[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: few questions for the RAT PACK
Becca Lin,
Listen to Glen. He knows his stuff.
Did radio and print theatre reviewing/criticism for a while myself. We're talking about putting together an online only reviewing network that only reviews small (non Equity/LORT) theaters -- with more than one critic per show. Maybe a national website.
But ... I digress.
A key problem for all three categories of reviewers is that there is little established basis for reviewing "experimental", performance art, and other non-traditional forms. Part of the problem is that these forms aren't usually text based, but production based. That means that creators can say "I never saw anything like that." and critics can say "This is a pale comparison to Vletch Modoff's identical experiment at the Flimsy Dragon 5 years ago" -- which the creator never even heard about. What we really need are more repositories for video documentation of "professional" experimental work, and some online place for them to be examined.
With a readily available history of experimentation, these forms could actually thrive and expand, instead of recycling every 5-10 years, and reviewers/critics would have some basis for comparison.
I can't tell you how many "radical experiments" I've seen recently that were done (much more radically) in the 70's.
There's an important cycle here -- like the development of film.
Work is produced, criticized. Next generation sees the work, makes alterations. Critics can do longer-term comparison. We can also get directors re-interpreting/re-staging performance work. That helps create a true tradition.
Without documentation, experimental theatre only exists in oh-so imperfect memory.
Cheers,
Cat Hebert
------------------------------------
I find it interesting, to start with that you make ( perhaps an unconscious ) distinction between 'REPORTER' and 'REVIEWER'. This is an important distinction , in my mind, for many reasons; especially if you're going to enter into a discussion about the importance or impact. As a person who has sat both sides of the fence, here is what I think...
Among the people who write about theatre ( or any issue of aesthetic, for that matter) There are really three categories of Writer; A Critic, A Reviewer, and a Reporter. In general, all of these have an effect, desirable or not, on Theatre makers as artists; in as much as they not only influence opinion, but they also serve (usually ) as the voice of at least part of our audience (that is, if we as artists make the decision to listen to that voice, which is a whole other conversation).
A reporter, to my mind, is that class of writer who may or may not be a journalist, whose main concern is the dissemination of information; "The Park City Players will present Rob Nash's classic play 'Shameless Plug- The Musical' at the town hall arts center...(etc etc etc)". The reporter may or may not include interesting pieces of info, like the cast , and who to call for tickets, but really, doesn't need and doesn't exercise much (credible) judgment at all. This is most people who write for smaller publications.
A REVIEWER is a slightly more dangerous fellow. A reviewer is usually a fairly astute judge of taste and popular culture, and is also a talented or accomplished essayist; that is, they write a regular column and have people who read them regularly to see what they have to say, primarily because they are particularly eloquent or entertaining by themselves. They also generally have a working knowledge of the genre they are reviewing, but would really be the same thing no matter what they were writing about- people paid to express their opinion. How much actual influence these folks have is a matter of some debate; just how much influence they actually have over what shows people buy tickets for is not only varied, but hard to measure. Generally, unless they have something really good or really bad to say about a show, I myself consider them to be free publicity and discount any damage that they might incur based on my own observation that they not only have very little real knowledge about the show or theater in general, but that most people view them ( again) as entertaining writers that at best contribute to the public discussion. (again, that's my interpretation of what I see in my own town...) This group is about 99% of the people you find published.
A Critic (again, in my opinion ) is someone much closer to the heart and soul of the Western Theatre. A critic is a person who has some qualification to say what he says about what he sees in the theatre; that is, he is familiar with Theatre, it's history and technique, and is qualified to recognize and point out what he thinks is good or bad. This writer tends to include specific cases in his opinions. Rather than merely 'I Like/Didn't like' he can make a case for why a particular artistic or technical choice was effective or useful ...'Mr. Nash's performance was interesting and entertaining, but derivative, reminiscent of last years presentation by the Capital player's Nick Savage...'. These folks can tell us alot that we may not be able to admit to ourselves, which is why they are so tremendously unpopular among alot of theatre makers, but can be so very useful to a producer or director who pays attention. Good example of this kind of writing can be found in many collections of theatre criticism...Robert Brustien is great, for example, even if you don;t agree with him. David Mamet also has written some interesting stuff. These are mainstream, established theatre writers, though...most folks on this list are a long way from the kind of shows they write about- and so are much more sensitive about what a critic has to say, when we can get writers of this caliber and influence to see our shows. To some degree, the principle of free publicity and public debate applies here as it does to the reviewer, but it carries much more weight and sting. Ideally, these people ought to be hand in glove with the theatre community, or perhaps considered to be the loyal opposition. Most often, though , they are eschewed by the community, which in some cases may be justifiable, but is still a sad state of affairs since they provide educated insight into what we do.
Anyhow...I've gone on a bit long...I expect there will be many more voices heard on this soon enough...
Glen 'Skip' Newell
The Pauline Project/ReaLive Productions
Denver, Colorado
----- Original Message -----
From: becca linn
To: rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 4:21 PM
Subject: few questions for the RAT PACK
A RAT here a A RAT there every where a RAT
I am in the need of some questions answered. I am interested in your opinion on the importance of theatre reviews.
Curious about the theatre/reporter relationship.
Elements of a theatre review: what should and should not be included.
heck I'll take any thoughts, ideas or material on reviews!!
thanks
bec
lucylinn@hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
--------------------------------------- To [un]subscribe to the rat-list, send an email to "majordomo@ratconference.com" with [un]subscribe rat-list" in the body of the message. For information on other functions send a message containing the word "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. --------------------------------------- You may also [un]subscribe on the web at http://www.ratconference.com/cgi-bin/web_domo.pl?list=rat-list
---------------------------------------
To [un]subscribe to the rat-list, send an email to "majordomo@ratconference.com"
with [un]subscribe rat-list" in the body of the message.
For information on other functions send a message containing the word
"help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
---------------------------------------
You may also [un]subscribe on the web at http://www.ratconference.com/cgi-bin/web_domo.pl?list=rat-list