Monday 14 February 2011

2p


Mark Titchner, 2009 for Butterworth Hall, Warwick Arts Centre (found on Tim Etchell's blog)

So, preview performances – fair game for the non-professional reviewer or not?

You’d imagine by this point in proceedings that pretty much every argument for and against would have been aired and I’d be loathe to undertake a point-by-point rehash of a 50-comments-+ thread as well as articles broadly in favour of his position from Jake Orr and Dan Baker and varying shades of against from: Laura Tosney, Corinne Furness, Glen Pearce, Ian Foster, “Sans Taste” and even half a podcast on the subject, not to mention some rather unpleasant tweets. But, annoyingly, so far no one seems to have made some very obvious points.

Trueman has accused “bloggers” of “the cynical practice of reviewing previews”.

As is clear from Tosney and Furness’s defences, the term “blogger” is far too broad. Clearly neither of these blogs is primarily or exclusively a theatre reviews blog. The front page of Tosney’s [at time of writing] takes you back as far as September 14th 2010, with not so much as the slightest hint of a review of anything in a theatre, preview or otherwise. Similarly, Furness’s Distant Aggravation blog, while clearly more theatre-oriented, gets back to 12th Jan (an article about tie-dying, I think) without any actual reviewing. There’s a bit of personal grumbling about the Old Vic’s A Flea in Her Ear (22nd Jan – A Year in Theatre: Show # 2 – no idea if it was in preview or not at that point), but it is in no way seeking to be “a review” in any conventional sense. It’s an entirely personal set of observations ranging from “I suspect that I would prefer to sit through a glorious failure than a well made-nothing.” to “I have an ongoing debate with some friends about which theatre has the best looking ushers. Two words: Old Vic”.

Obviously Trueman’s piece isn’t aimed at them, although this could have been made clearer in his original piece.

Furness’s A Flea... review, however does offer an excellent example of what Trueman isn’t talking about. A common complaint about his argument is the reductio-ad-absurdum conclusion that to stop “bloggers” or indeed any “paying punters” from blogging about, Tweeting, or discussing a show they’ve just seen, be it in preview or otherwise, is essentially to stifle a genuine human reaction – albeit channelled through some oddly contrived means. But if we accept “To Tweet is Human” as a maxim, or at least put it on the level of “as natural as chatting” then I suppose we have to live with it.

I don’t think Trueman would really argue otherwise.

On the other hand, surely anyone can see that there’s a qualitative difference between someone who blogs many mundane details of their life, their to-do lists, and so on, to someone keeping a blog which consists entirely of reviews of plays, perhaps round-ups of reviews of plays, “What’s On” features and monthly round-ups of plays and has a Twitter account named after such activities: @Dave’sTheatreView or somesuch. There is, in short, a qualitative difference between marketing yourself as a person and marketing yourself as an opinion on theatre on social media, n’est pas?

So, let’s focus this discussion on Theatre Review Blogs.

And so to the charge of cynicism...

To be honest, I’m rather surprised it’s this which has generated all the outrage. This is reflected in the way that many respondents have floundered in their attempts to refute the charge. There Ought to be Clowns’s Ian Foster in the “As Yet Unnamed London Theatre Podcast” seems to admit as much while claiming that regularly booking into one of the earliest possible previews in order to steal a march on embargoed “professional” critics “isn’t” cynical. Of course it’s cynical. The only question is why bother denying it?

There are two main points which torpedo this innocent “What? Me? Cynical?” stance:

Firstly, if a preview period runs for let’s say two weeks, if you’re only buying preview tickets because they’re cheaper, why not buy them on the last night before press night? That way, if you’re aiming to write about the show, you’ll get the closest thing to the finished version that will be “opening” the next day.

Secondly, if you’re not chasing ratings by having your review out two weeks before the critics, and you only blog “as a personal record of what you’ve seen”/“as a hobby” why not observe the press embargo anyway?

I mean, if it’s only just this hobby of yours and you’re basically only there/writing for your personal satisfaction, why not hold back your review until press night, and then post it on your blog along with a full disclaimer saying “I saw this on its first preview because I like to see plays as soon as it’s possible to pay to do so, I hope you like this entirely personal record of that first preview”?

Otherwise, why not cut the cant and admit what you’re up to?

It’s fine. You’re cynical. You’re saving yourself *some money* so you can see a show. You’ve weighed up the pros and cons of seeing a preview and have decided in favour, and are then writing about the show you saw. You’re also blogging your thoughts in a way that very frequently purports to be authoritative. Theatres are unlikely to stop selling you tickets, and you’re unlikely to stop buying them and writing about the show you saw. Fine, and fine. But why pretend otherwise?

