The Critics' Circle Centenary Conference: Theatre Criticism Now

Theatre Criticism Now: What’s the Point?

           

This was a panel set-up, made up of Kate Bassett (formally from The Independent on Sunday), Dominic Cavendish (Daily Telegraph), Mark Fisher (freelance), and Fiona Mountford (Evening Standard). It was a lively panel, and for the most part, it included a very lively discussion, not just about the role of critics but also their value and treatment by those who pay for their services.

            One of the big questions that came up and was discussed was the ‘why do we review theatre?’ It was met with some of the simple answers like ‘for posterity,’ which, as someone pursuing a Masters in Theatre Studies, I certainly appreciate. There is definite merit in transcribing the theatrical experience, what it was like to be there, how the audience is feeling through the ups and downs of the production, and to record this so that future generations can gain insight to our theatrical culture through these writings. I believe Kenneth Tynan and Michael Billington both did this very well. When I read the two books that compile their reviews, Tynan on Theatre and Michael Billington’s One Night Stands, I really do feel like I am learning what the theatre on that night was legitimately like.

            Another answer to that question of ‘why we review’ was, basically, for the general good of the public. I believe it was Kate Bassett who made the remark that today people are extremely careful on how they spend both their time and money. Both are extremely valuable in today’s society, and if a reviewer can better steer you to a night you will thoroughly enjoy, then they really are providing a service. I like this idea, I think it holds a great deal of merit, especially for the average London theatre-goer. For myself, personally, as a student I tell myself that everything deserves to be seen and considered, even if I find I do not like it. But this is not the case for most people, I am an oddity, a very small minority. For those are looking for a good night, perhaps intelligent, or perhaps just entertaining, a critic one trusts can be a very valuable resource.

            The critic is also important as a bridge between the audience and the production. A critic very often has a more informed view of the production, and can convey the ideas and concepts that appear in the play that we average viewers might miss at first. This also brought up later on the question of ‘the embedded critic,’ and here, I find myself agreeing with Michael Billington. In his book, One Night Stands, at one point he wrote about his experience of sitting in during a rehearsal. He didn’t seem to enjoy it, and I feel like it gives the reviewer a tainted instead of objective view of the play.

            There were many other points covered, and many other really great comments on the importance of the critic, the role of a critic and the further role that that criticism can have. But the one thing mentioned time and time again in almost every different facet of critiquing mentioned, was honesty. An honest review is the most important review you can write. It’s more important than a smooth or nice review. How you truly felt sitting in that theatre, what you saw and heard. Give that back to your readers, put it on paper (or blog) and give people your true thoughts so that they can use that and make their decisions accordingly.

            Personally, I gained a lot from this panel discussion, I also learned about how a lot of magazines and papers have cut their arts staff. One woman who was speaking, had just been let go as The Independent on Sunday apparently cut their entire arts staff. The first thing I go to in a newspaper is the arts section, I look for the reviews and the features on theatre – if The Washington Post or The Guardian ever cut their Arts sections, I think I might find myself canceling my subscriptions. It was scary to hear, though, I love reviewing, and was thinking of it as a possible career path. I don’t think I will discredit the profession as a pathway for myself entirely, I’ll still be reviewing on here for a long time to come, but hearing about the lack of openings and lack of opportunities as a theatre critic does give me some realistic perspective. This was actually touched on in the following panel – and I will speak about that as well in a post possibly later tonight or tomorrow. 

Reviews: The Copla @ The Collisions Festival

The Copla

The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, September 28^th

I’ll be honest, when I used to think of the Spanish Civil War, transvestite performers don’t usually spring to mind. The Copla, presented at The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama’s Collision Festival, opened my eyes to the struggles that many citizens and cultural groups went through during the war. Through the play, we learned about the struggle for homosexuals and drag artists under the reign of The Nationals as they fought The Republic of previous years.

Alejandro Postigo, who not only wrote but also starred in The Copla as La Gitana, is striking from the moment the lights go up on his sad form, shivering and singing, praying for death. After escaping from prison, the linear movement of the play fades in and out. There are a number of scenes that flashback to first meetings and pivitol moments for La Gitana that defined her as she made her journey. We are transported back to when a young man named Imperio falls in love with an American salesman, and is subsequently ejected from his childhood home by his Nationalist father. He is saved by the kind-hearted Campanera from The Republican forces, and is able to embrace his true identity as La Gitana, a drag artists in a Republican cabaret.

