Challenge Accepted

In one of my regular ‘inspiration sessions’ (translation – sitting in a coffee shop catching up on my online reading) I came across an excellent commentary on the state of arts criticism in Australia. In CringeFestival, published in Kill Your Darlings’ online theatre and performing arts column, Jane Howard bemoans the proliferation of unpaid reviewers that clog our media, observing that few writers are actually fulfilling the brief of ‘critic’.

In summary, Howard believes that the current practice of paying reviewers in tickets alone has lowered the standard of our critical culture. Reviews have become less a platform for unpacking performances and prompting deep pondering, and more a tool for promoters to pimp their productions. Potentially problematic – yes indeed.

A similar view was articulated by Andrew Stafford in his blog (and later as a column for Mumbrella) back in November 2013. A music journalist of 20 years, Stafford confided in his post that he had turned down a role as music writer for The Daily Review, despite his adoration of the site’s parent publication, Crikey. Why this decision? The monetary compensation offered for the position was zero.

Stafford argued, and quite rightly I would suggest, that a journalist of his experience and renown should be appropriately remunerated for his skills. He would bring eyeballs and a level of quality to the then fledgling online magazine; surely these would be things The Daily Review would consider worth paying for? Apparently not.

Aside from the obvious reason (needing to put food on his table), Stafford said he felt that working for free would make him ‘complicit in undermining’ the careers of his peers and colleagues. He felt that media outlets which purport to provide quality content should be able to afford to pay the people best qualified to do the job.

I myself am operating on the ‘will work for tickets’ model right now. Having eschewed the corporate nine-to-five for an as yet to be determined career in the writing field, I naturally looked to write about what I know. And as a graduate of theatre studies from QUT, and a some-time amateur actor, I thought reviewing theatre could be a good first step.

Once I started digging, I uncovered numerous online publications who were prepared to ‘pay’ me to publish my critical thoughts. I have signed-up to write for a few of these sites, and so far have been treated to a number of free nights out. But in much the same way as I did when I worked as a finance trade journalist receiving regular invitations to media briefings in five-star restaurants, I have realised that such invitations have the potential to cost me my integrity. We’ll give you a five course meal with matching wines, provided you write up our latest product. Or, we’ll give you and your partner a free ticket to opening night, provided you say how fabulous we are. Power corrupts, and all that.

However, I would like to think that within this new world, where everyone literally can be a critic, those who genuinely have something to say will rise to the top. We pick and choose who to follow on Twitter, because we are entertained and interested by what they have to say (in a few short characters no less). We can select our favourite news topics or publications on Flipboard. And we subscribe to bloggers whose words resonate through the noise of our daily lives. You can build your own audience – provided you know who that audience is.

As any good marketer (content or otherwise) will tell you, there’s no point shouting your story from the roof-top if your target audience resides in an underground tunnel. In the same way, not everyone wants to read an effuse opinion piece with obscure 1940s pop culture references which challenges their very hipster existence; some people just want to know whether something is worth the price of admission.

I do think there is an audience for the kind of critical commentary for which Howard laments. Kill Your Darlings is one rallying point. The Australian Book Review is another. But I also think that those of us who are working for nix need to do our bit too. We need to push ourselves harder, polish and edit our own work. Write often, sure, but write well. Engage with other commentators, share their thoughts, even (or especially) if they differ from yours. Build your own audience, one which truly represents the people you want to speak to. And spread the critical word.

Thank you Ms Howard – challenge accepted.

What's Wrong With Playing it Safe?

“He says his aim is poetry. One does not aim at poetry with pistols. At poets, perhaps...” 

One of the things that I often notice when watching a theatrical comedy is that there is always one actor who doesn’t quite get it. Timing is, as they say, everything, and there are some actors who can’t quite pick-up the rhythm. But I am delighted to report that this was not the case in STC’s latest production of Tom Stoppard’s Arcadia.

Not only did every single cast member held their own in the comedy stakes, they also managed to convincingly deliver both the poetry and convoluted mathematical concepts that riddle the script. Even Wil McDonald as Gus Coverly and Augustus Cloverly, who spent the majority of the show in silence, drew many the snicker and giggle. 

The standouts (because there are always one or two) were Ryan Corr, who delivered insult after insult with genuine relish (particularly as they flew over the heads of their intended) and Michael Sheasby, who’s portrayal of Valentine Cloverly was delightfully geeky. He handled the complex theoretical monologues with ease, and he evoked in this reviewer a genuine desire to run up and just give him a big hug.

Julie Lynch deserves an award for her beautiful costumes – it’s lovely to see period clothing in its rightful place for a change. Michael Scott-Mitchell’s set design received criticism from some because of the extremely long table which extended over the majority of the stage. However, I think the table worked to create a strong contrast between the arm’s length nature of male-female relationships in the 1800s and the cosy familiarity within which we engage with one another today. I also think he deserves credit for Plautus/Lightening, the tortoise who all but steals the show.

This was a well-produced, well-cast, well-designed show. You would think that should make an audience happy – particularly when the play is a comedy – but I couldn’t help but feel that last Wednesday night’s audience was a little faint with their applause. In the same vein as a Ron Howard film, you can’t really fault it, but it’s not something you’ll be talking about forever and a day. Maybe that’s a fault of the script, which effectively predicts the demise of the world as we know it (a bit of a downer), or maybe the Sydney theatre-going public have grown too used to controversial, out-there design and incomprehensible directorial choices. Whatever the reason, I felt alone in my admiration of the experience. Perhaps I just appreciate the pleasant change when a director plays by the book, literally.

I do have one criticism though – how come the tortoise didn’t get a bow?

Details
Viewed: 9 March 2016
Venue: Drama Theatre, Sydney Opera House
Author: Tom Stoppard
Director: Richard Cottrell
Production Company: STC