One Person's Opinion
A bun-fight between the theatrical and critical establishments has escalated to near-hilarious proportions. It all kicked off when who have held onto their jobs as first-string theatre critics for thirty years and, he claims, habitually underrate the work of female directors – a response to the underwhelming critical reception of , directed by Emma Rice. The critics, of course, weren’t slow to reply, as shows. They have all pointed to their own positive reviews of female directors; the practitioners to younger, female critics who’ve apparently appreciated more experimental work.
Both sides, of course, are right in part. Or in other words, both sides, in part, are wrong. Am I alone in thinking that Hytner’s sweeping generalisation of misogyny is blind to its inherently ageist assumptions? Andrew Haydon, in a discussion show over at , thinks that Hytner was writing with his tongue in his cheek, and makes the point that the contentiousness of his pronouncement has provided a massive boost in publicity for the show. I certainly had no intention of seeing it until all this kicked off.
In many of the blog replies, the argument now has turned into the age-old one of whether critics should be allowed free tickets, column inches, or even to exist in the first place. One odd thing about this debate is the fact that it’s happening at all: these days audience members of any age, gender or personal bigotry can get online and publish whatever they like in any number of outlets, set up their own blog, or even a whole website: the critical landscape at the Edinburgh Fringe is almost unrecognisable compared to when I first took a show there in 1992. And for every there’s a to undermine it. This massive increase in published opinions has meant that the weight and authority of broadsheet reviewers has been diminished – and perhaps there are times when their weighty, authoritarian prose style seems pompous in comparison with a lot of ‘user generated comment’. But it has meant too that the overall standard of writing has fallen: I’d rather have a well-argued, less positive critical response than the witless gush that passes for a review on the Fringe. Come August, however, I’m sure I’ll eat my words, and be praying that one of the shows I’m directing is lucky enough to receive some witless gush.
Comments
I’m in favour of professional critics, for a couple of reasons.
One, most people have appalling taste. Witness the movie reviews over at Yahoo - Mr. Bean’s Holiday, 4.5 stars, Spiderman 3 (fun, but by no means genius) 4.5 stars, Shooter (a film so messy, right-wing and misogynistic it makes Death Wish 3 look like Dead Man’s Shoes...) 4 stars.
Secondly, critics know their stuff. I don’t know if anyone’s watching Great British Menu, but those critics can tell what every ingredient in a dish is without being told, they know how it should all go together and why. The Paul Rosses of the world aside, I think the same is true of TV, film and theatre critics.
You’re never going to agree with every critic - but if you can find one who shares your opinion in general, great. The Total Film reviews are in tune with me 80% of the time, so I can happily take their recommendations, and their warnings.
I am one of the professional theatre critics who were not impressed with A MATTER OF LIFE & DEATH. I actually saw the film starring David Niven and Kim Hunter three times because I thought it was a masterpiece.
A faithful reproduction of the story would have made an excellent stage play. But the producer, obviously lacking confidence in the project, chose to throw in so many diversions that the pace and intrigue
suffered badly.
I think that producers/directors should only muck about with a well known story if they can improve on it. The result, in this case, was the opposite.