for some between the biased and the objective perspective of
an arts journalist. Perhaps I’m looking at this with a negative perspective,
but I believe that when a company pays someone to come in, watch rehearsals and
then to write about their production for them, then that writer is taking on a
marketing and not an auditing role.
Furthermore, there is the issue of how
this writing is controlled, and how even the most objective Embedded Theatre Journalist’s
words could be muddled and contorted. As I mentioned previously, the company
being observed is usually the provider of the writer’s all too necessary
paycheck. Poll also mentions this, arguing ‘that the word “critic” rings false
when a theatre company has final editorial control over the content authored by
an embedded critic on the company website’ (2013). Even a critical and honest
look at both the success and difficulties that a theatrical company faces in
the creation of a piece, can be skewed in edits. While this infringes on the
integrity of the writer, it also places the audience into a dangerous position
when they believe they are reading the work of a “critic” without necessarily
realizing the bias that obviously went into the writing and publishing of that
work.
The word “critic” is what is being most
contested about this form of theatre writing and journalism, and rightly so.
From what I always understood about “Theatre Criticism,” it is a journalist, with
an education around and deeper understanding of the theatre that allows them to
give their readership an enlightened and honest opinion of a production as the
audience will see it: in the theatre without prior knowledge of the creation. I
do believe that if this theatre journalist, who has been present throughout a
large portion of the rehearsal process then went on to post a review of the
show after following the creation, that review would be skewed from the natural
bias that tends to occur with personal involvement. I know when I was an
undergraduate student working on my university’s productions, even if the show
was mediocre, seeing the process always gave me an altered and positively
biased view of the final product. The average audience member who reads reviews
and relies on them as direction for where to spend their time and money will
not have the prior experience of sitting in on the process and may be
disappointed in where they were directed.
But at the same time, I can’t say that
this is not a type of writing that could be very positive for theatre culture.
Many critics read up on productions, actors, writers and directors before
seeing their work to gain a greater understanding of the production. Perhaps
then it is beneficial for some audience members to gain a greater understanding
of the work and the practitioners behind it before seeing a show. I still
believe that a piece of theatre should be able to stand completely on its own
as soon as the curtain rises on opening night, without the audience having a
single piece of information that hasn’t been placed before them on the stage.
However, keeping in mind the current cultural trends we are experiencing with
social media and the internet, perhaps this extra element is what English and
London society needs to keep the theatre alive. If people are interested in
following celebrities’ every move on twitter, perhaps inviting them into a
production’s process with these new writers is a way of enticing our young
people into our audiences.
Some theatres like The National Theatre
and The Bush can afford to offer cheap tickets to lure in younger audiences, but
what about the theatres cannot afford lower their prices? Speaking as a young
person, I will honestly pay more money for a play that I feel I have a vested
interest in. This new type of theatre journalist could act as an internal
source that gives younger audiences that insight and perspective that draws in
their attention and delivers the necessary push to dig a little deeper into
their pockets. If this is utilized, though, it cannot be ignored that this is
no longer anywhere near ‘criticism.’ Perhaps ‘Education,’ but we must call a
spade, a spade: this is marketing.
In the end, theatres need marketing, and
theatre writers need to eat. I see no harm in observing and writing about
productions from an embedded perspective, as long as it is clearly understood
that this is not a form of “criticism” but instead as a form of Theatre Writing.
References:
