Independent theatre makers know the drill. You create a show and invest months of time and effort. You pool together your creative team and develop an engaging script. As production week looms closer life goes on hold completely. You’re sucked into a vortex where all sense of time is lost in the mad dash to get everything ready.
To set the scene, my second full length play Transit just wrapped at Gasworks Arts Park as apart of the 2013 Midsumma Festival. Verbatim theatre continues to intrigue audiences so I created my own take on the genre. I interviewed a bunch of travellers across Europe last year and developed Transit as a one-hour piece exploring journey and travel abroad, both literally and metaphorically.
As the independent producer and playwright I believed I was putting on the best thing since sliced bread. The momentum built throughout rehearsals and production week and so did my confidence in the work.
Then the reviews came out.
All in all five reviewers came along to the show. I thought it was a great result considering I couldn’t land even one reviewer for my 2012 Melbourne Fringe play Transit, of the same name. (Rookie mistake, I left things too late).
Independent ArtsHub reviewer Mileta Rien gave Transit 2.5 stars out of 5. As my first ever review that’s honestly quite good. What stung was the focus on the problems with the piece, largely attributed to the flaws within my own writing: ‘Unfortunately their travel tales and observations are rather shallow and banal: French people refusing to speak English, English people’s social aloofness,’ writes Rien. ‘It might have been more interesting if Nankervis had given his characters a range of nationalities, so we could have seen cultural clichés from a different perspective than our own.
Ouch.
Next a reviewer from a Melbourne broadsheet publication rated the show 1.5 stars out of 5. ‘Dialogue often sounds verbatim, though not in an expressive or stylistic way’, writes Rebecca Harkins-Cross from The Age. ‘A narcissistic 19-year-old musing about their transformative overseas jaunt needs some reworking to become an engaging monologue.’
It’s only upwards from here, right?
A good review is the icing on the cake. It’s a figurative pat on the back confirming what you’ve got to say is relevant and important. A nod to your production team and cast that you’ve contributed to society in a positive way.
A great review raises the profile of the creative team, the work itself and attracts audiences. Often the production’s success can be measured on positive reviews, which can then equate to full houses.
A bad review feels like a devastating blow, an unexpected uppercut to the stomach.
Admittedly I’m being rather dramatic but in many ways the reviewer becomes the outside eye, a sounding board to the writer providing honest and critical feedback. As my attachment to Transit was very strong come opening night it was challenging to play devil’s advocate. I was too close to the material and this is where the function of the reviews stepped in.
Rather than defend Transit against each of these reviews I began thinking about how to best embrace this feedback in a constructive way. I contend the most appropriate response is to consider all of the observations, criticisms and compliments in a way that can be reflected within future writing.
In this context the best reviews for Transit were constructive criticism: ‘The overall style of this production is a slightly stilted mix of naturalistic and stylised elements,’ says Christine Moffat from Theatre Press. ‘I much preferred the stylised elements. For example, director Cameron Stewart created a great series of silent tableaux performed during monologues with the non-speaking actors. I think the two styles would have combined much more successfully if both elements were heightened.
These insights are valuable. Moffat enjoyed the stylised elements of Transit and her suggestion of heightening stylistic elements is useful. She identified and dissected specific sections of text, which I can now redevelop at my discretion. Or not. Perhaps I disagree with the reviewer? (I do agree with Moffat.) Perhaps I can use this stylistic motif in future work?
Harkins-Cross on the other hand fails to elaborate: ‘Stewart’s direction is loose, the performances unfocused and the material jejune.’
With an observation so broad I don’t know where to begin? There’s limited value here to the playwright or the production as a whole. Do I now contact this reviewer for more detailed feedback?
Ironically, by this point of the production cycle there’s limited scope to integrate said feedback or changes into the piece. In fringe theatre you open a show for a week or two then you’re done.
When Transit didn’t get the critical accolades I’d been hoping for I felt like a failure. The inner perfectionist wondered what I’d missed or where I’d gone wrong. But I’m turning the experience around.
A bad review builds creative resilience. Rein declares ‘The verbatim technique doesn’t work with this material, and as a result Transit never really goes anywhere.’
Okay. Keeping in mind Australians as seasoned theatregoers purport to know what’s great or terrible, as the writer I can choose to politely agree or disagree. There’s often no measure of ‘potential’, and opinion is particularly fierce in the bigger hubs of Melbourne and Sydney.
If anything, the observations from Rien and Harkins-Cross make me more determined to reach my audiences. It forces me to question why I’m developing the work for the audience and the way in which I do it. Indeed I must create a thick skin and accept that not everyone will like the theatre I create or the stories I tell.
A critical review also reminds artists that other measures of success exist. Both Gasworks and Midsumma organisers reinforced their satisfaction with Transit. The cast and crew were happy. The budget was not overblown with the production likely to break even and possibly draw a small profit. A strong marketing and publicity campaign across media platforms including social networking attracted patrons that filled the theatre every night. For an independent theatre piece I barely knew anyone in the audience (normally one’s entire ‘friends list’ is invited along).
Finally, a bad review reminds the independent artist that it is just one person’s opinion and to not take things to heart. In light of everything, some peopled really enjoyed Transit. ‘We went into the show expecting it to be fragmented, disjointed, and confusing,’ writes Daniel G Taylor and Joshua Lansell-Kenny from TheatreVibe. ‘But Nankervis is a skilled writer who starts at the beginning… and builds through a clear narrative arc that takes the audience on a satisfying journey’.