Unlike Trueman, I’m not sure I have an enormous problem with people writing about previews on the internet, per se. After all, the West End Whingers have made it their stock in trade for years now, and apart from the not unwelcome discomfort which they caused Andrew Lloyd-Webber, it doesn’t seem to have deeply troubled the theatre establishment. Indeed, let’s be honest, the Whingers are now more a part of the theatre establishment than ANY PROFESSIONAL CRITIC. A point worth remembering, I think.

Indeed, I think in many cases what I see as the mainstream-theatre blogosphere *can* - and I stress *can* - act as a welcome corrective to the equal cynicism of commercial theatre producers whose "previews" *can* (again *can*), be ludicrously expensive and whose product might well just be a cynical attempt to exploit a perceived market. As with all ethical considerations, I’m not sure it’s just a matter of black or white right or wrong.

On one hand, if theatres are charging virtually the same (or actually the same) for a preview as for a post-press night performance, there does seem to be justification for missing the distinction which the theatre is pleading.

On the other hand, if there is a reasonably generous discount and three or four different theatre bloggers arrange to all attend a show on its first preview... Well, perhaps the bloggers in question should be prepared to weather accusations of cynicism for trying to get in as quickly before the press as possible.

After writing the main part of this, a playwright friend suggested that perhaps very-first-previews really should be considered properly off-limits and correspondingly enormously discounted – with perhaps a change of title to “Public Dress” or similar. Although, currently enough, I note that “Theatrigirl” has just published a “review” of the Royal Opera House’s Anna Nicole Smith opera, the conditions of which she describes thus: “On Saturday morning, the ROH allowed a small audience – mostly students –in for a rehearsal/run-through of their much-talked-about new work”. Given the unbashed rave she’s given it, I don’t suppose the ROH are going to be too cross, and I'm sure she wouldn’t have written up a dress rehearsal unless she was going to be so positive, but even so, it does seem to be reviewing public dress rehearsal as final product, albeit with a disclaimer and glowingly.

Still, Actual Theatre Bloggers might want to have a think a bit more about Trueman’s initial premise. Maybe there should (and, quite possibly already is, in the mind of many) be a sliding scale of correlation between size-of-discount and nearness to observation-of-embargo, for a start. And maybe also a bit of slack cut for more laudably artistic ambitious projects in order that they might find their feet (i.e. go on the last preview before press night if the tickets are substantially discounted and it's the sort of work that might plausibly need time to fully find its feet).

Given the public facing-ness of blogs, behaviour will probably continue to be dictated by public interest. Hence the two reviews [at time of writing] of the NT’s Frankenstein already circulating. Of course, being solidly sold out, such reviews can’t really do anything more than tell people who haven’t got tickets what it’s like (really great! or really not-great! depending who you read).

However, as ultimately a question of public interest, it boils down to whether you consider the embargo-breakering bloggers to be Wikileaks or Andy Coulson, in much the same way as some readers will ultimately return to blogs because they find them well-written, reliable, entertaining and insightful and others will read any old badly written drivel if it’s “an exclusive”.

11 comments:

Weez said...

Oh Andrew, move on!

Remember the flamenco buskers!

http://www.sanstaste.com/2011/02/13/thoughts-from-the-metro/

lurkmoophy said...

Hi Andrew,

I still don't understand why yourself or Matt see this as a cynical practice? It's as if both of you seem to think that bloggers review previews because they have contempt for people who review on press night? Is this the same as any journalist who is trying to publish a story before another publication (not that that is what all bloggers are usually trying to do)?

Yes, bloggers choose previews because they are cheaper, especially considering there are still a large portion of theatres who won't give comps to bloggers, no matter what their traffic figures are like (unless they are pseudo bloggers, like whatsonstage and guardian bloggers).

Bloggers also sometimes review previews as it will mean that they are higher in google rankings. However, if a blogger sees their blog as an online publication or any kind of professional entity, then that is standard practice across the industry. I don't really see how either of these is a cynical practice.

Also, discounting either Tosney's or Furness's blog because you didn't see any reviews is slightly ludicrous. For one, Furness is a regular blogger on Whatsonstage, as well as Inspired Flight and ROH online. Tosney is co-founder of Twespians, a blogger, critic and arts professional theatre networking event, and has worked with bloggers consistently for the past year or two. A quick look at the about me page would have found this out. However, regardless of this, why should their opinions not matter?

