HARRY MICHELL, director, actor and playwright, argues that it does.
Student reviews are necessary. They are a source of great publicity and, whether or not one would like to admit it, generally dictate a show’s success. However, the current approach to reviewing, taken by many student critics, has become an indulgent and even harmful practice.
A review should be centred solely on the production itself. This is a privilege acquired through the investment of hours upon hours of work, energy and emotion, given by unpaid amateurs, regardless of the quality of a show. A review should not be about the critic – there are plenty of other outlets for students to present their own ideas and promote themselves.
A review should tell us about the play, where the production succeeded or fell short. The critic should be almost invisible, and certainly impartial. This means abstaining from reviewing plays you’ve auditioned for, or with which you have close social affiliation; abstaining from reviewing genres or playwrights that you personally dislike; and abstaining from using drawn out, extended metaphors in a bid to boast rhetorical prowess.
Most of all, a review should never ‘attack’ a show, nor actively insult a production. This brings in far too much of the personal critic. Unless a show is actively offensive, the review should remain neutral in its evaluation. Excessive vehemence implies superiority in the reviewer, a superiority which makes me question why they themselves don’t stage a production instead.
Some may suggest that what I find indulgent or destructive, others find entertaining, that reviewers have a right to aim for high readership. But the best reviews I’ve read in Cambridge are those which manage to give informed, detailed and disinterested information on what did and didn’t work about a show. After all, this is what you’ll find in any professional newspaper.
Just because we’re all amateurs, doesn’t mean we have to settle for cheap gimmicks.
Controversy: The Review
AMI JONES, The Tab’s Theatre Editor, argues that student reviews make a valuable contribution to Cambridge theatre.
A beautiful thing about the Cambridge reviewing culture is that it isn’t one-way. It’s a dialogue. A review out of line with general opinion is marked as such within minutes of publication with a storm of comments.
If your show got slammed in The Tab and you’re not getting audience, it’s probably because everyone’s been telling each other they agree with the review, not because Cambridge is filled with mindless dogmatic followers of one person’s online opinion. And – as a review by a certain rival publication last week has conveniently shown – a strong response to a negative review often provides more publicity than a positive review.
Reviews bruise egos, yes. So what? I’ve been reviewed badly as a director and criticised as an actress. I got over it. The delight at getting handpicked out of dozens who auditioned, the thrill of being on-stage, the buzz of applause – performers get all this and more. They can handle criticism.
With theatres all over the country being closed down, Cambridge actors are unbelievably privileged, and it is a mark of the standard of student theatre here that there is a lively forum for opinions. And let’s face it, where else are you going to get them? The ADC bar is hardly known for its sincerity. And yes, reviewers try to write in funny/stylish ways. That’s not indulgence, that’s good journalism – no one reads boring reviews.
You are the ones who want us to exist. Every show has the right to refuse press. And every reader has the right to deny us hits. A review on its own means nothing – it only gains influence through how seriously its readers choose to take it. And readers do take The Tab‘s reviews seriously. Telling.
If you believe student reviewing is a bad thing, I welcome you to prove it and vote with your clicks. I doubt you will.
A playwright that doesn't know the difference between their and there… is they're no hope for the future!
…literally what are you talking about?
a playwright *who
why dont you correct his 'they're' if you are so oblivious to deliberate grammatical mistakes?
You have to love a newspaper that sees a comment about an error, corrects it and then publishes the comment anyway!
A passing pedant that doesn't know the difference between an exclamation mark and a question mark… is there no hope for the Tab comments section??
[polldaddy 5946288 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/5946288/ polldaddy]
If someone wants to put their own personal spin on student theatre then they should have a regular column where they impart their 'wisdom' and 'wit' on the productions of Cambridge. This is perfectly common when it comes to writers like Charlie Brooker and his ilk who write columns as opinion. There are definitely reviewers for The Tab who fall into this category and, considering the way columns seem to be handed out far and wide, I don't see what the problem is with giving them the freedom to have their own; please, send a critical reviewer though so that we get a useful review of the show as well.
