"Doesn't the review bother you?" I was asked following a rather harsh criticism of a musical play that premiered this summer (2014). "It didn't even explain what the critic disliked very well."
Yes, the review bothered me, and I certainly agreed with my theater colleague that the review could have been more helpful, but every review is helpful to some extent. Some are simply more helpful than others.
A negative review tell you that something might be wrong with a work. It might not be, but critics at regional and national publications tend to know something about their specialties. In this instance, the reviewer is a playwright, so ignoring his views would be shortsighted. However, critics also have biases, and this critic hasn't demonstrated the greatest understanding of new work development in our small city. Shoestring theater seldom enables perfection, and even less often provides active development processes.
When you read a review, skip the snark. Reviewers seem to love demonstrating how smart they are, and how cynical they've become. Ignore the ego behind the review and focus on a list of concrete positives and negatives. Don't get lost in the flourishes of someone trying to impress his or her readers.
In this instance, the concrete claims appear to be:
1. Some of the musical numbers (tune and lyrics) were good.
2. The play was too long.
3. The three-act structure was problematic.
4. Direction lacked energy.
5. The play had little new to say.
As a playwright, I can't do much about any acting or directing issues, even with a new work. Things simply happen. Therefore, item four is beyond my control. Direction can also affect item five because a slow play without energy has no message, no passion. That means item five is likely a mix of problems with the script and the direction.
The length of the work and the structure are a problem. Reducing the snark to the core claim, that the play was long and oddly structured, I would agree that a new work usually needs more editing. As a writer, I tend to overwrite first drafts. Therefore, I can set aside the snark and admit the play needs another revision pass (or more).
I'm not sure I agree that the three-act structure is a problem, but it is if there are two intermissions in a modern play. Audiences want one intermission and quick scene pacing. The structure I wrote was applied literally by the director. I need to change the script — that's definitely my fault as a writer.
Learning to list the concrete claims made by reviewers is a skill writers and artists need. My final works are better because of this approach to "listening" to the critics.
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Monday, September 8, 2014
Monday, August 4, 2014
Reviews and Writing
Writers, and any other artists, have to be ready to accept the judgments of critics. I was sent a couple of nice notes regarding a negative review, from audience members (and friends) who liked the particular show reviewed, but I have to also consider the power of critics to make or break a work.
Pittsburgh City Paper: New Death... Airless and Deadly
How much do critics influence an artist? For me, that depends on the critic and his or her biases. If a critic has a history of liking a particular genre or a particular set of writers — and disliking others — then I have to ask if I fall into Column A or Column B.
Even when an artist is in Column B, and approval is a long-shot at best, I would still suggest listening and asking what the nuggets of truth are in the review and how to address those. A negative review is valuable, if you're willing to learn what you can and ignore the rest.
From the review above, I am reminded that opening nights aren't easy. Seldom does an opening occur without dropped lines, missed cues, and a nervousness that feels unnatural. That is simply the nature of new shows. Add in a new, untested script, and there's more reason for unease and mistakes.
As a playwright, I have to ask what I can do to help a cast and crew make the best of their talents. Did I tighten the dialogue enough? Did I balance the action with exposition? Did I make the most of the medium, especially as stages have serious limitations. Did I balance humor with whatever else I'm trying to convey?
I don't write farce or sitcoms. I don't aim for a joke or two a page. I write serious plays with lighter moments. When the audience starts to consider the work a comedy, that's a failing on my part to balance the early pages well.
As this production winds down, I'll look at the script and compare my notes with reviews, audience feedback, cast and crew notes, and whatever else is available. All my plays undergo endless revisions. A negative review, or a positive review, can influence the choices I make revising.
A fellow playwright say, "Not every play is for every audience." That's also something to keep in mind.
Never let negative marks (grades, reviews, audiences) stop you from taking chances. Take the feedback and move forward with the next idea. What you shouldn't do is try to please the negative voices, item by item, because then you aren't creating your own vision.
Pittsburgh City Paper: New Death... Airless and Deadly
How much do critics influence an artist? For me, that depends on the critic and his or her biases. If a critic has a history of liking a particular genre or a particular set of writers — and disliking others — then I have to ask if I fall into Column A or Column B.