Laura Tosney said...

Hi Andrew,

At the risk of perpetuating something I know many people are bored of (sorry, sorry) there were just a couple of things I wanted to respond to that are relevant to my own blog post :)

- Quite right, I don't call myself a 'theatre' blogger. I have a personal website and the blog covers whatever topic I'm interested in at that moment. I'm very interested in theatre and it happens that Matt's article caught my eye sufficiently enough for me to want to respond to the sentiment and points made. Personally, I understood the type of blog Matt was referring to and I hope my blog post didn't appear to be defensive on a personal level - that definitely wasn't my intention.

>>But if we accept “To Tweet is Human” as a maxim, or at least put it on the level of “as natural as chatting” then I suppose we have to live with it

- This was one of my points in that, a theatre doesn't just have to 'live with it' and have social media chatter happening around them as something they simply endure. They can engage and harness it, use it to shape the creative process, or to boost box office figures. There's massive future potential that I felt derisive posts like Matt's (which don't properly grasp the space in front of him) may damage.

"There is, in short, a qualitative difference between marketing yourself as a person and marketing yourself as an opinion on theatre on social media, n’est pas?"

- mm, but do you mean marketing yourself as an *authority* on theatre and social media, rather than someone who loves it and is opinionated? I'd say there's a difference between the two, and it's the difference between say, Whatsonstage.com or A Younger Theatre, and why/what Ian and Corinne blog.

- I agree with your point about a disclaimer (I made a similar point myself) but I can't fully agree with an embargo...after all, and this is something I felt Matt didn't encompass in his article either, the audiences and readership are different for blogs and for press. Sure, there'll be the Venn diagram-esque sector where they cross over, but essentially you're talking to different people, and I think people forget this when discussing the significance of bloggers and trad press.

Which brings me to:

"After all, the West End Whingers have made it their stock in trade for years now, and apart from the not unwelcome discomfort which they caused Andrew Lloyd-Webber, it doesn’t seem to have deeply troubled the theatre establishment"

- also something I agree with and makes me wonder at the argument at all...if preview reviews are often more harmful than good, I'd like to see the links between a spate of negative preview reviews, that were online significantly earlier than press night reviews, negatively affecting ticket sales throughout a run. Matt's issue was that reviewing previews are disrespectful to the theatre companies, but what if those reviews/blogged opinions are incredibly positive and enthusiastic? Are they only disrespectful if they're negative? What then if the view doesn't change from the blogger to the press night? Is the reviewer/blogger still in the wrong for having published the same opinion two days earlier?

(cont)

Laura Tosney said...

(continued from above)

I think, on the whole, the debate is a worthy one. It's interesting, it should be talked about in-depth and it's something I've watched other industries go through in my line of work...theatre is just catching up, that's all. However, I think why Matt's piece struck such a chord and why it engendered so many responses is that his tone was felt to be rude and arrogant; I know I personally responded to the emotion and that which remained unsaid in his article as well as the salient points. With hindsight, the ability to leave irritation at the door of the response would have been better, but hindsight is always 20/20 and emotive language begets emotive language.

Apologies if this only served to perpetuate something people want to put to bed, but I'm interested and I like debates, so I wanted to respond :)

All the best,
Laura Tosney

Andrew Haydon said...

Briefly (or as briefly as I can manage):

@Weez - Re: "remember the flamenco guitarists" - I reckon it's cheating to get in the last word and *then* suggest everyone else moves on. Olive Branches look better when not encumbered with pots and kettles, n'est pas?

@Luke - "I still don't understand why yourself or Matt see this as a cynical practice? ... Bloggers also sometimes review previews as it will mean that they are higher in google rankings...if a blogger sees their blog as an online publication or any kind of professional entity, then that is standard practice across the industry. I don't really see how either of these is a cynical practice."

a) in short, then, we're destined not to agree, then, because what you describe above strikes me as a reasonably concise definition of someone doing something cynically.

b) which industry? Surely both Matt and My (and Jake Orr and to some extent Dan Baker)'s points are that press-night-embargo breaking is *not* "standard practice" in theatre criticism. That'd be why there's any accusation of cynicism at all.

"(unless they are pseudo bloggers, like whatsonstage and guardian bloggers)"

'ang on - surely a blog is a blog. What's "pseudo" about the Guardian and WOS? Genuine question.

"It's as if both of you seem to think that bloggers review previews because they have contempt for people who review on press night?"

