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. 

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.”