Why I write rambling mixed metaphors

In my mind, when someone reads a review of a film, tv show, art exhibition, book or theatre production they want to know 2 things;

“Is it any good?”

“Should I go see it?”

Luckily, I am currently in the position of being able to choose what fringe theatre shows I can review and consequently I aim for those I think will either likely be high quality (classics such as ‘The dolls house’) or will be up my street (well written, innovative or immersive and dealing with themes I enjoy). As a result, even a poor production usually has redeeming elements (mentioning no names).  This has the downside of meaning that I don’t often have the luxury of leaving the answer to the first question, “Is it any good?” being a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.  Most shows I review are good in some ways

But if everything I review is somewhere on the scale of ‘good’, how do I differentiate between the ‘amazing’ and the ‘crap’. How do I say whether it is worth seeing, if I deem it ‘worth seeing’ to review already?

I cannot say I believe therefore in a totally subjective standard by which to judge fringe theatre. Mark Kermode says in regard to film critics:

“Anyone who believes an individual critic’s personal responses to a film are in any way definitive is a fool.”*

I doubt such an objective viewpoint exists for theatre reviewers, I certainly haven’t reviewed enough to gain it anyway.  But I do have a set of parameters for how I conduct a review.

In regard to film criticism, Mark Kermode says that any review should have 5 elements:*

1) Opinion

2) Description

3) Contextualisation

4) Analysis

5) Entertainment

By and large, this applies to theatre review also.  Allow me to explain my parameters.

Firstly, when judging whether a production is ‘any good’ I believe any review needs to start with description. Answering the question;

“What is the production like?” I try to give the reader an impression on whether it is the kind of production they would like to see. It’s a fine balance between description and revealing too much but hopefully I convey ‘what the production is like’ without describing act-for-act what happens.

Secondly, any theatre production involves a great number of creators so each of these aspects needs to be considered; cast, directors, choreographers, designers, lighting and sounds designers to name a few. All these aspects contribute to whether a production is ‘good’ or not. Some reviewers could argue that these things should all be part of the mix, like music in film so perhaps it is because I am a theatre technician that I like to examine these aspects as well as the acting and direction. Still, I feel it all contributes to the review.

Thirdly, a review needs to address anything problematic in the production. This is important both as almost a BBFC rating system for audiences and feedback for those involved in the production. Productions are not always set in stone come press night and successful shows can often change when they transfer.  This feedback is therefore important for the production team.

Fourthly, perhaps the hardest question to answer is ‘should I go and see it?’ If I have enjoyed the show and am excited by it, then this is easy because the answer is a big YES and 4 or 5 stars.  However, if the show is problematic in some way then it becomes a exercise in hedging the reader’s bets.  Often this comes down to comparisons with other works in order to narrow the field for the potential audience member; “If you like x, you might like it.”

To return the the 5 elements then:

2) Description and 3) contextualisation- ‘what is the production like?’

4) Analysis – ‘Should I go see it?’ ‘Is there anything problematic/challenging I should know about before I decide?’

5) Entertainment – I try and make my reviews engaging, usually through the use of rambling mixed metaphors but at the very least try to keep them succinct and upbeat.  I don’t always succeed, but then I worry if I focus too much on enterainment I would read like Alan Partridge.

Which brings me perhaps to the hardest part.

1) Opinion.  You may have noticed that the other aspects of a review attempt objectivity.  But opinion comes down to personal experience and taste.  One can have a bad experience of an otherwise good show, or due to personal taste an aspect can throw you right out of the story.  I try and flag these up and word them in a way that explains that this is what MY experience was but I cannot say for certain that everyone will see it that way.  In making the reader aware of my own experience they can judge for themselves whether, based on what I have written so far, whether they would have a similar experience.

The other word on ‘opinion’ is that of course, everyone has one but hopefully, as critics, having seen and analysed more shows and a variety of shows we can have a more informed opinion.  I also hope that, knowing me a bit better from my previous reviews (and this blog) that I like certain things and not others so the reader can apply their own filter to it.

Hope this clarifies a few things about how I write reviews!  Thanks for reading!  Do you have any thoughts about reviewing?  Leave a comment!

P

*(Mark Kermode: ‘The Good, the bad and the Multiplex’ 2011)

“Boarding now for existential reflection”

My review of ‘A First Class Death’ at the Vaults Festival is now live on Remotegoat here

If you enjoy challenging, engaging promenade performances which make you reflect during the performance and after then you may enjoy taking the next available train to A First Class Death.

This exploration of the subject of death is framed by the grand re-opening of the London Necropolis railway.  The audience goes on a guided tour of the surrounding area, where the fascinating history of the real railway is explained.  They learn that the railway was first opened in 1854 to transport the dead and mourners to funerals at Brookwood cemetery in Surrey and how it came to be and close.  During the tour however, the audience gets the feeling that not everything is as it seems.

Following the tour the audience enter the dank and cavernous Vaults beneath the railway lines of Waterloo station.  Audience members then take part in various activities designed to make them consider aspects of death, funerals and their legacy.  The Vaults ‘cavern’ space, providing a subterranean feel is ideal for this kind of contemplation, complemented well by the lighting and sound design.  As the trains rumbled overhead like a giant heartbeat the production climaxes with a poignant and melancholic finale.

