 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 17 - 23 February 2000 Issue No. 469 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 17 - 23 February 2000 Issue No. 469
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Focus Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Plain Talk
By Mursi Saad El-Din
What is the role of the critic? It is a perennial question. And what, more specifically, is the role of the theatre critic? If one picks up any literary magazine or art section in a newspaper, there are invariably reviews of newly released films, and of new albums and books, with only a short article tucked in a corner about theatre.
London remains, of course, an unchallenged centre of dramatic excellence, the place where even Hollywood stars want to take their chance strutting the boards. Given such status, it is hardly surprising that England was once celebrated for its theatre critics, writers such as Ivor Brown, Kenneth Tynan and J.W. Lambert. But now, it seems, serious and reasoned criticism is passé.
Who Calls the Shots on the London Stage is a book by Kalina Stefanova, based on candid interviews with critics and theatre practitioners who express, in an honest and rather brave manner, their ideas as to what theatre critics should actually be doing.
Whose side are the critics really on? Is their ultimate responsibility to the theatre, to readers, to their editors or a mixture of all three?
Clare Bayley, in reviewing the book, believes that it is largely the fault of editors that criticism has become little more than consumer recommendation. The pressure to produce headline-grabbing reviews, sneering condemnation or hype in promoting new talent, has made the theatre critics' job almost impossible.
There is no doubt that the theatre is suffering in the media, which appears to believe that the stage is somehow less relevant than film, television or pop culture, that it "does not sell as many issues and has to justify its existence".
Stefanova's interviews with some English critics are quite revealing. The Evening Standard's Nick Curtis is admirably honest. "When I was younger," he says, "I had a much stronger belief in theatre as being something potent, life-changing and important... I'm now no longer convinced that it is that."
Clare Bayley asks the obvious question: "Is it healthy, for all concerned, to continue to write about something one no longer believes in? Step aside for someone who enjoys it, rather than staying and souring it for everyone else."
Davis Farr, a director and writer, posits an interesting thesis. He identifies a dichotomy between older and younger critics. "The older generation distinctively sees theatre as central to our culture. Younger critics won't talk about theatre as a serious art medium. They question it all the time."
Going through theatre criticism in the English media one is struck by the fact that it is really exceptional to find articles giving "an overview of British theatre which compare it to international drama and relate it to the rest of our cultural life".
Bayley has some ideas herself about the task of a theatre critic. She believes that both readers and the theatre lose out when the job of a reviewer "is just seen as a piecemeal response to individual shows". Critics should be advocates, interpreters and campaigners on a broader scale."
Critics, Bayley believes, should regard themselves as intellectuals.
Some people look upon theatre critics as experts on drama and all that goes with it. They expect them to know about the process of actually producing a play, expect them, sometimes, to attend rehearsals.
A critic must have a privileged inside view, "a passionate expertise upon which to draw. They should take pride in their knowledge and should have academic and practical skills."
Ending her article Clare Bayley writes: "Theatre is central to our culture, and critics are part of the artistic community. It's something to be proud of."
