Putting the critics on notice

As the perennial debate over theatre reviewing continues, actor PETER ELLIOT looks at the issue from his side of the boards.

For some time there has been more vigorous debate over what makes a fair theatre review. While not wishing to inflame any feelings in that debate, there is always room for discussion about reviews - this time from an actor's perspective.

I have read hundreds of reviews, I've even featured in a few and accept them as part of my total experience. But they mainly inform people what's on, who's working, and who is doing great work, or not.

Everyone working in theatre reads reviews. Even those who swear they never read them, do, sooner or later. Every word, every choice of phrase is mulled over because reviews matter. We read them hoping for positive comment, knowing a good review won't necessarily do much for the box office, but a bad one can kill a production stone-dead.

Bad news travels fast. Most actors take their reviews on the chin, but they can hurt. An unnecessarily personal attack on a performer is destructive and can overwhelm positive reports.

A review can affect an actor's work, family and mortgage payments. There is almost no other industry in which continued existence in a chosen profession can be jeopardised by someone who may know little of what you do.

Perhaps it's time to review the reviewer, to offer some positive insight into what we, as actors and directors, feel should constitute good review practice. I have resisted the urge to name names, to submit examples of unwonted cruelty and persecution, and have attempted to be as objective as possible.

This is what I think makes a learned and fair review:

1. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing: A knowledge of history, literature and practice is a minimum requirement, so what is new and what is substandard can be appraised honestly. The more experienced the reviewer, the better. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

2. Know thyself: The reviewer should decide early whether their reviews are chit-chat and personal opinion pieces, or whether they consider themselves serious, thoughtful critics whose job is to inform and clarify.

3. Write well: Write with a lively style so readers are entertained and intellectually stimulated. A summary of the plot is not a review.

4. Be present: Review the production itself and know the difference between the play and the production. Do not waste time talking about theatre in general or disagreeing with a theatre or production company on wider issues.

5. Get a life: A critic should have an accumulation of living so events onstage can be tallied against experience. But leave personal, political or sexual agendas at home. Don't use the review as a platform to attempt to redress the balance of the world.

6. Put your money where your mouth is: Critics should adhere to the standards they seek to impose. Do not apply one standard to one company and a differing set of criteria to another. And if a critic dislikes a piece but knows the audience is enjoying it, they should report that. Likewise, if the critic likes the piece but the audience doesn't, report that, too.

7. Respect: Realise that what you are seeing has been thought about, discussed, rehearsed and loved for months. Give it the credit of being serious about what it is trying to achieve. Tell us why you feel the production isn't achieving that end. Try to discover what the writer, directors and actors are trying to say.

8. Need to know: Name the writer, director, cast and designers. These reviews will be a historic document.

9. Comparisons are odious: Theatre is different from television and film, and associations from those media have no relevance. An actor in a theatre piece should never be compared with something they have done on film or TV.

10. Affinity: The reviewer must come to the work from a basis of affinity with the art and the artists. It is not possible to have any full understanding of a subject without first having a great affinity for it. I also believe reviewers should do preparatory work and be aware many people fight long, difficult, compromising battles just to get their works performed.

Art costs. We need sponsors' cash to deliver the standard of work we aspire to. A needlessly destructive review puts everything at risk and burns hard-won sponsors. Years of work, hundreds of thousands of dollars and the careers of many are in jeopardy when a reviewer sits in the dark for an hour or so and slashes all that work.

Sarcasm and vituperation achieve nothing, help no one and may sink fledgling companies. Learned, positive criticism, yes - but grievous bodily harm, no.

A critic should entertain, inform, present cogent argument, and be prepared to enjoy something. Merely continuing the pastime of bashing, appearing learned because one's palate is jaded, does not mean we'll be won over with witty vilification.

11. Fight for the last word: Fight with your editors for the right to be fully heard. Theatre reviews are often brutish and short. Books, television, and music reviews are generally accorded much more space. Reviewers need space to deliver their argument.

If the pen is mightier than the sword - whose pen?