The play follows her time after being freed from prison, and reunion with The American in the Caberet where she returned. While her story progresses, the play continues to enlighten our understanding of the struggle of The Republicans against the oppression of The Nationalists.

In one particularly difficult scene, The Nationalist soldiers are searching for Campenera, who has become a symbol for The Republican force. The two soldiers terrorize and physically abuse the women, asking for them to give up who is Campanera. It is La Gitana who speaks up, turning herself in for the sake of the true Campanera, it is the first moment of the play where we see La Gitana truly participating and sacrificing for the cause.

When we are returned to the present, the end of the Spanish Civil War is played out in brief and we see La Gitana with her American as they plan to move on with the next stage of their life.

 Through the moving, sometimes sorrowful, sometimes victorious and hopeful Copla melodies pulled from Spain’s rich folk music traditions of the 1930’s, ‘40’s and ‘50’s, a story of hope, strength and ultimate resilience comes through. Violeta Garcia gives an amazing sense of strength and brilliance of character that shines brightly through her portrayal of the spirited Campanera. Simultaneously, she is supported by Javier Rasero and Carolina Bandeira as her equally committed comrades, Jacincto and Dolores. Undeniably, the creator of this production, Alejandro Postigo, created a brilliantly moving, beautifully sung character in La Gitana. I was transported by his translation of the traditional Copla songs, performing in a style not often seen in musical theatre seamlessly. I was truly moved by his piece and sincerely hope that he marries it with the second act that he previously presented so that this musical can see life in again and reach and even wider audience.

There is only one more performance of The Copla during The Collisions Festival, and it may be sold out, buy I highly recommend trying to reserve a place on September 30 at 8pm. It is definitely a piece worth one’s time and attention.

The Critics' Circle Centenary Conference: Historical Session

The Critics’ Circle Centenary Conference

100 Years of Criticism: Key Changes

On Friday, Semptember 27, 2013, I walked in The Central School of Speech and Drama, along with many others young and old, to watch the Critics’ Circle discuss key changes in the world of theatrical criticism.

Historical Session

The beginning of the conference started out with two talks focused on historical criticism. The first speaker was Frances Hughes, Chair of the Irving Society; she spoke about criticism a century ago. Apparently, not only was this year the 100^th birthday of the creation of the Critics’ Circle, but it is also that 101^st Birthday of the book, Who’s Who in Theatre – among which, 50 people listed were Critics. It was significant to point out the importance and large pool of critics available to the world of theatre at the beginning of the 20^th century. Every magazine published in Britain seemed to have a theatre critic: The Sporting Life had a theatre critic!

Hughes also went on to discuss the most famous theatre critics of the day, of which, most were playwright/critics. For instance, Max Beerbohm (1872-1956) whom I had never heard of until this day, was rumored to have seen and critiqued over 12,000 plays in his lifetime. Max was actually a large critic of Shaw’s, they were completely different men: Max was a conservative Tory whereas Shaw was a reformist Fabien. The two men were connected by their great love of theatre and Max even praised Shaw and his work.

She went on to discuss the critics, Montague and Cole, and how Cole was very largely responsible for what today know as The Fringe in Edinburgh, Scotland. It was a wonderful discussion of the theatrical community of playwrights, actors and critics before the Critics’ Circle was established in 1913.

Then Nicholas de Jongh, and critic and playwright, spoke about critics and censorship in the 20^th Century. Theatre was controlled and censored in England by The Lord Chamberlain from 1727 until 1968. It was in 1967, just a year before the censorship was removed, at the Hampstead Theatre (just next to Central), appeared in Ballad of a False Doorman, in which he stands with his back to the audience, completely bared from the torso down. A person (whom I’m sad to say I did not record the name) wrote to the Lord Chamberlain in a rage about this play, and the sight of a man’s “hideous bottom” shown to the audience. The Lord Chamberlain was for the most part a Conservative Gentleman, and any play that was ‘for hire’ must be submitted and approved by the Lord Chamberlain.