Even when an artist is in Column B, and approval is a long-shot at best, I would still suggest listening and asking what the nuggets of truth are in the review and how to address those. A negative review is valuable, if you're willing to learn what you can and ignore the rest.
From the review above, I am reminded that opening nights aren't easy. Seldom does an opening occur without dropped lines, missed cues, and a nervousness that feels unnatural. That is simply the nature of new shows. Add in a new, untested script, and there's more reason for unease and mistakes.
As a playwright, I have to ask what I can do to help a cast and crew make the best of their talents. Did I tighten the dialogue enough? Did I balance the action with exposition? Did I make the most of the medium, especially as stages have serious limitations. Did I balance humor with whatever else I'm trying to convey?
I don't write farce or sitcoms. I don't aim for a joke or two a page. I write serious plays with lighter moments. When the audience starts to consider the work a comedy, that's a failing on my part to balance the early pages well.
As this production winds down, I'll look at the script and compare my notes with reviews, audience feedback, cast and crew notes, and whatever else is available. All my plays undergo endless revisions. A negative review, or a positive review, can influence the choices I make revising.
A fellow playwright say, "Not every play is for every audience." That's also something to keep in mind.
Never let negative marks (grades, reviews, audiences) stop you from taking chances. Take the feedback and move forward with the next idea. What you shouldn't do is try to please the negative voices, item by item, because then you aren't creating your own vision.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Mnemonic was 'Too Good' for Me…
Sunday, I went to see Quantum Theatre's production of "Mnemonic." I give a lot of credit to Quantum Theatre for taking a chance. Performing another company's work was risky, and it didn't quite work for me. This was a play devised by an entire production company, written by the actors and representing that original production company.
As a writer and audience member, my wife can attest that I like some "odd" things. I respect adventurous writing and innovative staging. I've seen plays in which the actors never take the stage, and some that were immersive media experiences. I've enjoyed plays that are in multiple languages, reminding me that good actors and staging transcend language barriers (but I still tried to translate what I could). I've written plays in which mime was essential, and some that are surely abstract.
But you must never forget that people need to feel engaged by a play. Writing shouldn't push the audience or readers away. I don't fall into the camp that "art must offend" nor do I believe that "challenging" the audience has no limits. You can overshoot the challenge, and then you're left with empty seats.
Reviews such as this are a problem for theatre:
As a writer and audience member, my wife can attest that I like some "odd" things. I respect adventurous writing and innovative staging. I've seen plays in which the actors never take the stage, and some that were immersive media experiences. I've enjoyed plays that are in multiple languages, reminding me that good actors and staging transcend language barriers (but I still tried to translate what I could). I've written plays in which mime was essential, and some that are surely abstract.
But you must never forget that people need to feel engaged by a play. Writing shouldn't push the audience or readers away. I don't fall into the camp that "art must offend" nor do I believe that "challenging" the audience has no limits. You can overshoot the challenge, and then you're left with empty seats.
Based on a small random sample of audience response, I might say "Mnemonic" is too good for its audience, except that the Quantum audience is as good as it gets in Pittsburgh (adventurous, intelligent, willing).
— Stage review: Quantum traces memory, mysteries
When you consider a work "too good" for an educated, informed audience including professors from excellent universities, it might be the work that is the problem. The acting was solid enough and the staging was excellent, but the play didn't speak to me — and judging by others, it didn't speak to them, either. The play feels like it was meant for a specific place, time, and production company. It didn't make the move, and maybe that's an interesting question in itself.
I can't say it was a bad experience, watching "Mnemonic." I can't say it was wonderful, either. It was "okay" — which isn't going to expand the audience for theatre. I'm not suggesting theatre has to be pop to be a success, but it can't be "okay" and thrive.
When someone like me, a fan of the surrealists, modern art, and experimental music, is left wondering "What was the point?" that's not theatre that's "too good" for the audience. (And yes, absurdist theatre makes the point that there is no point… but "Mnemonic" wasn't an absurdist work.)
When someone like me, a fan of the surrealists, modern art, and experimental music, is left wondering "What was the point?" that's not theatre that's "too good" for the audience. (And yes, absurdist theatre makes the point that there is no point… but "Mnemonic" wasn't an absurdist work.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)