BWW Special Feature: Getting Critical, And Putting The Spotlight On Theatre Reviews

South African theatre criticism, they say, is in crisis. Follow the news feed of just about any person involved in the theatre industry, on any social media platform, and chances are that an impassioned debate will arise on the subject at some point. The nature of criticism, its relevance and place in contemporary society, the ability of critics themselves to perceive the theatrical act - all these and more become fodder for lively discussion that too often degenerates into critics being called talentless observers who are frustrated by their own inability to create meaningful or commercially successful art, uninformed bystanders who are merely "on the job" or - as one fervent Facebook post I recently read labelled them - simply a bunch of 'dom dooses'.

I started writing reviews in 2012 and wrote 150 articles for BroadwayWorld South Africa over three years before putting down my pen earlier this year. At the time, I thought this would be a permanent end to a task that I had found immensely challenging, but endlessly rewarding. With the publication of this article, I am picking up the pen once more, having made use of the sabbatical to consider deeply my role as a critic, one which I have to balance with my roles as theatre-maker, actor and teacher.

Since I began to negotiate the ever-shifting boundaries between these multiple roles, I have encountered just as many people who voice their support of peer reviewing as those who are dead set against the idea. My harshest detractors painted me as embittered, with ethics that pale in comparison with those who keep their creative and critical pens in separate inkpots. My most generous supporters praised my work for being thorough, engaged, fair and truthful.

It was, in fact, the desire to be more truthful about the theatre I was watching that prompted me to begin writing reviews in the first place. There is an innate duplicity in the local theatre industry that excuses the dishonesty implicit in complementing the work of theatre-makers to their faces, but tearing it down behind their backs. I did not want to be a part of that dynamic any longer; I wanted what I said to one person to be the same thing I said to everyone. In short, I wanted to instil an integrity in myself that cut across both the superficial networking mentality and the deeply ingrained cliques that are prolific in the industry. And, for the most part, I believe I realised that intention, making use of my specific skills set to the best of my ability.

Theatre-makers themselves seem to hold ambivalent views on theatre criticism. On the record, many will say how open the arts are to critical voices. Others will say that critics have a place, but that they manage their engagement with reviews in a measured way. Off the record, some remain open to the idea of criticism and are able to maintain perspective when engaging with reviews, while others fly off the handle and dismiss dramatic criticism wholesale.

All of these reactions originate from the genuine position of us being emotional creatures working in a form of expression that is in many ways defined by its vulnerability. Each also respectively emerges from a desire to pin down the essence, function and form of criticism and its relationship to the arts.

So what is criticism? What meaning does it make? Why is it there? Who is it for? And are there limitations on who can assume the mantle of theatre critic?

I can only offer one opinion in response to these questions, a perspective that has been shaped by the multiple roles I fulfil in the context of theatre practice, as well as by my own experiences as a white, gay, middle-class, millennial South African man, all inescapable aspects of my identity.

Introducing the word "opinion" is important at this stage because theatre criticism is founded on opinions. Acknowledging the subjectivity of theatre criticism is imperative, but it is just as vital to discuss the nature of this subjectivity, which must extend beyond one's beliefs or preferences. When I read reviews or social media comments on productions, I respond to opinions that are informed, that are based on a wider range of knowledge rather than a narrower one, and that do not exist in a vacuum. I value opinions that serve as a springboard to a greater understanding not only of the work, but also of the meaning that the work makes for the world in which it is presented. For a critic, that means grappling meaningfully with the failures of a production as well as its successes. Opinions based on general goodwill or misconceptions are unhelpful. Opinions based in ignorance are even worse.

I love the theatre. The theatre, as an institution, as an art form, is what matters to me. There are people that I love who create theatre, there are people that I like that create theatre, there are people that I don't know that create theatre, and there are people that I dislike that create theatre. But when I write, I am not reviewing any of them as people, so my personal connections to them fall away. I try my best to see the work for what it is, and I hope that when people review my work, the same constraints apply.

It is essential to recognise - whether one is dealing out criticism or receiving it, and I have been on both sides of the sword - that theatre criticism is not cheerleading, although it certainly should acknowledge excellent work. Theatre criticism is also not publicity in and of itself, although it can certainly be used to raise the profile of a theatrical production. And as Charles McNulty wrote in his recent article for the Los Angeles Times, theatre criticism is not simply a "report card":

The future of theater criticism... doesn't lie in hackneyed consumer guidance.... The assumption that should underlie any review, from the most ardent rave to the most dismissive pan, is that the stage is indispensable to our humanity. Where else do human beings non-virtually congregate to see other human beings enact the patterns of our common fate? Criticism's value is indissolubly tied to the art form's. The mission now is to go deeper, to stop thinking so much about the business of the theater and to confront the reason for its existence.

Everyone's a critic, they say. And in our current, social media driven climate, where everyone has access to a publishing platform on the Internet, everyone can be. Everyone is entitled to an opinion - an informed opinion - and it is good to bring as many people into the conversation as possible. All things being equal, then, does that mean that everyone is a good critic? I'll leave that to the critics' critics to decide.

For my part, I am satisfied with the body of work I have created thus far - warts and all, for I have naturally had times when I made, say, errors in credits that had to be corrected or was drawn, against my better instincts, into pointed discussions with people who have disagreed with me. Nonetheless, in hindsight, I am glad to say that I can stand by what I have said.

So here I am, a theatre-making critic: this is perhaps not a customary combination of roles, but it is not one that is innovative or unique. Ben Jonson - himself a playwright, poet, actor and literary critic - famously said that 'To judge of poets is only the faculty of poets.'

While I believe that Jonson's is an extremist view, his words serves as a reminder that the voice of a peer reviewer is as legitimate as those of my colleagues who choose to stay on one side of the curtain.

Here's to the next 150 reviews!

To post a comment, you must register and login.