If all this sounds morbid or depressing, it isn’t, but it does challenge the audience to consider morbid subjects.  Subjects such as inheritance and power of attorney are actually handled in a very gentle and upbeat way by the cast and the experience I had was actually very funny (but then I enjoy gallows humour). Observing fellow audience members engage in the activities is fascinating as one sees attitudes and opinions that are not often discussed openly or one might learn things about those people who you came with that you never knew.  It can also be an opportunity for reflection about one’s own mortality and legacy.

Given the macabre subject and the need to create an air of mystery about the show, some aspects of the production built suspense and as a result, there was an air of tension throughout which was never released.  This could prevent audience members from feeling comfortable enough to engage and is clearly unintentional as Jason Hall’s aim is to provide an uplifting, existential experience for the audience which I feel certain some audience members felt.

As is often the case with promenade performances, the cast want engagement and the more the audience goes with it, the more likely they are to get something out of it.  The cast are well briefed, each having a strong character to interact with and welcoming it.  Having said that, when tackling such a sensitive subject all individual audience members have different thresholds of engagement or bounds of taste so Baseless fabric have tried to balance these sensitive feelings and for the most part they succeeded.

So get a ticket, take the train if you are prepared to engage, learn some fascinating history and be challenged to genuinely reflect upon (and laugh about) your own mortality.

Details about the production (and to book tickets for the short run) can be found here

A big thank you to Everwalker for coming with me and for her thoughts and opinions.

Writing this review has reminded me that I need to post a blog about my own opinions on reviewing as a writing style.  It is unlikely to be framed as ‘advice’, more of a statement of intent and what to expect from me as a reviewer.  So keep an eye out for that soon!

King John – Union Theatre

Strange that death should sing

My review of Shakespeare’s ‘King John’ at the Union Theatre is now live on Remotegoat!

There is always a question of judgement when interpreting Shakespeare.  A thousand balancing scales must be set between comedy, tragedy, reverence and relevance.  King John is the paradigm of such judgement and this is obvious from each aspect of this production.

Nicholas Osmund as King John (Photo: Scott Rylander)

Rikki Lawton as Philip the Bastard with Nicholas Osmund as King John (Photo: Scott Rylander)

A dim smoke filled hall where chanting echoes is the stage for a plot that swiftly slithers back and forth with narrative and directive flourishes.  John (Nicholas Osmund) clings to his kingdom while Philip of France (an emotive Damian Quinn) seeks to put a young relative of John’s onto the English throne.  Both powers move at the behest of strong women; Elanor of Aquitaine (the regal Maggie Daniels) and Constance (Samantha Lawson).  The tale is set up quickly and moves along at a swift pace, encompassing an epic tale of kingdoms and wars with numerous heartfelt sub-plots.  There are familiar Shakespeare motifs, such as honour versus politics, love versus duty, prejudice, power, tragic and comedic misunderstanding and the heavy weight of a crown.

Rikki Lawton as Philip the Bastard (Photo: Scott Rylander)

The casting is very well judged.  Rikki Lawton brings both energy and poignancy to Philip, bastard son of Richard the lionheart; desperate to climb socially yet with a great national pride.  His fervent delivery must infect the cast as it does the audience.  Nicholas Osmund cuts a comedic and tragic figure as John; sometimes scampering with glee but also capable of being regal, conveying perhaps being the lesser relative of great men and women.  Maggie Daniels as his mother, Queen Elanor of Aquitaine embodies all of the poise and power of that family.  On the other side of the channel there are excellent foils to them both. Damian Quinn as King Philip of France is a reflection of John but with greater statesmanship.  Samantha Lawson’s Constance verbally flagellates herself in her speeches, her grief ‘filling up the room’; the opposite to Eleanor’s confident presence.  Supporting performances such as John Last as Hubert, conveying a gruff but good man and Leonard Sillevis as Lord Falconbridge are understated but strong.  The young and innocent are but pitiable pawns in this game as played Daisy May and Albert De Jongh. All the cast drive for gravitas, clarity and representation without exception which makes each line feel very precise in delivery.

Albert de Jongh as Arthur (Photo: Scott Rylander)

The set is minimal, which allows the text to fill the room and tell the tale, aided by clarity of direction.  The costumes are a master class in suggestion; long military coats, splattered with mud over breastplates imply both medieval and cold war times.  Colour and heraldry show state and allegiance but in an understated way so as not to overshadow nor cause confusion over the action.  The music and sound similarly add to the atmosphere in a range of poignant or comedic ways without detracting from the text.  Lighting is appropriate, getting darker and moodier as dark times loom.  Each aspect is designed to bring forth the text and never overshadow it.

(Photo: Scott Rylander)

King John is staged here as a black comedy; smiling, singing and dancing with the weighty subjects.  Some may find this jarring if not to their tastes but considering the content, I feel this production brings the text and the meanings within to the forefront with consideration and precision.