Week 26: Press night
October 9, 2012
There is an unspoken rule between theatre makers and theatre critics: the crits won't write anything about a show until the designated 'Press Night'. This means a production can be tried out in front of an audience in previews without the fear of being judged by the local and national press. After Press Night, the production is open to anyone writing anything about it.
In our dressing room—overflowing with flowers, champagne, chocolate and good-luck cards — we had a heated discussion about the role of critics in their evaluation of theatre.
Some of my colleagues argue that critics hold too much power. It seems unfair that one person's opinion can kill a show by drying up its audience. A bad review will remain in the public record forever, though our performances are ephemeral, only able to defend themselves in the moment on stage.
Even positive reviews rile actors who mistrust critics. They argue that receiving good reviews can inflate actors' (already large) egos and diminish their desire to improve. Performances tend to grow over the run of any production, but a good review can freeze a production, making actors wary of making any changes, even for the better, for fear of tinkering with the formula that led to the good reviews.
If we agree that an actor performs best when following his own instincts, then reading reviews introduces external influences on the work that can rival the actor's and director's impulses, oftentimes adulterating the product, making it inauthentic to the vision of its creators.
In a time when we tune into Big Brother and The X Factor to watch people make asses of themselves, a harsh review can be more entertaining to read than a glowing one, and a well-crafted damnation of an actor can launch the career of a writer.
Actors who agree with what I have just said, tend not to read reviews.
I read reviews.
That's not because I disagree with some of my colleagues, but because I think theatre criticism is an essential part of the artistic dialogue. As an actor and a journalist, I think it's good and necessary that writers provide a lasting account of theatre events, and engage in the artistic conversation initiated by the performances.
It is important for the press to inform the public about theatre events that occur, as they would other newsworthy events. The readership of a newspaper, magazine, or website increases the number of people who become aware of the production, even if they cannot attend. Especially in tough economic times, I think the press does the public a service in informing theatre-goers of what they might, or might not want to spend their hard-earned money to see.
Selfishly, good reviews in the New York Times, the Guardian, and the Independent helped launch my acting career, landed me an agent, and got me meetings with casting directors who would not have met me without the exposure. Similarly, good reviews can take an unknown production out of obscurity and give it a marketing push that small companies and theatres could never afford. I believe I can separate this business reality from my artistic process in the rehearsal room and on stage.
Don't get me wrong, it saddens me when I, or productions I am in, get bad reviews (even if I agree with them). It makes me angry when reviewers use their platform for their personal politics, to promote or defame specific directors, actors, points of view, or styles of work. I also think some reviewers should use self-restraint when unleashing a tirade of vitriol against a performer or performance; it is critical to remember these are real people, placing weeks, months, years, careers of hard work in a forum for judgment.
All that being said, I think the discussion on reviews is misplaced when it focuses exclusively on writers.
More emphasis needs to be placed on readership. When you read a review, it is crucial to remember it is the opinion of one person, with whom you may, or may not, agree. Reviewers, like artists, are subjective human beings and should not be made into holy figures, with the ability to beatify or condemn a production. I have never agreed with a reviewer on every single piece they wrote on every single production they saw, just as I would not agree with any other person on their verdict on all the theatre they saw in their life.
There are some actors in our company who read reviews, and there are some who do not. We all know our colleagues' preferences on the matter. We don't leave reviews lying around, and those of us who discuss them, do so as if we were sharing secret gossip.
by Ankur Bahl
| No comments yet
Share this