Is a theatre company smart or cowardly to ban a critic from its show?
Theatre critics can sell or cripple a show in a single review. That’s always been true but in the contemporary environment of instant opinion through social media, judgement is quicker and cruder. Even if a critic delivers a considered review, it’s often a single line of condemnation or praise that will be tweeted to the world.
ArtsHubs’s report last week that the Blue Man Group revoked its invitation to The Australian to review their new show is a rare example of artists expressing the caution and resentment they often feel towards critics.
Artistic Director at Ensemble Theatre Mark Kilmurry says that the relationship between artist and critic is a ‘tricky’ one, and that on the whole creative people don’t really trust a critic.
He believes good reviews do more good than bad ones do harm.
‘A rave review will make a difference on ticket sales, but a negative or middling review doesn’t, on the whole. Even so, they can.’
When creating theatre Kilmurry says that ‘the play comes first. I’m not thinking about critics. When we move into the theatre, then we start thinking about audiences. The most important thing is audience reaction and word of mouth. If critics love it it’s the icing on the cake.’
As for the issue of a critic’s taste, Kilmurry says that that shouldn’t matter.
‘Critics do have a preference sometimes; and they do have favourites. But that doesn’t mean they review them favourably. When something ticks all the boxes it’s hard not to like.’
Kilmurry has some sympathy for the critics with whom, , theatre people have a ‘love-hate relationship’.
‘Being a critic must be one of the hardest jobs in the world—reviewing what you love but having to have a critical eye, and never thanked for it.’
Actor and critic Erin James sees the issue from both sides, as both an actor and critic with her own website. She sees critics as servicing primarily the theatre-going public but says critics are also valuable for performers.
‘We need to have a discussion about art. Professional critics really use their brains and it’s good for the public, too, to get reviews on work. But we must always remember that it’s just one person’s opinion.’
‘The act of taking in a piece of art is so subjective. You are always going to get people who like it and people who don’t.’
Of course, the effects of a bad review can be devastating. But as an actor Erin says that one has to take each negative review ‘with a pinch of salt’.
When a review is not a positive one, it can still have positive effects, she said. ‘Any publicity is good publicity—it courses a stir.’
Even so, she says, ‘you have to take into account a reviewer represents a demographic of some sort.’
‘There’s an art to critiquing and people learn to find a voice. The more you see and the more you review, the better your opinion will be, but also the more spoilt and picky you might become.’
The New York Times critic Jason Zinoman, pointed out in an article on HowlRound, earlier this year that critics have it far from easy.
‘So have I got a job for you? You get paid next to nothing… You will be periodically loathed and disrespected, and as you advance in your career, strangers will blame you for destroying jobs, celebrating frauds, and completely not getting it.’
But he also defended the deep work that goes into good criticism. ‘Criticism… relies on research, intrepid thinking, and a constant testing and refining of one’s own beliefs. But much of its hardest work is internal, an analysis of one’s own mind and personal convictions. We all have our own subjective taste, but it’s the critic’s responsibility to build arguments based on evidence and follow them wherever they take us, even if it departs from our instincts. That doesn’t mean we abandon our taste. We rely on it for guidance, but sometimes, it too should be distrusted.’
But the autonomous voice of the critic is always going to be subject to doubt.
‘Unless there are multiple reviews for the same production on the same night by different reviewers, the criticism is inherently invalid because of the bias of the reviewer. It’s well known that critics can make or break a performance and this is way too much power for the quill of one writer.’ Jane from NSW choir group Jubila Singers, commented on the ArtsHub Facebook page last week.
Another theatre professional said the system is unfair.
‘The review system is very one-sided. There’s no opportunity for the people involved in productions to respond to reviews that can sometimes be biased by personal taste, a lack of background knowledge, a desire to entertain the readers, the need to meet a short deadline, or, occasionally, ego.
‘A fairer system would encourage conversation between critics, audience, and productions and would give opportunities for responses. I’d also be very interested in reading a column or blog where a critic critiques the critics.’
To a degree this is already happening in the form of online commentaries and blog posts.
Kilmurry regards this kind of criticism as ‘a good and healthy thing. It keeps everybody on their toes as blogs are so widely read. A down side is that a rave review might only be posted on a little-read site.’
The great critics, perhaps foremost the legendary Kenneth Tynan, understand too the impossibility of what they do.
‘Art is a private thing, the artist makes it for himself; a comprehensible work is the product of a journalist. We need works that are strong, straight, precise, and forever beyond understanding,’ said Tynan.