            One way the theatre companies and playwrights got around this rule, which was actually something Dr. Godwin referred to often in Theatre History at CNU, were ‘clubs’ with subscriptions. So if you had a subscription to certain special theatrical clubs, you could enjoy your Tolstoy and your George Bernard Shaw who were two of the most censored playwrights of the 1900’s.

             One prime example of the conservatives of The Lord Chamberlain’s office, a musical (I think, not certain): The World of Paul Slickey (sp?). Sex is not something The Lord Chamberlain wanted on stage, any mention, reference, hint or insinuation that the act every happened was not appropriate. Well Paul Slickey began with the curtain rising on a man lying atop a woman, and getting up to tuck his shirt back into his trousers. The woman was also wearing breeches and a slip but she did not tuck in her slip. Well, bad enough that they hinted that the two had just had intercourse out-of-wedlock, but she hadn’t even attempted to put herself perfectly to right directly after (basically, she was a slut). The play was instructed by The Lord Chamberlain’s office to change so that the two were sitting side by side on the bed, fully dressed, and her slip must be tucked into her breeches.

            Kenneth Tynan, whom you can read more about in the Books section of this blog, was one of the first critics and theatre professionals to lead a fight against The Lord Chamberlain and censorship in British Theatre. But it was really the playwrights, not the critics, who lead the fight against censorship and the eventual dissolution of Theatrical Censorship in the UK in 1968.

What I took from these:

            Obviously, what I wrote about above is what stood out to me the most from these two lectures. I learned a lot, I had no idea that The Lord Chamberlain’s Office and it’s control of British Theatre was around for that long. I definitely think now that we owe many thanks to John Osborne and the other playwright’s of his generation who fought against this control. Personally, it reminds me of the America in the 1980s and 1990s, when the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts, which was criticized by the public for funding artists who used sexual references and homosexuality as the subject of their art.

            These were two fantastic speakers, and I feel like I was very lucky to be able to listen and be a part of this special day. In the future, throughout today and tomorrow, I will be adding more posts from the other talks onto this blog.

Next will be what I gained from the panel on “Theatre Criticism Now.”

Books: Performance, a critical introduction

An excerpt from the notes I took while reading this text:

Performance: a critical introduction

The performance of culture: anthropological and ethnographic approaches

Performance and Anthropology

-     - Number of different behaviors lumped into ‘performance’ for different cultures in ANTH

-      - Dell Hymes 2 Catagories of Performance:

o   Behavior and Conduct:

§  B = “anything and everything that happens”

§  C = “under the aegis of social norms, cultural rules, shared principles of interpretability

o   Conduct within Behavior

§  When one of persons “assumed a responsibility to an audience and to tradition as the understand it”

-      -  Performance involved ‘responsibility’ to audience and to tradition

-       - Theory: all performance is based on some pre-existing model, script or pattern of action

o   Richard Schechner: performance is “restored behavior”

-      -  BUT – performance can work in society for underminding tradition and providing a way of exploration and new behavior

-       - In almost every culture, there is a specific cultural activity set apart that can be considered and studied as ‘performance’

Liminal and Liminoid

-       Turner defined liminal as:

o   “anti-structure” of normal cultural operations

-       The space provided for members of a culture to think not about cultural codes, but about themselves individually

-       Simplified by Sutton-Smith as “letting of steam”

-       Learning from disorder

o   Learning from a ‘latent system of potential alternatives’

o   A ‘protocultural system’: the precurser of innovative normative forms, source of NEW culture

-       Liminal may invert the established order, but never subverts it

o   Suggests frightening chaos is alternative to established order (Elena’s thoughts: some organized religions? Anyone reminded of the puritans?)

