‘People read Michael Billington’s columns because, over the years, he has built up a wide range of comparative references, and expresses opinions, likes and dislikes, which are personal to him, but with which the reader is familiar. As such, some people may follow his recommendations avidly, others may deliberately ignore them.’

You have grasped absolutely my reasons for throwing ‘opinion’ to the wind. If I continue to review Drama barn/Drama Soc plays for Nouse (in any case, I will certainly continue to attend their performances), I hope to build - on the strength of an ever-expanding raft of critical appraisals - a familiarity with the readers, so that they might begin to follow or ignore my recommendations as far as they agree or disagree with my general stance.

Until such a rappor has been established, my opinions are, I regret to say, worthless to the theatre-going public. Understand, (’Michael’ and Matthew) this has nothing to do with a lack of faith in my own critical voice, it is simply a brutal rationalisation of my review’s goal.

Your comments are registered. In future, my reviews will be considerably more judgmental - assuming such reviews will exist: as you have all probably gathered by now, Nouse reviewers come and Nouse reviewers go, according to their own whims and the general internal flux of contributing writers.

P.s. One more point: Speaking of losses of confidence in one’s own critical voice, I, like Matthew, cannot but wonder why so many of you post (sometimes worthwhile) comments in comfortable anonymity! Are you so wracked with self-doubt that you do not dare stake your names on your own opinions?

My checking back here has revealed a great many more comments than I anticipated at my last visit!

I can confidently state that Michael Billington was not present in the audience during the production run (can you imagine how much of a frenzy that would have induced in DramaSoc?) To suggest that he might have been in attendance is laughable, really, but the comments posted by the alias are nevertheless very shrewd, and reveal a far greater awareness of the background of members of the production than the man himself might possibly possess. I find it most peculiar that the criticism levelled at James Macdougald’s review has been interpreted as a demand for praise. I would have thought that the contrary was perfectly evident, so let me reiterate my position.

This is a failure as a review because there is little or no opinion communicated within it. I am in complete agreement that such reviews are for the benefit of the public, and should be free of any fear or favour from the director or cast. As such, speaking as a member of the public (who takes a perhaps greater than average interest in the theatre, granted) I do not want to know whether a play contains certain themes or elements, since I am confident of discerning such things for myself. What would sway me into attending a play or not is whether the critic thought that particular production a good example of its type, and how well such themes were put across. James seems preoccupied with the concept that play-goers are interested in production by theme, and that the critic’s job is to divine such themes and pass them on to a prospective audience. I would contend that this is at best a minor consideration, and that people differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ plays, often irrespective of their thematic content.

John Shepherd. You raise an important problem, and one which I feel threatens to undermine the system of reviewing on campus. It is precisely the ‘appointed’ nature of reviewers which causes so much difficulty. You will, I admit, probably never achieve a balance between the two student impulses of wanting flatter their friends, and of being hostile purely for the sake of appearing superior and learned. However (and this is a hobby-horse of mine), the lack of consistency amongst reviewers means that they are failing in their primary function of guiding the campus public. If a different reviewer attends each production, the context of each review (in particular the ridiculous star rating) is completely nullified. People read Michael Billington’s columns because, over the years, he has built up a wide range of comparative references, and expresses opinions, likes and dislikes, which are personal to him, but with which the reader is familiar. As such, some people may follow his recommendations avidly, others may deliberately ignore them. I would submit James Macdougald would feel far more confident in freely expressing his views were he to write more regularly. It would also have the added benefit of helping to overcome the feelings of ‘ignorance’ which seem to inhibit him. As things stand, James seems intent on writing himself out of all consideration as a critic.

‘Michael Billington’ – for the record, James Wilkes is the actor’s full name; ‘nee’ doesn’t come into it at all, (unless you know something I do not). As for your review, I think it is a perfectly decent one, which, if written as you state ‘in the style the writer/director claims he wants’, goes a very long way to vindicating Dom’s earlier comments. You write from the perspective of one who has seen the play (my primary reason for concluding that you are not employed at Farringdon Road), which leads me to wonder why you are shielding yourself behind a pseudonym? Might I suggest that you offer your services to Nouse as a critic in the future?

Sorry to puncture the mystique, but there is about as much chance of this individual being ‘Michael Billington of the Guardian’, as there is of intelligent life on Mars. There is no possible way he could have watched this student play - based on the performance dates alone he was elsewhere - and would have caused such an infernal ruckus amongst theatre-types on his arrival I think the Drama Society would have noticed, and shouted his presence from every roof-top!

You’re quite right, of course. Under normal circumstances a published review should be solely for a potential audience of the work in question, although we all know it’s the production team that’ll pay far more attention to it than anyone else, as this thread neatly demonstrates. As for my own comments, I was well aware who my most likely readers would be, and that they had some vested interest in the content, and thus my writing was tweaked accordingly. I don’t believe critics should (or ever really do) write for directors or actors and so on, but rather the desire to offer advice and guidance is frankly more often about the critic wishing to demonstrate their own expertise and wisdom, whether or not this is requested or even appropriate.