Not exactly. I don't think either Matt or I suggest bloggers review previews with any reference whatsoever to people who review on press night. Nor has anyone suggested that bloggers' comtempt is *of* them. Contempt is a needlessly strong word in its vernacular usage for this case, although in the legal sense of "contempt of court" I guess ignoring the "gentleman's agreement" of the press night embargo on, um, press (in the sense of published copy) is a relatively similar (obviously scaled down) type of offence.

But, as we've already noted, bloggers aren't bound by any such rules, and so it's entirely between them and their consciences when and what they decide to publish.

"Is this the same as any journalist who is trying to publish a story before another publication (not that that is what all bloggers are usually trying to do)?"

Um, well, given that previews open, and papers *don't* send anyone before press night (unless it's got someone very famous, in which case they might send a photographer and diarist - but even that is very rare), no. I mean, it's not like the papers don't know the things are running in preview. But they don't break the embargo.

There's a much better and more interesting discussion to be had about the extent to which the press and theatres live in one another's pockets to a far greater extent than people realise, but we'll save that for a day when I've got 8 hours spare to write it.

Andrew Haydon said...

@Laura T. - "it happens that Matt's article caught my eye sufficiently enough for me to want to respond... I hope my blog post didn't appear to be defensive on a personal level"

That seems fair enough, although, yes, I was initially surprised given that you stuck it on your personal blog given that the rest of that at least didn't seem to be where you put your more serious writing on theatre and etc. As far as "defensive on a personal level" goes - actually, it read as intensely personal - the first name familiarity, etc. I have no idea if you know Matt, but it felt a bit like there was more going on than I had really fathomed.

"on the whole, the debate is a worthy one. It's interesting, it should be talked about in-depth"

I agree.

"I think why Matt's piece struck such a chord and why it engendered so many responses is that his tone was felt to be rude and arrogant"

I disagree - well, I disagree that his tone was either of those things. I thought it was reasonably straightforward and frank. It's not arrogant to state a personal feeling - much less so than to presume to review a play in public when no one has asked one to, if one wanted to be pointed about it, in fact.

"theatre doesn't just have to 'live with it' and have social media chatter happening around them as something they simply endure. They can engage and harness it"

Possibly. Although, on a personal note, I find it a bit of a minefield. I mean, one might *want* to follow one of these theatre types on Twitter, because I dunno, they link to good articles or something, but then once you're following them, you can't, for instance, un-read someone coming out of the first preview of a show which you're seeing in a fortnight and saying something negative, destructive and blunt in 140 characters.

"but do you mean marketing yourself as an *authority* on theatre and social media, rather than someone who loves it and is opinionated? I'd say there's a difference between the two, and it's the difference between say, Whatsonstage.com or A Younger Theatre, and why/what Ian and Corinne blog."

I could/should have gone into this more, but didn't quite have the time/patience to prac.crit. *why* I was saying that Ian ('fraid I've not read Corinne extensively), frexample, writes as a kind of ersatz-authority. It's primarily a matter of structure, choices of coverage and so on. I mean, look at There Ought to be Clowns's output last year. It's pretty damn *comprehensive* in terms of what one man can humanly see in year. Similarly, the reviews are structured in much the same way as yer standard Billington. I don't fully buy the "doing it out of love is different to doing it as a job" line. Billington could have retired years ago. And I doubt he actually does do it for the money - although I'm sure the money is nice. Nah. Billington does it because he bloody loves it. For the record, that's about where I think the comparison ends. While I might occasionally *say* "Billington can't write for toffee" there's toffee and there's toffee, right?

"I know I personally responded to the emotion and that which remained unsaid in his article"

Is this from that Bonnie Tyler song about theatre blogs? :-)

Laura said...

"That seems fair enough, although, yes, I was initially surprised given that you stuck it on your personal blog given that the rest of that at least didn't seem to be where you put your more serious writing on theatre and etc."

- I chose to put it on my site as that's where I like to write my opinions. Topics I've moved through include politics, the BBC, theatre, weekend things, gigs, photos I've taken, facebook and privacy concerns, social media, journalism...I've never given it a single theme, so I write about whatever takes my interest, and it usually goes through phases.

"I have no idea if you know Matt, but it felt a bit like there was more going on than I had really fathomed."

- Matt and I do know each other, but I probably would have called him by his first name anyway had we not given I was responding to his article rather than him as someone I know.

