When I first began writing Prompt Corner
four years ago, I often wrote fervently about both the editorial
culture that seems to think any “name” of whatever kind, or any
“sparky” writer, will serve admirably as a theatre critic, and the
utterances of various beneficiaries of that culture. Lloyd Evans,
Quentin Letts and latterly Tim Walker have all loomed large in my
self-righteous sights at various times. And although I still
sound off on the subject every so often (I took a minor pop at Tim only
last issue), I’ve tried to do so less frequently. It gets boring
to read, and makes me look like an obsessive using
Theatre Record to air my personal
grouses (grice?) in the fashion of the late, unlamented
R Cubed News, a publication which
wrung a seven-year lifespan out of Alastair Macaulay’s bad review of
the musical
Napoleon in the
Financial Times. Moreover,
I’m already hypertensive, and if/when I finally have a stroke I’d
rather the credit went to worthier folk. But the editorial
climate hasn’t grown any more temperate, and the utterances continue.
Marrow
There have been glimpses of Quentin Letts going native in the course of
his years in the theatre seat, but every so often he mounts one of his
hobby-horses – or, more improbably, several at once – and canters back
and forth pretending to speak for legions of adherents to Proper
Values: godliness, Englishness and… well, I’m reminded of lines written
by Brendan Behan in his satirical song
The Captains And The Kings: “In our
dreams we see old Harrow, / And we hear the crow’s loud caw, / At the
flower show our big marrow / Takes the prize from Evelyn Waugh”.
His review of
The City is
prime Quentin. He gets in the by-now-requisite pop at the fact
that the Royal Court receives public funding (sometimes some things
that some people don’t like get some public money – deal with it),
seems to feel personally insulted by the play and so resorts to insult
himself (and rather infantile insult at that, suggesting Martin Crimp
might better be called “Chimp”) and ends with a classical old-England
harrumph, “Why should this disgusting play prosper at the expense of
real people?” Fact: Quentin Letts is exactly five months older
than me. But I fear that on this occasion his zeal to speak for
the values of the
Daily Mail and
its readership may have backfired. At one point he also damns
city populations as a whole, as “slack-jawed urbanites”, exalting in
contrast the decency and discrimination of “the shires”. Now, I
don’t know, but I’d bet hard money that a significant majority of
Mail readers are in fact urbanites
or at best suburbanites, slack-jawed or otherwise, whose spiritual home
may be the rural shires but whose reality will diverge radically from
the pretended norm which underlies Quentin’s remarks.
“Clearly”
The reviews of
The City also
yield one of several characteristic Tim Walkerisms in this issue.
There’s a rhetorical device which I think of as “the ‘Clearly…’ ploy”:
in order to shore up a dodgy assertion, simply claim certainty by
stating that it is “clearly” so, or words to that effect. Thus
Tim: “It was generally accepted that [Crimp’s]
Attempts On Her Life at the
National was one of the worst plays to have been put on the London
stage for a very long time.” Generally accepted by whom?
Not by the critics, who were predominantly ambivalent about it (though
look at Tim’s review for some more assertion-based material). Not
by ticket-buyers, who gave it solid business. Not by most of the
people I know who saw it: they continue to rave about it even now, to
an extent that I find quite puzzling. (For what it’s worth, I
thought it was wildly over-rated, but not as wildly as Tim, and
certainly not wildly enough to lead me to invent a majority on my side
of the question.) Generally who, then – General Walker?
Similarly, in his review of
Harper
Regan, Tim claims that “it is true” (how “clearly” can you get?)
“that for some people […] the phrase [“kitchen sink”] conjures up
memories of cutting-edge entertainment.” While I’m in the betting
mood, I’d wager that he couldn’t name two living theatre-goers known to
him who respond in 2008 in any such way. (And just to even
matters out a little as regards this tactic, I’d also take issue with
Michael Billington’s declaration in his
Taming Of The Shrew review that
“[director Conall] Morrison’s point is clear”: as my own review
illustrates, it was anything but clear to me, and several points about
his staging cannot be explained by Michael’s critical interpretation.)
I’ve grown to respect Lloyd Evans since my early outbursts, as he does
tend to do what any critic worth their salt must do: he backs up his
points. He does not simply state his views, he argues them…
“argues” in the sense of corroborating with evidence and/or reasoning,
not simply stating them contentiously. But he does nevertheless
strike me quite often as being contrary for the sake of it. When
my esteemed colleague and predecessor Ian Herbert wrote this column, he
would deliberately try to even things out on occasion by playing
devil’s advocate: either defending a show that had been generally
considered to be poor, or laying into one that had been lauded.
And he, too, built his case upon specific evidence. But that done
was in the context of the critical discourse as a whole, as reprinted
herein. It’s not quite the same when you’re writing in an
individual, non-meta-publication; then, it looks more as if it’s done
simply for the sake of providing writing that’s entertaining rather
than necessarily either accurate or informative.
What
it’s like
And surely that is what a critic must always aim for, whether they
think of themselves as a chin-stroking sage or a champion of [insert
your favoured social/political grouping here]. What we must do
first and foremost is tell our audience what a show is like. Not
whether or not they should go and see it – they can make up their own
minds about that, once they know what it’s like. And if we, or
our editors, care more about making a splash, or about arguing matters
other than those onstage, or imagine for a moment that the subject is
anything but the play and production before us, then we get it wrong,
and in doing so we pollute the waters not just for ourselves but for
those around us and those to come.
Now, I think I’d better take a couple of aspirin to thin my blood…