-       Turner defined “liminoid” activities as:

o   ‘Limited, individualistic’ activities more along the lines of ‘play’: sport, leisure, art – anything outside of regular work and business

o   Marks cites where conventional structure is no longer honored

o   More likely to be subversive, playful and exploratory of alternatives to ‘status quo’

-       Clifford Geertz: Distinction of ‘deep play’ and ‘shallow play’

o   Differing ideas between scholars for which one can incite more thought toward change

-       MacAloon: Cultural Performance:

o   “Occasion in which as a culture or society we reflect upon and define our alternatives, and eventually change in some ways while remaining the same in others” 

______________ does anyone even want me to continue on with the other 20 pages of notes?______________

Reviews: Love, NY @ The Capital Fringe

Love, NY @ The Capital Fringe Festival on July 26, 2013

             

          “The Fringe Festival” is an event that goes on in major cities all over the Western World each year. Well… at least three major cities to my knowledge. From my understanding, the ‘fringe festival’ started in Scotland on the outskirts of a world-wide theatre festival: companies couldn’t get slots in the original festival so they created their own venues on the ‘fringes’. And then it grew and morphed, became too incredibly famous, too incredibly crowded, and actors are poor – how can you expect ten actors who are struggling just to make rent, let alone eat, to go to Scotland for a month? So then New York started a “Fringe Festival” which popped up around the ‘Off-Off Broadway’ scene. Then DC caught on in 2005, and now The Capital Fringe is in the near-end of its eighth summer festival. As they proudly boast on their site, they offer “18 days, 130 shows, 745 performances, 18 venues, 8 bar taps, 8^th Summer Festival.” It was on day 13 of The Capital Fringe, that I saw Love, NY by Robert Ricicki & Michael Ruby.

            When walking out of the strange church/ theatre in the middle of Washington, DC, the one word that came to mind was “relatable.” Love, NY is a 70-minute one-act musical about 20-somethings exploring and experiencing love in New York today. In reality, the show could be set in any city, in any town really, just switch out the obligatory references to Madison Avenue, Columbia and Broadway, and it would work just as well.

At its core, Love, NY is about a confused generation of in-betweens who want to be adults, but at the same time don’t actually want to leave the simplicity of childhood either. The two leading males within the show are Dan, a ‘young professional’ in advertising who’d rather be in film school, and Benji, a recent college graduate, just started off in the city and experiencing the thrills and ills of a girlfriend in the city. There are also three female leads fitting all your average city ‘types’, the over-sexed, grad student proudly still living off mommy and daddy, the optimistic young teacher unlucky in love, and the selfish and bitter struggling actress. The characters are all people you either know or have met at some point in your early-20’s, and for most of us, you will see yourself on that stage, because you are “A Nice Young Man” who was “Waiting for Laura,” but is now just “Freakin’ Out” and you “Want To Go Back” because real-life is “Not What I Thought It Would Be.” Which is why I came out of the theatre with the word ‘relatable’ in my mind.

While it may not be a show that changes lives, or even stirs deep thought, beyond our growing problem of 20-somethings who rely on their parents, it is an entertaining show that anyone in or past their 20’s can relate to.

As for this production, this was the first staged production of the show, with a cast of eight, 5 females and 3 males. It was entertaining, clearly presented, and with great direction and understandable casting. The actor’s did well, they embodied the characters but I found myself constantly wondering if they should continue singing. The man who play Benji, Christopher Rios, was a swing, to be fair, and at times his words were rushed, muddled and confused, but as far as I was concerned, it fit the character perfectly. Perfectly up until the line ‘I though you were an arrogant prick,’ by Daniel, because Mr. Rios just comes across as awkward, uncertain, nerdy and adorably confused with life.

The other male lead in this production, Daniel played by Lou Steele, was a fine actor who might want take some refresher voice lessons. He was a very good vocalist, I’m not trying insult, but it did seem like he was trying to mimic a certain vocal style to a point that some of the integrity of the vowels was lost. The difference between ‘poppy’ and ‘whiney’ is such a fine line. Other than the occasional spread vowel, Lou delivered a wonderfully confused young man, confused to the point of being an asshole to those around him.

The women of this show, oh the women of this show… All three fulfilled some stereotype, and yes, while stereotypes are based on true people, maybe I don’t want to see it in theatre. Or rather, not every female needs to encapsulate a different stereotype. Surprise me, people! I found myself only caring about Emily, because through-out the show, she was the only character willing to see beyond her own selfish wants and actually had real interactions with people. The other two characters were very self-oriented and caused their own unhappiness through their unwillingness to see beyond their own opinions.            