If you are going to attach a star rating and turn it into a critical review of the show it should be done professionally, objectively, without ego and by a disinterested reviewer.
why its just studentia? who gives a toss other than limp wristed proto-Cleggs
I was at a university with student media that didn't have competent theatre critics. Everything was fantastic, if you believed the student magazine. As a director, I'd have rather an informed critical review than the badly composed back-slapping that we got. Still, was nice to show grandma I suppose. My point? Oh yes, that I envy the fact that Cambridge student media has the balls to give honest opinions of shows. Bad reviews make the good ones mean something.
there's a difference between a reviewer being critical of a show, and explaining why, and using hyperbole and personal attacks to slate the show and try and impress the reader with their wit. I think Harry is spot on. Reviews of course shouldn't just say that a show is amazing so as not to offend someone, but criticism needs to be justified. I'm sure as a director you'd rather receive a bad review that tells you where you've gone wrong, than a bad review that spends more time on hilarious opening anecdotes, or discussing the reviewer's personal issues (as many Tab reviews seem to…)
Dear Ami,
This argument – despite the misleading title – isn't really about whether reviews should exist or whether they should be abolished. The question is what TYPE of reviews would be best.
Theres definitely a place for reviews. People in Cambridge love assessment, after all. But when you say star ratings themselves have no effect upon audience attendance, I think many will share my opinion that this is fundamentally mistaken. Many people are motivated to go out to a play with rave reviews without hearing anything from people who have seen it, and many people abstain from going based on a slating. Absconding reviewers from all responsibility, and putting onus upon the readers to do some sort of critical thinking exercise with every review is a lazy argument. Popular opinion not only tends to echo the reviews, but in some cases is re-created verbatim.
Why do people listen to reviews? Because people only have limited time, attention, and money for theatre. Many people think: “Why would I even risk paying to go for a show that has a chance of living up to its 1/2 star Tab review?” In many cases because those who don't know any better WILL trust in the expertise of the reviewer. And, looking at the commonness of the comments saying 'here come the barrage of complaints from the cast and crew', it seems a lot of people value the opinion of the reviewer more than the commenters. Whilst this may be a fallacy, its just what happens. Especially when they don't qualify their judgements with the acknowledgement of the deep subjectivity of the whole exercise.
What is the merit of an opinionated/dogmatic review? Like Brechtian theatre, reviews pose opportunities for debate and get people talking. Everyone likes a bit of vitriol. I agree with you that peoples egos shouldn’t necessarily be protected – especially when shows have been popularly over-rated (I’m thinking about CAST 2011 – Macbeth – which was wonderfully trashed).
But equating STRONGLY OPINIONATED with GOOD, and by extension, BALANCED with BAD/BORING, is clearly misleading. Funny/styling writing is only one ingredient to produce good journalism. The fact that so many Tab reviews either champion or else demolish a piece of theatre is telling – it suggests it creates reviews people will enjoy reading, rather than thoroughly exploring the show’s merits and failings.
If you think that reviewing is indeed a two-way exercise, why not make this more explicit in the writing itself – it might be interesting, for example, to do a review of a show in the style of these debates, with two different people with opposing views arguing against each other. At least that might express the contentiousness of so many of the reviewer’s opinions and the arbitrariness of an institution upon which people’s reputations are built up and broken down, and upon which at least part of people’s decision to see or not see a show is based.
Why am I staying anonymous? Well, what difference would it make to my ideas were I to tell you who I am?
who the fuck is gona read all that
DR
I prefer it when you talk about potatoes or buttery biscuit bases Greg.
Spud me, Greg
This is why you should stick to Masterchef
I think reviews are entirely down to the publication, and it's the publication's decision what they review, if anything, who they send, and how long they are/style etc. You can never expect reviews to be objective. Unfortunately, as a director/writer/actor etc., I really do want to read something that engages with the show and gives a fair appraisal, regardless of how many stars – even five star reviews can be worthless if they don't actually engage with the show. However, Ami's right, reviews don't sell or detract from ticket sales, Cambridge theatre sells by word of mouth. So I really do think it's entirely the publication's decision what they do, and if a spew of unconsidered vitriol is what they fancy, I think, fine. Reviews and theatre are fundamentally separate entities, and thespy types need to concentrate on making their performances/direction/prop setting as good as possible. Plays thrive or not regardless of reviews, so just let publications do what the hell they want and thespos should be concentrating on doing what's right for the paying audience. xx
Mr. Carpenter, whilst you make interesting points, you are talking as somewhat of an unreliable anomaly whose last play has notably managed to sell due to word of mouth. However, it's a fallacy that ticket sales do not rely on reviews. Of course they do! Theater and reviews are not separate entities, if this were the case then critics would not receive free tickets to see shows, then thesps would not use reviews to publicise their shows…but also: One is reviewing the other! For this reason, a debate of this sort should be embraced and discussed, not merely shrugged off.
