Course Blog 21 [Sara]: The Transcendent, Transformative Power of Theatre

By and large, I felt that most of the reviews of the Chicago Shakespeare Theatre's 2012 production of Black Watch fell short in their inattention to the concept of genre, both in an interrogation of the object under review's manipulation of genre and in the medium of the theatrical review itself. This was in evidence in most of our posted examples, but perhaps best exemplified by Oliver Sava's Chicago Theater Beat article that seems, at best, unsure of its own hermeneutics.

I was drawn to this piece, in part, because of Sava's earnest appreciation for Black Watch's innovative theatrics: 

"Incorporating music, movement, and video, director John Tiffany creates a visceral, multi-sensory experience that will shake audience members to their core, and not just because of the booming sound system. Black Watch is the type of play that shows the transcendent, transformative power of theater, and kudos to Chicago Shakespeare for bringing this play to our city."

He seems here to recognize that the true power in Black Watch as a work theatre is its innovative approach to story-telling, but then fails to develop this idea, reverting instead to a textual summary and emotional analysis of the story-level of the play rather than the physical reality of the production, with such remarks as:

"Burke’s script is a deeply powerful look at the history of the Scottish regiment, and captures all the tension, danger, and ennui of their recent campaign in Iraq. Enemy combat is rarely seen, with the play focusing on the conflicts amongst the troops and within the soldiers’ minds, creating a brutally honest portrayal of the horrors of war."

and

"Despite the Scottish dialects and setting, it is easy to relate to Burke’s script, and that connection is what makes Black Watch such a powerful production."

Black Watch is neither a history play nor simply a human interest story "probing the emotional and mental effects of war on the soldiers." In fact, it's history is largely biased and full of holes and its revelations about the male experience of war typical, even maudlin, in spite of its recognition of the effects of the changing nature of terror-based warfare in the twenty-first century. What is interesting about Black Watch is its very physicality, its integration of dance and multimedia with interview-derived text, its subversion of the genre of documentary theatre and its comment on the inadequacy of linear, causal structure and even the medium of text-based narrative to communicate the truth of history, war, or the human condition. The most that Sava says about this is that:

"Black Watch doesn’t follow a traditional plot structure, but rather gives short, concentrated looks at the soldiers’ Iraq experiences that are broken up by abstract movement sequences that build on the thematic themes of the piece."

But Black Watch isn't a straight play juxtaposed by movement scenes highlighting its "thematic themes" (really?), it is something more akin to dance-theatre, a postmodern deconstruction of documentary, an exploration of the aspects of affect present in military space. Savas gets in his own way by adhering to the genre-conventions of typical theatrical reviews with their insistence on plot and character as the dominant items of interest. He plays to the newpaper reader/playgoer's somewhat impoverished expectations of what theatre is/should be, i.e. emotionally engaging stories and "relateable" characters. As such, he fails to push himself past identifying with the plot and historicizing the moment depicted in the play to actually discuss what makes the production exemplify "the transcendent, transformative power of theater." In setting out to make his audience understand where Black Watch is special, he gives only the details which make it "culinary" as Brecht might say, and none of those which make it a experience that goes past theatre's "shoulds" and challenge its "coulds."

Where Sava goes wrong in his account is in failing to identify the positive effects of the manipulation of genre at work in Black Watch and thus he becomes trapped by the trappings of the theatrical review. In this he not only gives a impoverished description of the work of the production, but can never even approach a critical evaluation of the work's project, the successes and failures of its manipulations of genre/story-telling and the possibilities of performance.

Blog 21, Wrong Review, Black Watch (Derek)

In Chris Jones’s review of the 2012 production of BlackWatch, Jones makes it clear that he is seeing the play for the second time, having also seen it a few years earlier with a different cast and at a different historical moment. Jones should have compared the two productions as well as used the years’ intervening historical changes to interpret the current production in a new light. Unfortunately, he does not compare the two beyond a sentence acknowledging the change in cast, and he never uses the current historical moment to inform his reading of the play. I expected both. I also expected less hyperbole and empty rhetoric, such as “it’s a very shrewdly toned creation that gets to have its Scotch pie and eat it too.” Peppering the review with such turns of phrase conveys a vague feeling to the reader, but a review should really contain more concrete observations and descriptions so that the readers can get a clearer sense of what the production will be like. I would have liked to see him describe the venue in more detail, discussing the efficacy of using the armory in terms of the mise en scène, and how it affected the production and the audience’s reception. He should have discussed the use of bleachers, the scaffolding, the television sets, the projector, and the sparse props, including the clever use of the multi-purpose billiards table. How do these things affect the audience’s sense of theatricality? There should have been discussion of the singing, the dancing and the sign-language, as well as the slow-motion suspension after the explosion, especially in terms of how they either surprise, discomfit, or promote kinesthetic empathy in the audience. The review should also discuss themes, the dual settings (pub and Iraq), and the use of misogynistic humor. Rather than simply reference a Brecht play, explain exactly why it’s comparable, and also discuss whether Black Watch compels the audience to make moral choices. The end of the review, rather than being an obscure reference and a dinner recommendation, should be a warning to first-timers (esp. parents of children) about the adult content, loud noises, and strobe lights. And for readers who saw the previous production, there should be a sentence or two making the case for why they should or shouldn’t see it this time.

Course Blog 21: Wrong Review, Jones "Black Watch" (Jennifer)

Chris Jones’ review of Black Watch for the Chicago Tribune falls short due to his miscalculation of his audience. Consider his statement that, “on this second viewing of ‘Black Watch,’ I was struck not only by how organically Hoggett makes soldiers dance, without us realizing he is doing so, but by how well the show captures existential themes.” Jones' comparison is irrelevant for most of his readers. Plus, his terms are unclear and elitist. 

Jones' comparisons are for an audience who is considering seeing the production again, as Jones did, not for those considering seeing it for the first time. This is clear as he begins the review with an extensive consideration of the previous production in Chicago and notes the altered U.S. position in Iraq/Afghanistan since then. He also compares the current and previous casts to an unnecessary degree. This is particularly ineffective because, while Black Watch is nationally touring, it isn’t a theatrical icon/blockbuster like a Shakespearean tragedy or Lion King. There are numerous people who have never seen it.  So, by comparing it to a previous performance, Jones does not provide the type of information valuable to a reader of the Tribune, which has a general audience. His review is more appropriate for a blog or periodical geared towards aficionados of theatre.

Jones should concentrate on revealing this play to new viewers. He should consider using precise and evocative language, rather than jargon, to identify why a casual theatre-goer should make this a must-see. For example, when he mentions the “organic” nature of the dance, he could describe what he means by “organic” and perhaps create a verbal image of a particular dance or movement that achieves it.

Sidenote:  Jones should also avoid relying on cultural clichés and turns of phrase to reference the “Scottishness” of it all (“have its Scotch pie and eat it too”; “I headed out towards the St.Andrew’s pub”).