The Ensemble, though it be but little, is mighty – made up of two women and one man brought a lovely flare of fun to this show. The two women were a sort of back-up dancers for a number of the characters solo numbers, and the one man had one of the greatest cameo parts in the entire show as the old tyrannical German woman from Emily’s apartment complex. With a simple headscarf and hot pink walking cane, Mr. Carter embodied a tough, old German woman, both defiant and protective of Emily.

If I hadn’t seen Love, NY on its last night on stage, I would encourage anyone looking for some cute, fun moderately light-hearted romantic comedy in 70-minutes of songs and laughter to check this show out. I had a great time, enjoyed connecting with the actors only a few feet away. Because I am a 20-something living (sort of) in a city, my views and ability to relate to it might be biased, but I think anyone who’s gone through or is going through the never-ending process of ‘growing up’ would enjoy this show.

Side note: Also, most of the songs from the original New York off-off-Broadway sing-through of this show are on youtube, if you are interested. It’s not the same cast that I saw, but the music is fun, catchy and may occasionally make you melt a little on the inside. 

Books: Tynan on Theatre: Part IV

Tynan on European Theatre

           

I fear as I go longer and longer without writing, and further and further from the original read, these writings will become less and less thorough. When my professor told me to write the moment you return home from the theatre – I should have done well to apply that to my readings as well. For I found today as I sat down to write this, that while I knew the basics of his writings in this section, I had lost a majority of the content in my memory. So – that prompted a nice (hour-long) re-read-through.

The section reads thusly: French Theatre, German Theatre, and why the Russians can out-act our English any day. I shall discuss it in that order.

Tynan on French Theatre:

            We begin with the plays of Giraudoux and Ionesco – and we learn about not only the plots of the plays, but more importantly, the styles of these writers. How one writes often supersedes the importance of the actual plot – at least this is what I gathered from what I was reading. How Giraudoux and Ionesco are examples of this idea, comes across in Tynan’s emphasis on their beautiful prose and the duality in their writing of both the playwright and the poet. Shakespeare had this duality – his speeches are famous for it. It is nice to be reminded now and then, though, that it still exits in contemporary playwrights of the 20^th Century.

            While not every playwright is met with total praise, there is clear respect and admiration for Ionesco and Giraudoux. While I once thought that Moliere was the heart of French theatre, it seems I have now been redirected and educated to look towards these contemporary writers. A whole article is dedicated to Ionesco, who I admit, is hailed as one of the great 20^th Century writers – but I think it becomes even more poignant when it is told to you by one of the original viewers, instead of a second-hand scholar. No offense to second-hand sources, mind!

            In the end, the section sums up with an account of the great political turmoil (regarding government funding) that the French theatre found itself involved in the late 1950’s with the interference of the Minister of State in charge of Cultural Affairs, Andre Malraux. A time when funding for the Comédie-Française was reduced so as to allow for more funding to other types of theatre and more contemporary works. There was also an increase in control of the government in theatre and theatre content. In fact, from my point of view, if not Tynan’s, it looked as if the French theatre was heading down the same path as the English. But while it was a difficult time for the French theatrical of the time, I don’t believe it hurt them too dearly in the long run.

Tynan on German Theatre:

            Or rather – Tynan on Brecht. I am a fan of Brecht, even before reading Tynan’s thoughts on the sly and clever little German man. With his wonderful reviews and summaries of both Mother Courage and The Good Woman of Setzuan, Tynan’s great admiration for Brecht comes across in glowing respect short yet poignant critiques. Then after that delightful discussion of Brecht, we get a lovely article on West Berlin theatre on the whole. Tynan is more professor and educator in his articles, he disperses information over opinion and the result is thought-provoking to say the least. I find when reading his articles, I have to think about my own opinion and draw my own conclusions – like reading a text book (imagine! One of my required readings for graduate school reading like a textbook), rather than a collection.

            After reading his thoughts on Berlin and the Berliner Ensemble, I just feel a little disgruntled at the lateness of my birth. I also feel a renewed interest in Bertolt Brecht beyond Galileo, a play I actually rather enjoyed thanks to an inspiring Professor of Theatrical History and Texts. Tynan has such an evident and entrancing love for Brecht’s style and writings that it’s hard not to get swept up with him while reading his thoughts. He is so interested and invested in his love that he spends 20 pages summing up 1959 in Germany and Brecht’s genius, influence and innovations in German theatre and theatre in general.