You’re also spot on about Belt Up - an incredibly talented collective who make great shows but whose general superior attitude can be a turn off to uninitiated audiences. The only thing wrong here is your expressed desire that they will ‘recognise the extent to which you’ve admired them’. As you said, you’re writing for the benefit of an audience, not their egos - try not to worry too much about keeping them happy.

And finally something where you’re dead wrong: ‘my opinion is therefore of little or no value to Nouse’s readers’. Of course it is - that’s exactly what you’re there for, and your opinions, thoughts and judgements are all utterly valid and appropriate. Furthermore, they’re what people have come here for, and whether or not they agree they’ll thank you for writing them. If you do carry on writing reviews - and I sincerely hope you do - please just try and have a little more faith in your own opinions.

Many thanks for your contribution. (My scepticism compels me to allow room for the possibility that you are not who you say you are, but, for the sake of argument, I will assume that a bonafide theatre critic has entered the debate.)

For a start, at whom (in your opinion) is a review directed? The cast/crew, the indifferent general public, audience members that have seen the play or audience members to be?

For my part, I would say that reviews, contrary to what Dom Allen would want from them, are not post-production notes for the actors.

I aimed my review at everyone else. For people who had seen it, I included a few comments that I hoped would stimulate thought about MC; for those who had yet to see it, or had no intention of seeing it, I included some details about the thrust and content of the play (avoiding a straightforward plot summary at all costs) so that they might decide for themselves whether or not it appealed.

I agree that it is hard for people to know what will and will not appeal; on the other hand, there is no point in committing my own opinions to paper unless my readership knows me, trusts my judgment, etc. I would eat at any restaurant AA Gill pointed me to: I know that his preferences accord with my own because I read his column regularly. I myself am a relatively unknown theatre critic-occasional, and my opinion is therefore of little or no value to Nouse’s readers.

This, you understand, was my reason for purging this particular review of any vestige of a ‘critical voice’.

I will direct you, at this point, to my review of ‘The Trial’ at www.zahirmagazine.com, where increased reviewing space made for a much more edifying exposition of that performance. Unhappily, I have, in my philistinery, misspelt Josef K throughout - most embarrassing for an English lit. student.

I hope Belt Up/Drama Soc will recognise the extent to which I have admired their productions in the past, and that through the sometimes thoughtless, sometimes pompous, sometimes over-defensive nature of their comments above, they run the risk of alienating the card-carrying fans of their consistently excellent productions.

I’m assuming, mainly from the quality of his writing, that Mr Billington is the real thing.

(Did anyone see him at the play?)

MORBID CURIOSITY (3.5 stars) Dom Allen (or Dominic J Allen, as he is known to the press) is clearly a very talented writer and has assembled a team of Dramasoc’s brightest young things to bring his latest work to life. The cast throw themselves into this pitch-black farce with great enthusiasm and aplomb (James (nee Jamie) Wilkes gives a particularly show-stealing turn as sadistic civil servant Morgan), and for the most part the show is slick, witty and hugely enjoyable. One wishes, however, that Allen had enough faith in his comic abilities to let the satire speak for itself, and not worry too much about any deeper meaning or greater purpose. Unfortunately for my money the play does derail itself slightly towards the end, attempting to ‘get serious’ or ‘make points’, at moments where Allen’s wonderfully bleak, absurdist humour would’ve served him better. Occasionally the production is a little self-indulgent and unnecessarily gratuitous, but by-and-large the sharp writing and slick delivery keep such indulgencies in-check. This show is by no way perfect, and is somewhat overlong, but has moments of absolute joy, and at its best is bloody, bonkers and utterly brilliant.

MORBID REVIEW (2 stars) If we might ask this barn production to show a little more restraint, we could request the opposite of our reviewer, who, as has been duly noted, seems so terrified of upsetting anyone or perhaps incurring the wrath of his superiors he neglects to pass any real comment at all. As admirably well-meaning as this approach is, it does not make for satisfying reading. Perhaps the fault goes further up the ladder, whereby the close-knit nature of campus life makes critical credibility practically impossible, but a critic who can’t critique does seem to be a rather redundant role. Perhaps we are being a little unfair on Mr. Macdougald, and certainly he is not the first student critic (or English student) more concerned with communicating his own learning than any real opinion on the work in question, but nonetheless if he is to continue to write for such publications (and one hopes he is not too disheartened) he must work on finding confidence in his own critical voice.

The Balcony’s review was an exception. We did not find a writer for the paper version, so I spoke to Tom and he agreed to co-write one with me. The labeling of that article is therefore incorrect, and will be rectified as soon as possible.

Nicky Woolf,
Muse Editor

Thank you for your comment.

It is Nouse’s policy to run one preview on the web for every production in the Drama Barn, and run separate reviews in the printed newspaper. I apologise if this has caused any confusion.

There was, in fact, nobody from Nouse involved in Morbid Curiosity.

Nicky Woolf,
Muse Editor

Why is this not the review that got printed in the hard copy? This is the second time, as far as I’m aware, that Nouse has shown a lack of faith in its reviewers. The first time was with last term’s production of ‘The Balcony’, which was slightly doctored to make sure nobody was too offended by the scathing nature of the review. This time, the review has been entirely replaced! This must be a grave insult to James MacDougald, and if I were him I would never write for the paper again.