Also, I think it's ever so slightly redundant to suggest that 'thespos should be concentrating on doing what's right for the paying audience', that's what everyone is trying to do anyway.
Why were reviews/star ratings from previous shows used on Bereavement's publicity then?
Jeff also parodied/mocked/didn't take to heart the reviewing culture in his last show by intentionally putting negative reviews on his publicity.
But as soon as he received any good reviews he immediately switched.
Please can you stop publishing this rubbish. I remember when the Tab used to be mildly entertaining. I could not give less of a fuck about this
It's gone to fourth most read after less than three hours of publication. Shut up.
was just a troll
Dear Dear Tab,
I'm sorry to hear you didn't like this article. We at The Tab do our best to get a mix of subjects, so there's something for everybody. What sort of thing would you prefer to see here? If you have any ideas we'd always like to hear them. If you'd like to have a go at writing up one of your opinions (in 400 words or fewer) just send it in, and maybe it'll get published. In the mean time, go fuck yourself.
Best wishes,
Leo Parker-Rees
makes me wetter than an otter's pocket.
Ami Jones!
'the review should remain neutral in its evaluation'. Pretty sure that's not the idea…
I think in context he means emotionally neutral, which makes sense…but who needs context, it's the 21st century after all.
Agree with HM : its pretty grim when critics' obvious main aim is to use criticism to turn the spotlight onto themselves – when this happens it becomes a parasitic occupation …
hmm
I'm inclined to agree with Harry, though I think he's laying down letters to a law that only needs a spirit. The comment about failed auditionees reviewing, for example: it restricts opportunities for actors/directors to review other actors/directors, particularly on large-scale shows. And this opportunity is often valuable – in 2009-2010, TCS Theatre was edited by, and had a core review team with, several performer-critics, and this helped to give it a different vibe to Varsity.
Likewise, the disliking a playwright thing can work, if done appropriately. Unless it's student writing, critics are told to review the production not the play. I dislike Ibsen's writing because I believe it is characterised by features which often translate into uninteresting performances on the modern stage. If an Ibsen production overcomes those obstacles, I am (and have been) happy to praise it to the heights.
Reviewing the "production not the play" is the right idea when the play is a well established Shakespeare or Miller. But what about newer stuff? When I reviewed The Acid Test last term I admired all the performances and the set design etc. but found the play itself painfully irritating. It had only been professionally premiered a few months before. So in that case, isn't the choice of play by the director worth holding up to scrutiny? When it's so new or unknown, the very choice to put it on is a decision every bit as important as the rest of the direction. Avoid playwrights you know you don't like, fine, but you can't be a disinterested reviewer if the writing is making your teeth grind.
I don't think any script is beyond criticism. If you pick a canonical-but-bad play to put on, you still deserve to burn.
If you have good reasons, what's the difference?
"deserve to burn"? wrong attitude entirely, man.
some reviewers very clearly come to see a show with their mind already made up that they dislike the play and then allow this to prejudice their review
Basically, if the values of 'disinterestedness', 'informedness'(?) and 'invisibility' are there (though I think the latter's a bit too strong a word), the rest should follow regardless of the more particular circumstances. We just need critics who are going for those values, and I think there are probably more of us out there than Harry paints – we're just still learning them and learning to express them.
(Sorry for multiple posts – technological difficulties – this is why I don't review for the Tab…)
Reviews shouldn't be about the reviewer, but they also shouldn't be an uninteresting reeling-off of the events of the play. They serve a valuable purpose, letting prospective audience members know what a show will be like, and giving the cast pointers for the rest of the run (or future productions they may be involved in). However, they can (and should) combine that constructive element with a bit of fun; they should be entertaining to read, or they won't do anyone any good.
Attacks on bad theatre are deserved. What crying cast members seem to forget, when leaving abusive comments under names like 'Audience Member', is that people paid money to see their shows.