Then, finally we move on to Russia

Tynan on Theatre in Moscow:

            When reading Tynan’s thoughts on theatre in Moscow and how audiences in Moscow received theatre, I felt almost ashamed for my adopted British theatre. In Moscow, it appears, plays are bigger, sets much grander, and the acting – larger in scale, and filled with multi-faceted characters. While Chekov is the only writer truly explored here – one get’s the sense that the style and capacity of the Russian actors is what truly makes their theatre great.

            Tynan speaks about the obvious choice in England to make Chekov plays into tragedies, whereas the Russian take Chekov at his word and allow the comedy to take over. Personally, I had the good fortune of learning first about Chekov as a dry wit before reading his plays. This allowed me to read and enjoy them for that, though I find I did not respect Konstantine Gavrilovich as much as I probably should have…

            From what I can tell from Tynan’s view and admiration of Russian actors and their style, they are more involved, more intellectual and just truer than many of their contemporaries from other nations. It no longer seems odd to me that Drama Centre London sends their student to Moscow for 4 months. Instead, I find myself thinking that it is actually practical and even essential.

Summation:

            All in all, this section reads as a sort of love-letter to international theatre, and reminds me of the importance of seeing and taking in as much art as humanly possible. I know from professors and my own experiences, that is important to broaden ones horizons not only to be educated but to also come to logical conclusions. But this seems important also for the reason of bettering one’s self through identification and exploration of the cultural practices and theatrical styles of other nations.

Books: Tynan on Theatre: Part III

Tynan on American Theatre           

Here I was expecting harsh criticisms of the cut-throat commercialism of American theatre. Some sort of diatribe against America’s theatre culture and how it compares when held up against English Theatre. But I didn’t take into account when Tynan was writing.

            The 1950’s was a golden age in American Theatre, when playwrights such as Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller were hitting their stride and hitting it big. Once again, I was transported and mesmerized by these glimpses into the past, the first looks at today’s classics. And even a few musicals made it into the mix: Guys and Dolls, West Side Story, and even My Fair Lady (though he wasn’t too fond of that one).

            Aside from reviews, there is a piece of writing from 1954 entitled American Blues: The Plays of Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams. Miller is referred ‘a man of action’ and ‘of the past,’ while Tennessee Williams is more ‘lyrical’ and ‘looking to the future’. By this comparison, it might appear that Williams is being held as the better, more advanced playwright, but I don’t think that is what Tynan is saying at all. He speaks about the similarities between the playwrights structure, but also the plays themselves. Each playwright has his own style of story, his own archetype and favorite themes that many of their plays seem to center around. I don’t often remember that these two were writing in the same era, so different their plays have always seemed to me. But in reading this detailed breakdown and comparison set before me by Tynan, suddenly my eyes feel opened in a new way to this lovely era of American Theatre.

            A comment that made laugh within this section was actually when Tynan quoted a friend of his, an American actress who, when seeing your average drawing room comedy set in the country remarked that (and I quote loosely) that ‘in American drama, the actors on stage are drinking tea meant to be whiskey, while the English actors are drinking tea on stage that in reality is whiskey.’ Make of it what you will, I found the remark rather brazen and all too funny, because at the time, it was probably true.

Then, in another comment, Tynan stole my heart once more, commenting on once cause that is particularly close to my heart: the very poor public funding of theatre that limits the American people from ready access to live theatre. In his preface to his writings on American Theatre, Tynan grieves from the starving talents, so full of life and vitality, being drained by the unsubsidized theatre. I am a firm believer in the necessity of the arts, and in particular, the theatre for cultural growth and a healthy quality of life for a nation’s citizens. But alas, this blog is not my soap-box, so I shall step down now.

All in all, I continue to learn how important it is to be informed about not just the subject matter, but the author behind it before one goes to see a play. Tynan seems to reveal to us so many amazing layers to each play he sees, because he can relate the playwright directly to the material and peal it back to reveal the playwright in a sharper light. It seems I will have a good deal of reading to do before the shows I see in the West End in the upcoming twelve months.

This is a shorter entry, yes, and I do apologize, but it isn’t a terribly long section, I did finish it in one sitting after all.

Next time in ‘Books,’ I shall discuss Tynan on European Theatre.