A personal think piece on the relationship between emerging theatre-makers and the reviews that make and break us.
How do you quantify success? Is it a sold-out performance or a standing ovation?
I remember one of the first times I ever felt truly accomplished in my work was when a piece I produced received a 4-star review in The Scotsman. That one positive review seemed to justify every educational and career decision I had made to that point. We had been seen by someone whose voice really mattered, and this could mark the start of us entering the theatre sector as well-regarded professionals.
I don’t bring this up to brag… well maybe a little… but to ask the question – why? What about this one review has left me chasing the same feeling ever since and questioning the value and purpose reviews have for emerging artists.
For one, it helps scratch that validation itch that naturally comes with being an emerging artist. To be given any indication that you are on the right track after months, years even, of self-doubt and hard grafting is a fleeting yet rewarding prize. Good reviews can lead to better ticket sales, stronger funding bids and potentially the beginnings of new creative partnerships from those who discover you and your work.
The value of critical voices shouldn’t be underrated, but what often concerns me is the capacity of these individuals and publications to celebrate the work of emerging and early-career artists with the amplification and nuance it deserves. It simply isn’t possible for theatre critics to attend every theatre performance in Scotland. And with what can be great power, is it wise to yield it in such a way that may make or break the confidence of an artist at the start of their career?
Take the first-time playwright, or the show that was built within the limits of a tight budget. If a critic took into consideration that context, perhaps even was invited into the rehearsal process to gain further insight, does this change the review entirely? By removing star ratings from emerging theatre-maker’s work, this could enable able a more constructive and kinder piece of criticism.
Ultimately, the question remains: is there a better and more accessible way we could be approaching critical writing, that deters review readers from lazily glancing over stars and determining whether or not something is worth their time?
Is it possible that, in the system of theatre criticism, long-standing alliances between reviewers and theatre-makers have found a way to benefit both parties involved? Glowing reviews, tinged with a touch of bias, effectively seal off any potential wriggle room for emerging creatives trying to climb the ladder and allow feature names in productions to remain that way.
While more of a stimulus than an accusation, the issue of emerging theatre-makers attracting major publication attention during show runs persists. Compounding this with a limited number of new theatre critics rising through the ranks, we can see a risk that these bonds become generationally locked in place. There becomes a lack of room for learning, challenging and change that is necessary for critical and theatre spaces alike.
So, let’s throw all this star nonsense out for now. Encourage meaningful thought and conversation about the work – a style of critique that proposes questions rather than giving definitive answers that are parroted in place of free thought. A piece of writing that offers encouragement and a space for reflection for the emerging theatre-maker to develop their work. A style that enables emerging theatre critics to hone their craft and not get into hot water with those a few steps ahead of them.
We shouldn’t be afraid to disrupt or upset those we consider to be the ‘real professionals’. Equally, we should acknowledge the brilliant and revolutionary, or offensive and terrible alike. We’re not looking for participation medals for all – those who are good at what they do should be celebrated. I simply think there are people who are not getting the recognition they deserve. We haven’t got the formula quite right yet…
In the end, that four-star review didn’t get me as far as I would have hoped. In our reapplication for the project, we were unsuccessful in the funding bid. It dawned on me that the validation from this one person was short-lived and there were plenty of people ready to tell me no, which was a sudden crash land back to reality.
It was enough to make me feel like a real artist in some sense, through some ego-inflated Instagram posts and a-not-so-subtle name drop at networking events. But all of that was hollow. What I think I realise now, looking back on it all, is that it wasn’t the review that had made me feel like an artist, it was the making and the sharing of the art.
Perhaps I would have got even more out of it, and learned that lesson quicker, if I hadn’t fixated on those stars and had a little more to chew on.
— Josie
Many thanks to Annie Lowry Thomas and Libby Taylor for your time and contributions.
Also a quick reminder to let us know what you would liked covered on Dialogue – subject areas and particular topics are always welcome so drop us a message via one of our many social platforms.
Scottish Youth Theatre is a charity, and, while we get some public subsidy, we need to raise just as much in other ways every year to deliver our projects. Support us with a small donation to reach more young artists in more places. Click this link to donate as little as £5.