'This was basically our dress rehearsal, don't be so unfair'. Don't charge people to see you rehearse. A full audience means a lot of money spent, and if the cast and crew haven't put in the effort required by opening night, they deserve harsh criticism. If they've been lazy, unoriginal and sloppy, a reviewer should say so. Going out of your way to be spiteful isn't a good idea, but when you've had to sit through hours of awfulness, you're entitled to an attack. HOW ELSE WILL THEY LEARN?
The Tab's reviewers are utterly ignorant, self-indulgent c*nts who offer nothingbut cynicism to the shows they review and denigrate actors in a heartbeat because it makes them feel important.
I thought we'd already established this.
Has no one read The Critic as Artist? It's by me, & pretty good though I say so myself. The best reviews can be enjoyed independent of the production – cf Ken Tynan (who was born after my death, but who I hear is very good).
Too many English students, not enough English lectures!
I've never met a girl like you before
I am biased, but I always get annoyed with the idea that Tab reviews either 'champion or destroy' works. It's just not true. One and five star reviews are actually very rare. The 2-4 star range is by far the most used.
The problem is that extreme reviews attract a lot of comment and so people read them more. This gives them the false impression that they are the majority of our reviews. The irony is that this perception is created entirely by people's preference for extreme reviews – we don't let this effect our publishing.
You're a dick, so…
if you read the Tab's style guide for reviewing it explicitly dissuades reviewers from choosing a 3 star review.
It may have done at some point – the version I have certainly doesn't.
last year Toby Parker Rees refused to publish 3* reviews – he deliberately sacrificied good criticism for the sake of courting controversy
A: Cambridge student theatre = amateur = casts and crews learning and honing their skills
B: Cambridge student newspapers = amateur = reviewers and editorial teams learning and honing their skills
A+B = Everyone is learning – just deal with it
If public destructive criticism of A by B is the norm – then clearly even-handed debate about the motives of B = dealing with it creatively.. Deal with that. : @
NB to Oscar Wilde: Kenneth Tynan ended his days literally wanking and fecking in public in an attempt
to have a creative impact….
Equation, you're so right!
Just because student theatre is amateur they should be allowed to do whatever they want without anybody commenting on whether it's ethically or even constructively worthwhile.
If I did maths I'd read your book.
..that doesn't really sound like what Equation was getting at…
I think the reviewers Harry's taking issue with are not coming across as willings students trying to learn. very often tab reviewers seem to have approached a production with a closed mind and allow bitterness and ego to bleed into their evaluation of it
I enjoy being a wanker. You can all suck my dick.
Shows shouldn't be above criticism, and not every show works well; you're never going to be able to achieve quality every single time with the throughput we have, and people have to learn from their mistakes. You can still explain why in a review – there's a big difference between "it was shit" and "I just found I didn't believe, or care about, the main characters".
What really frustrates me is when someone has as practically their opening line "I don't like <author/genre>" – why the hell did you review it then? Reviewers that aren't prepared to go in with an open mind do more harm than good.
As for the opening night being a dress rehearsal due to technical cock ups – no, it shouldn't happen, everyone's aware of that; unfortunately sometimes shows bite off more than they can chew, and it happens. Often (not always) it's the fault of the techies unfortunately, and I genuinely feel sorry for the actors in this situation since there's nothing they can do. Reviews should be honest about that, but if they can see that problems were down to first night problems rather than a fundamental flaw in the show, they should say so. I like the approach that was taken in http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/issue/theatre/review-mot… – where she says what the flaws are, and that in her opinion they won't be fixed for the next night (in fact, I saw it on the Wed and I think many of them had been).
As for the idea that reviews don't matter to a show – they do, especially if the show is at a smaller venue or the people involved are relatively new. The fact that you can now leave comments after most reviews is a good thing – but that doesn't excuse poor reviews. There are often more shows on than you can see in a week, and the reviews will help you select.
I guess what many of us involved in shows are asking for is some respect. Be fair – come in with an open mind, and if you think it's not your style of show but others in the audience loved it, say that – so that those reading the review can tell if it's their type of show too. Don't get so carried away about getting your own wit onto the page that you don't get that message across. And if you have to say the show didn't work, be polite and remember that many people have put a lot of work in, rather than just putting the boot in because it fits with the tab's "banter" image.
what's worse is certain reviewers viewing plays for free then publishing no review…tab…just plain rude to be honest., just sayin.
