Well, after my spending last issue’s
Prompt Corner jabbering on about Tom Stoppard, Syd Barrett and a dead
guy from Cambridge, it’s only natural that, as I write this column, the
news should just have broken of the death in Cambridge of Pink Floyd’s
founder Roger “Syd” Barrett. It is, of course, terribly cynical
to remark on how fortuitous this has been, publicity-wise, for
Stoppard’s play
Rock ’N’ Roll,
in which Syd is a major (though largely offstage) figure.
Nevertheless, a number of people – including the estimable rock critic
Charles Shaar Murray – have done precisely that. Terribly
cynical, but dreadfully difficult to restrain oneself.
Anyway, let’s not harp on this topic. We have, after all, another
artificial media phenomenon altogether to consider. Few critics
have dared to lay into Kate Betts’
On
The Third Day: apart from the mandatory Nicholas de Jongh, only
Patrick Marmion in the
Daily Mail
has really let fly. Most of the others have spoken about how
callous it would be to so attack a first-time playwright who is
receiving her big break, in the form of the only new play currently in
the West End, as a result of winning the competition in Channel 4’s
quote-reality-unquote television series
The Play’s The Thing. They’ve
recounted the judges’ various reservations, both particular and
general, in that series; they’ve noted that Betts’ writing is at times
awkward and tries to fit altogether too much into the play (eight
minutes, by my watch, from curtain up to childhood incest… surely this
is a new land speed record?). But they’ve tried to put a positive
gloss on the whole affair, encouraging Betts to write more and develop
her craft away from the glare of TV cameras and so forth.
Marginalised
But I can’t help thinking that one reason for all this show of
even-handedness and support may be a fear that, without it, the
position of the critic is itself further marginalised. If we
don’t get the chance, now and again, to write about new drama in the
West End – if that all goes into subsidised houses and round the edges,
and the West End is entirely composed of revivals, transfers and
musicals – then the critic becomes an altogether slighter figure in the
West End. More of the shows there will either be so blockbusting
as to be effectively critic-proof, or will rely on “showbiz” coverage
of their glitz and their swanky galas rather than actual consideration
of their content. We need to preserve our territory, and to try
in those cases to square the circle in our writing: to do what our
editors and our readers (who have been led by our editors’ policies)
expect in terms of fitting in with the celebrity-driven mainstream, and
yet to include the kind of analysis that will actually be useful and
informative in arriving at a judgement of the show in question.
And at the risk of sounding vain, the fact that so few people notice
our doing this is a testament to the success of our efforts. If
you could see the strain of these diplomatic efforts, then that would
become the salient aspect of our writing rather than the qualities of
the production we are covering. I’m modestly pleased that, in a
drinking session the other night with a well-known playwright and
director, he began by taking the old standard line that every critic is
a failed, frustrated practitioner (citing as one example the failure of
Nicholas de Jongh’s effort to win the bet with which he ends his
On The Third Day review), but
moved rapidly so that, rather than opponents, we became allies in the
struggle for quality, respect and generally trying to do right by
theatre as a whole.
Confuse
When reading this issue, by the way, you should take care not to
confuse
The Play’s The Thing,
which is the TV series which yielded
On
The Third Day, with
The
Show’s The Thing, which is an altogether more oblique
performance/installation at Alexandra Palace. Similarly, it feels
as if every issue since May has included at least two
Midsummer Night’s Dreams and one
Titus Andronicus; I’ve now begun to
distinguish between different productions in the cumulative index, by
appending their respective locations in brackets.
A number of reviews also hold that you should not confuse Katie
Mitchell’s and Martin Crimp’s
The
Seagull with Anton Chekhov’s. I’m not sure I’d go that
far, but I would say that there’s a difference between being in the
theatre and seeing the play. Mitchell’s passion for dim lighting
reached a point in this production where, if I hadn’t had a cast list
in front of me, I would not have recognised even such normally
conspicuous figures as Ben Whishaw, Gawn Grainger and Sandy
McDade. (I see that in both his
Sunday
Express and
What’s On pieces,
Mark Shenton alludes to Whishaw having made his name in Trevor Nunn’s
2004
Hamlet, but evidently he
didn’t make it to the extent where Mark would get its spelling right in
either instance.) Still, you have to admire Mitchell’s foresight:
she must have known back in 2004 that she would subsequently have
another use for the dilapidated country-house set of her Lyttelton
production of
Iphigenia At Aulis,
which is indistinguishable from the dilapidated country-house set of
her Lyttelton production of
The
Seagull. Such frugality can be a virtue, and perhaps the
money saved might then be expended on turning the lights up to the
point of ensuring general visibility.
Written for Theatre
Record.