Fuck Editing (How I Learned to Freewrite)

Fuck Editing.

Critical Response (Why Everyone Hates Reviews...Fuck 'em)

Today, let us discuss reviews.
Reviews tend to be something of a lost art in the theatre.
Too often they tell us too little or too much about extraneous information that has nothing to do with the play.

Peter Brook did it much better

I didn't like is as much as when I was in it

The acting was okay

Are useless fucking statements in reviews. They tell the audience nothing and give the creative artists no serviceable material to work with for testimonials.

And that is all a review serves:

1. Giving the audience an accurate representation of a four-dimensional art piece
2. Giving the creatives testimonials with which to self-promote

There are arguments for other uses: 

• written record of theatre

I cannot think of any others.

Feel free to correct me, but if that is all, those three purposes, then these are unacceptable:

The different kinds of reviews that I have met in theatre:

The Summarizer

The summary is pretty much what it sounds like: they summate.

The show gets characterized in six to eight sentences. 

Something like:

The play began with the lights going down. I did not expect that as the lights were already dim. One of the characters entered and was very funny. Another character entered and they were funny too. I wasn't sure what it was about, but then something happened (that was the bit of plot that drives the play forward) and we all knew where it was headed from there. They continued on this way until it built to a final crescendo (I don't want to give away too much of the plot, but there are tears). It was deeply moving and surprisingly heartfelt. Come see Theatre Blah perform XXX at their [performance space] for the run of their show!

-Everybody

This tells us nothing about the production.
It tells your audience nothing pertinent or useful and gives the actors maybe three words that we as actors can use.

The Know-it-all

 We all know this person.
They know everything. Literally everything.
Usually they include all of this information in the review like so:

I've read the book the play is based upon. I've read the book the play is based upon in the original language. I have translated my own very literal version of the book and adapted it for the stage and for some reason nobody ever picked it up and damn it if I don't mention it in the article. But, this article isn't about me (yes it is). So let's talk about the book [sic]. It was originally published in 1x99 and received critical failure/praise in its time. It was widely circulated for reasons and included merit because reasons. 

How does this information apply to the play?
It really has nothing to do with the play or the situation.
They may be able to work in a conclusion relating it all back to the production, but that is the thing: the play is not the book.
Nobody cares how much research you have done outside of the context of the show they are going to see.
And if knowing as much as the reviewer knows made them miserable, why the fuck would you want to know it?

The "Feel-Good"

 This one I really hate. They "liked" everything. There wasn't a single thing they didn't "like."

The acting? Liked it.
The design? Liked it.
The script? Liked it.
The end? Loved it!
Would recommend? YES!
4 out of five stars (witty comment about why the fifth star is coming) Fifth star is waiting on my comp for when I come see it a second time! Great work! Really liked it!

How does this apply to the play?
It doesn't.
It is a careful and close reading of the reviewer and all of the things that they liked about the production.
It is essentially masturbation in front of a reading audience and why they should go see the play with this funny, wonderful person who really "likes" everything and please be my friend, please be my friend.

How to write a Review

So which is best?
None of these, certainly.
They each have their merits and their detractions.
I would suggest an amalgamation of them all:

• Start with some background about the play. Just give enough information for the audience to feel reasonably well-informed on the subject. It can be some of the tired and stretched out sluice: 

Titus Andronicus, one of Shakespeare's lesser known tragi-comedies unites the two elements into a bloody farce that is rarely staged when compared to his other tragedies: Hamlet, Lear, and Macbeth, but has a sharp, biting wit when it comes to bloodshed that is rarely seen except in the work of Martin Mcdonagh

We get a decent background, a sense of period, some information, and even a little contemporary theatre history, which we will go over later when we talk about context

• Provide some goddamn context for the piece

Usually I end with this one when reviewing. It can be the hardest thing to get right. Theatre has a long, illustrious, and usually infamous, history. Talking a little about it isn't grand standing, it is informing the audience, which is, you know, the point of journalism.

Marat/Sade was written by Peter Weiss in the style of Theatre of Cruelty originated by Antonin Artaud, a French theatre thinker of the 20th century who believed audiences could be infected with an idea, similar to plague, like an infection of the mind. Peter Brook, preeminent British director was the last to stage the play in English in the mid century, pushing his actors to simulate true insanity, which Weiss called a spectacular failure. This production attempted to stage it in the original German as an omage to Weiss's complaints against the Brook production.

There it is, all the theatre information an audience could ever fricking want.
However, it directly relates to the production at hand.
They are responding to the history of the piece and their production falls in line with the history.
You are either responding to history or against it.
Having an opinion is artistic, so express it and make sure the reviewer is sharing that with the audience.

• Include links

If you are working in a digital media. Include bloody links. They aren't hard, they match up with most print formats (underlining) and they are just freaking helpful for someone who isn't as well versed in the subject as you are. Nobody wants to google fifty key words. Just do five minutes of research and check your sources.

 Lastly

• Talk about every aspect of the prodution

This can be really hard if you don't know the people involved, but really, everything you see and experience as a reviewer is important. You are baring witness for a potential future audience. If there is an orgy and you were involved, please share that. That is important for some audience members. What you did in that orgy is not as important as the experience it left you with. Was it classy or trashy? Fun for flash? Moving or fascist? Inquiring minds need to know. I need to know if I can bring gradma to the orgy play and whether or not she will like it. The strobe lights are important for epileptics and color-conscious casting is important for racists. Being blind to or glossing over the importance or hyper focusing on the black Abe Lincoln does a disservice to the entirety of the production.

My decision on whether or not to go see a theatre piece should not be based on whether or not I want to see a black Mr. President Lincoln.

• What did it do?
•  Under what context?
• Did it work?
• How did it impact you, the reviewer? The audience?

I wish I could say that I haven't read reviews like this at every level, but I have. 

So let us aim for a better class of review.

One that does more than review and instead actually informs and excites us, the potential audience, to see some fucking theatre.