Sometimes reviews don't meet our standards. We'd rather not publish than publish something sub-standard – we explain this to the shows involved, who usually prefer it to the alternative.
"We'd rather not publish than publish something sub-standard…."
Sophie Thorpe. That is all.
My basic rule of thumb is that all reviews are subjective. People may have good reasons for disagreeing with them. Therefore, in order for them to communicate well, they must both make their argument clear, so people can disagree on premises, and make their subjectivity clear. All this should also be done in an engaging, well written style that emphasises the right elements of the review.
This is really hard. It's no wonder we fail at it sometimes. Everyone screws up reviews or writes things they're disappointed with, just as most actors or musicians have been involved in something of which they're not proud. We don't mean any harm and we're trying our best. We're aware that doing something badly effects people, just as it effects actors if directors balls up a play (or vice versa).
If you are in the 'all Tab reviewers are wankers' camp, I would suggest getting to know some.
I don't think you should undermine good points being made here by claiming they're all just part of the 'all Tab reviews are wankers camp'.
Also, I totally agree with you basic rule of thumb, but the problem is not when reviewers don't achieve this but rather when they don't aim for it.
May I suggest that all involved try reading a selection of reviews from non-student newspapers? You will find the whole gamut of critical responses, from acknowledged subjectivity and audience response, to alleged objectivity and technical critique, all of which find an audience for whom that critical mode works, or said critic simply disappears and is heard of no more.
As theatre-makers, it is your job to sift the information for that which you think valuable to your craft, and remain aware of any other factors which may be influencing the review. As an audience member it is your choice to find that critical mode that best orientates you to productions you enjoy. Deborah Craine writes poorly and likes productions I loathe, so I ignore her; Donald Hutera writes well, and he and I overlap in what we enjoy, so I read him and may decide to see a show if he's reviewed it well. Other people prefer Deborah, but I don't take it personally.
In support of Equation <3, student reviewing is as much of a learning process, as any other part of the University theatre scene. Some may go on to have careers in journalism, and need a portfolio of writing which they feel reflects them as commentators.
Slightly odd, I posted something this morning but it hasn't yet appeared – possibly because it included the URL of a TCS review?
No, I've been having the same problem. A glitch in the matrix.
3/10 – don’t need a review of reviews
Reviewing may do more harm than good, but rating definitely does more good than harm.
4/10
Nice to see this Tab article may have inspired others… ?
Page 19…
http://archive.varsity.co.uk/754.pdf
Mind you, their news section cuts and pastes TCS's front page every week.
Which article on that page are you referring to?
Yup and they can't even spell 'bipolar" which give that 3/5 isn't half is fucking stupid anyway
"So, if these reviews are to be entertaining or interesting in any way, they simply have to be subjective. After all, if they’re not, you’re just reading a synopsis."
-Varsity
Toby Parker-Rees: http://cambridgetab.co.uk/reviews/review-the-fina… and http://cambridgetab.co.uk/culture/review-bouncers
Laurie Coldwell: http://cambridgetab.co.uk/culture/william-fergus-… and http://cambridgetab.co.uk/culture/medics-revue
I miss when reviewers had opinions.
you ignorant piece of poo!
Student reviewing is in itself valuable, but the standard of it in Cambridge is at times very low. No, not all tab reviewers are wankers. Some reviewers are genuinely interested in it as an exercise and conscientiously try to write fair and entertaining criticism. But although word of mouth is important, reviews have an enormous impact on the selling of a show. And many reviewers seem more interested in cultivating a sort of personality-in-print for themselves, allowing ego, bitterness or just an enjoyment of vituperation and controversy to creep in. True, the Cambridge theatre scene is ‘unbelievably privileged’, but the more insulting kind of reviews can be very destructive by discouraging people to take risks and really put themselves out there. New writing is often treated unfairly, and deserves to be greeted with more respectful, constructive reviews written in the spirit of dialogue that Ami claims.
If you won’t listen to me, please listen to someone far more insightful and articulate than myself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IvnptQJ__U
x