You didn't aim this at me, but: "'ang on - surely a blog is a blog. What's "pseudo" about the Guardian and WOS? Genuine question"

- well there are 'online publications', which have a more magazine/trad press style. That's WOS and the Guardian. Yes, the Guardian's section is called ''blogs'' but that's literally because they sprang up (and same with the Times, the Indy, all the nationals) around the time they noticed blogs gaining more traction and readership. Technically what the blog sections of national papers are, are op-eds you can access online, with the title 'blog' being a sot to the growing prevalence and popularity of them.

"I disagree - well, I disagree that his tone was either of those things."

- Then we'll agree to disagree...Though I think when you say "Although, on a personal note, I find it a bit of a minefield" - might have something to do with why we read the tone differently.

"you can't, for instance, un-read someone coming out of the first preview of a show which you're seeing in a fortnight and saying something negative, destructive and blunt in 140 characters"

- I can see that, but I would be surprised if you let it sway you. Then again, it's easy enough to just...not follow them, then.


"Is this from that Bonnie Tyler song about theatre blogs? :-)"

- Nah, probably something I picked up from a Peter Brook tome, though they'll probably set it music soon to fill the gaping hole left by Dirty Dancing. (#false)

Lizzie Davis said...

Oo, I get a mention! To add my halfpenny to your tuppence - I agree my write up of Anna Nicole does read like a review of a polished or finished production...but that's partly because I was unsure how to structure or write a review of a rehearsal - and how it should be different from that of a polished performance. Other than repeating the disclaimer that it's a rehearsal/preview. Thoughts welcome.

Andrew Haydon said...

@Lizzie - Now there's a good question. When I started this blog (aeons ago now) the first entry claimed: "The purpose of this blog is to provide a space for “unofficial” comment and reviews which don’t quite come within the remit of, well, any of the other places for whom I write stuff". That was before I wrote for the Guardian Theatre Blog and before I wrote for Time Out or the FT. Even so, I thought: "blog for blogging/bloggy-stuff, other places for reviews". At some point I changed my mind. This process got solidified by trying to sell any half-way plausible ideas for blogs to the Guardian, and then the part-death of the first wave of theatre blogs, and then my real life got a bit time-consuming, and so on and so on.

None of which answers your question, other than to note that this blog used to be all about reviewing scratch things or for articles discussing writing about theatre and trends in new work and, interestingly, I notice, collecting links to articles in the way that people now use Twitter.

In fact, I've gone back to the beginning of the blog to see what I did then, and what I did then, amongst other things was review previews - http://postcardsgods.blogspot.com/2007/07/st-joan-national-theatre.html Ha! Although I think I've been pretty scrupulous at a) foregronding that it's a preview and b) not reviewing elements which were liable to change.

There's also this rambly disclaimer from : "This afternoon I went to a rehearsed reading at the Old Vic of a newish American play called The Water’s Edge by a playwright called Theresa Rebeck. It had an impressive cast (including Diana Quick, who nearly 30 years on is still doomed to be remembered as Julia from the seminal Granada production of Brideshead Revisited) and was directed by Fiona Morrell, who I’m pretty sure is a friend of my friend Lilli Geissendorfer, who produced Fiona’s The Alice Project at the CPT recently. Given that it was a private reading and was performed largely for the benefit of prospective producers, I’m unsure of the etiquette that surrounds such an event as regards write-ups on blogs. Well, no: I’m entirely sure. I would like this blog to function as a kind of back room/repository for all the longer, more rambly stuff that I don’t put in reviews, or write-ups of shows that I am not seeing in an “official” (ha!) capacity. Unfortunately, being as this is up on the web for all and sundry to peruse, I think there are still boundaries, and closed rehearsed readings are therefore off limits. I’m more than happy to tell anyone who wants to know what I thought of The Water’s Edge, in the pub (well, outside the pub while smoking), but no write-ups, I’m afraid."

Andrew Haydon said...

The last scratch I remember reviewing is here - although being as the scratch was also by a friend it pretty much breaks every rule in the critical book and most of the reason it would never count as a proper review is that it's too self-indulgent.

Pretty sure the last preview I reviewed is this one - which I think has a fine "public interest" argument, on the basis that the press night was put back on THE DAY OF THE PRESS NIGHT and I already had a non-press ticket anyway, and I make it very clear that it's more a news report than a review, and there was already masses of interest in there being a report from inside.

Urg. Sorry. Wittering.

So, short answer - I've definitely tried a few times to write something less like a "proper review" (as distinct from "writing a proper review *well*", which I think I might have done about twice ever), and I'm not sure I've ever really managed.

Still, it's good people are having the "how can/do/should we write about previews/scratch/dress" conversation again...

Andrew Haydon said...

Sorry, "rambly disclaimer from here" that should say...