James’s review may not to be everyone’s liking (and at least two of the critical comments are from people involved in the play, bear in mind), but it is a defensible and lucidly written review. It’s hardly full of unwarranted racist sentiments, or anything else that would merit a replacement. The replacement of one provocative review with an identikit gushing review (as in the hard copy) is what causes accusations of biased reporting and nepotism. Some of the Nouse team will inevitably be personally involved in some of what gets reviewed, but that should not get in the way of the articles, which are meant to be totally cool and impartial. Nouse should accept the review that their appointed(?) reviewer delivers, or else face the danger of alienating potential reviewers in the future.

I think people should maybe decide for themselves what the purpose or message is ONCE they have either been encouraged or discouraged to see it. To suggest that you hold the ‘best way’ to approach a play is arrogant at the very least. In any case, people who go to the theatre as entertainment (which is the majority I feel) don’t want to ‘approach’ a play. They want to sit and experience an enjoyable evening. A review should be written in light of this.

“I suspect that James avoided a lot of critical judgement to avoid becoming involved in yet another DramaSoc/Nouse spat.”

Oh good, just what the play-watching public want: personal vendettas to affect a ‘review’.

Most theatre performances/art exhibitions/music gigs, etc will receive a range of reviews offering different opinions as to the quality of what is being reviewed. I can only speak for myself when I assert that the right sort of violence is a source of comedy; perhaps you don’t find violence funny - perhaps you find it distasteful. I’ve told you that the play contains comic violence - so go and see it if that’s your thing. If not, stay at home.

I’m confused: if you are “broadly speaking, ignorant of the theatre”, why are you writing a review?

Regarding William Heaven’s comment: the general public is not likely to want to know the ‘purpose’ of a play, or its literary context, at the cost of a few words of advice as to whether the critic liked the show and would encourage them to go, or not. With respect, I wouldn’t class a review without “critical judgement” as worthy of the name. I come back to my first point - this is not a review at all, harmless or not.

Secondly, I am mildly disturbed by the thought that Nouse should be dictating how writers should write their plays. (I would suggest that Dom Allen ask his DramaSoc colleagues for advice on these matters.)

But why the upset? There is nothing in this review which suggests James didn’t enjoy the play. Indeed, he admits to sharing in the conviction that violence is funny, indicating that if the play contains violence, which it does, he found it funny!

There is, admittedly, a problem with this review: it lacks much critical judgement. But it is therefore pretty harmless.

I suspect that James avoided a lot of critical judgement to avoid becoming involved in yet another DramaSoc/Nouse spat. I completely understand this - if a mere observation, that the play is formed “exclusively of subordinate plots”, can be taken as a slight, then I sympathise with the reviewer’s dilemma.

I’m glad you enjoyed the play, James. And congratulations to all the cast and Dom on what has, by all accounts, been a great success.

I’m sorry you feel the need to offer a defence, since this was never intended to be an attack. On the contrary, I meticulously avoided value judgments of any kind.

You’re quite right. There’s nothing wrong with the play being a network of sub-plots. Nor did I ever mean to suggest that this was a flaw - simply to observe that it was the case. As for the reference to GTA, that was an approval, albeit an ironically-phrased one, of your play’s macabre humour. I was not reducing it to the level of low popular culture. Allow me a sense of humour at the very least!

After watching plays like Morbid Curiosity, people often leave the theatre feeling confused about what the play’s ‘purpose’ or ‘message’ was. As an English literature student, I feel just about qualified to shed some light on the best way to approach plays like yours.

I am most definitely not qualified to discuss the making of theatre or to tell you how you might become a better writer. Furthermore, I think your suggestion that in future I should critically assess your writing skills is not a little disingenuous, as I cannot imagine you would take kindly to such criticism from a journalist who is, broadly speaking, ignorant about theatre.

I appreciate and do not doubt that you and your cast and crew worked very hard, as always, to put the play together and, to clarify, I enjoyed the performance and was laughing hard throughout.

I am given 250 words and a short space of time to summarise the content and nature of the play. 250 words of my very subjective opinions of the actors, director and writer is a waste of what little space I have. Better by far, I think, to give people an idea of what the play is about so they can decide if it interests them. This is, after all, a review, not an advertisement.

Good luck for the last night.

James

Instead we are presented with an unenlightening diversion into the reviewer’s thoughts on post-modernism and the writings of George Orwell, as a result of which we learn one thing: this play is not by Orwell. This play isn’t a park bench or the sound of children’s laughter either, so I suppose we should be grateful that we were all spared a digression into the provision of public furniture or the nature of youth. Given that space on the arts pages is at a premium, how is it in any way useful to waste so much on such a pointless and self-defeating exercise as talking about what a play is NOT?

I have often been critical of Nouse reviews in the past, chiefly because both the newspaper and DramaSoc are close to my heart, and I do not feel either is well served by the publishing of substandard copy. A negative review is one thing, as Dom suggests in his response fair, constructive criticism is often hugely beneficial. A bad review, however, serves no purpose, and this is the comfortably one of the worst.