Come in, the water's warm

The previous post hoped that the debate around the latest TheatreatRisk show Requiem for the 20th Century: volume 1 might extend. It has and has. I thought I’d see what I can do from this corner. The first point is somewhat extreme, so I very much hope people don’t get stuck on it and miss the second point, which is the one that might contribute to the longevity of the conversation.

I’m just going to start with the issue of leaving shows early. Any theatre piece has an integrity that makes such a thing possible. Coming from Berlin, where early-exiting, often loudly, is not just acceptable behaviour but also the terrific corollary of an engaged audience who have a sense of ownership of the work, I relish these moments. It is also common sense. If someone tells you your sister is a hairy donkey, you might hang around for a moment to see if they are joking (assuming you disagree), but staying to see whether they transform into a nice person, if you just gave them half an hour or so, would be silly. Just as you don’t expect a personality to suddenly transform, neither do you expect a work of art to betray it’s own nature mid-stream. A theatre-maker brings a sensibility to the whole experience, as any artist does, and has to be credited with control. That is, you have to assume that the artist is guiding you deliberately. The hairy donkey analogy might be flippant but who expects a technically shaky violinist to suddenly improve for the last movement? Or a novelist to stop being turgid after you have waded through the first 100 pages? The few people I know that are genuinely adventurous in their DVD watching, are so with one hand poised over the eject button. There is “healthy curiosity,” and there is “wasting large slabs of your life”.

A thoughtful viewer can judge a production by the first half, or even the first ten minutes (aside: or sometimes even the poster, but that should probably wait.) OK, so the debate is really about whether or not a critic, rather than the generic “viewer”, has a responsibility to hang around. I would argue that different rules for critics and audience members belittles the audience member and casts the critic as having parental responsibilities to both audience and artist in a particularly infantile theatrical cul-de-sac. (And don’t get me started on the misapprehension that a reviewer “owes it” to a company to stay because of the free ticket, that is an ethical no-brainer.) Now, I don’t expect to convince even a small minority to share my views on this. I am merely explaining why I feel that a critic has an intellectual and ethical justification for leaving and further, why I respect and even enjoy the reviewer who has such a confidence in their own agenda. Perhaps I also get the feeling that they are big enough to know that all they would be doing by staying to the bitter end would be clocking up point-scoring opportunities.

So, why is this legitimately upsetting to Melbournians? Territorial Pissing, to agree with Ben Ellis, is absolutely key. The weird contortions that happen when money, audiences and career-possibilities are at such an all-time low that everyone gets horribly defensive and things that a healthier system could absorb, become life-threatening.

How much better off would Melbourne be, if the net effect of the three great “I left” moments of recent theatre history (Croggon, Boyd, Rundle) were ripples in a much bigger pond, that is, having less brutal impact but broader radius. These guys are lambs, it will be a sign of great things when Melbourne can support a genuinely vicious reviewer, a Ken Tynan or a Frank Rich (does anyone else remember the short-lived MacSween Bolton?) But that is absolutely not possible while Melbourne has one and a half daily papers that sporadically review. Publishing reviews the day after opening must be a given. Reviewers of different tastes reviewing the same show in the same paper is also necessary… you know, normal stuff, arts reporting as journalism not as lifestyle recommendations.

But the “mass” argument is a digression (and blogging may make the whole newspaper-whinge redundant soon enough). Reviewers have a duty to be consistent and that is all. My understanding of the ‘Faithful Witness,’ is that fidelity improves the clearer the witness can explain their perspective. I am not rude to my friends if I don’t like their show simply because I lack social graces, I want to be believed and understood the next time I have a positive opinion. Reading Alison Croggon is a pleasure because her agenda is writ large. The next time she leaves at interval, everyone will be that bit clearer about where she is coming from (or going to?). To get personal, Jonathon Marshall is another reviewer who has a perspective and clearly articulated opinion that makes it possible for me to enjoy his reviews, even when, as is often the case, he is caning my art. To refer again to the Grand-daddy of the vicious review, Ken Tynan, the man could be a beast but he was always witty, and most importantly, he was pushing a vivid and visionary agenda, one he believed in so vigorously that he ended up co-founding (with Larry Olivier) the National Theatre in London. An argument if ever there was one, for the power of “negative” criticism.

But here is the rub: Croggon is, in her own words, a blogger not a journalist. She is not being paid, has genuine freedom and relishes the deeper intellectual inquiry that is possible as a result. Chris Bendall cares very deeply, because his meagre livelihood depends on it (in Melbourne, a good review won’t make people come but a bad review will put them off, as I know from experience, and, longer-term, what else are you going to show the funding bodies but reviews?) Bendall and Croggon interact. Excellent so far. If there is a systemic problem, they are both working to fix it, politely or not. The genuinely powerful presence in the equation, that is, the one making money out of the whole enterprise is The Age. What disappoints me is that Cameron Woodhead has not engaged in the debate himself. He must be itching to, surely? Without his input, everything is chugging along nicely but although here I am addressing the whole “should a critic leave” thing, and elsewhere there is much interesting stuff, my understanding of Croggon’s original post was that it had the potential to set up a much more interesting dialectic about assumed critical values (“…there are extremes that ought to be noted.”). Clearly Croggon is up for anybody who has the nettle to take her on and, surrounded by such diverse and articulate blogging minds scoring it as they see it, why not engage?

Cameron, do us all a favour and consider that a call out! Use the word-limitless-luxury of blogspace to mount an argument supporting your appreciation of Requiem… (or at least the first half!) That would send what is already an interesting debate into a kind of discursive nirvana. Here in virtual Berlin, you can consider the Lapsang Souchong on the brew and the door open. Email me, I’ll post it.