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.

Course Blog 21 (Jenna)

When reading over the assortment of reviews of the plays we saw in Chicago, I was surprised to note how little performance appeared in the reviews. While many of the reviewers adopted a particular performance style for crafting their reports (Chris Jones and his collection of puns comes to mind), the substantive sections of these articles, particularly those discussing Equivocation, ignored the actual performance. Instead, the Equivocation reviewers mainly provided their readers with glorified plot summaries carefully crafted to include a plethora of laudatory or acerbic adjectives that, as Justin mentioned, may be lifted from context for commercial purpose.

Of the four, Dan Zeff's was the only review to address the production values of the play. Even then, the various designers were granted single sentences of little analytic value, such as, “William Boles has designed a flexible set that creates appropriate environments the play’s several locations.” or “Janice Pytel designed the period costumes.” “Flexible” and “period” contribute little to an understanding of mis en-scene. These assessments are mere afterthoughts in what is largely a description of plot. Even Zeff's analysis of the acting performances are organized around the story of the play. For instance, he writes, “At the Victory Gardens, Marc Grapey is a superb Shakespeare, not the literary deity he would become after his death but an audience-high man suddenly enmeshed in a very stressful situation. He also has to work among the feisty personalities and egos of his cohorts Richard Burbage (Bruce Young), Robert Armin (Matt Kahler), and Richard Sharpe (Arturo Soria), as well as report to the menacing Robert Cecil (Mark Montgomery).” While presented as a review of Grapey's performance, these two sentences fail to mention a single moment of that performance. They describe the actions of Grapey's character rather than his embodiment of that character. Ostensibly, an actor in any production of Equivocation could be “superb” provided he enact the plot and encounter the listed characters.

This devotion to describing Equivocation's plot enforces many of the comments we have made about attention to narrative in our viewing, reviewing, and discussing performance, namely that it has become detrimentally inescapable. If I had not seen Equivocation and had only read these four reviews of the Chicago production, I would have a sufficient understanding of the script, but would be at a loss to envision how that script had been performed.

Blog Post #21 (Justin): Wrong Reviews Equal Capital

Dumb question: Why do major and minor news outlets [I'm using the word 'news' loosely] generate theatre reviews? Yes, these opinion pieces assist potential audience members to make decisions concerning their next theatre-going experience. And for working theatre artists, the articles provide a way for checking on the projects of friends and colleagues, which can be a fruitful experience (in ‘warming-the-heart’ or ‘groups-to-avoid’ senses). And, much as I hate to say it, they can provide constructive feedback that could change an artist’s future work, if not the current production under review. [Twyla Tharp’s production Movin’ Out comes to mind, which the New York Times controversially chose to review while it was still in a preliminary run in Chicago. The poor review led to a complete overhaul of the show’s second act – and a much more favorable review by the Times when the show opened on Broadway…]

All of these answers point to a particular accepted ‘accuracy’ on the part of the reviewer (taking the reviewer’s ‘opinion’ to be accurate due to expertise or specialization in the field). But, far from critical, many reviews solely praise a production (such as Hedy Weiss’s review of Equivocation for The Sun-Times) or deride a few elements yet ultimately recommend the production for other ‘redeeming’ qualities. Unfortunately, the drive to give praise where none is due (and I would contend that only the set of Equivocation is worthy of praise), may be related to spectacle’s inextricable link to capital, as pointed out by Debord (in much stronger terms). Theatre reviews are not just tied to ticket sales and publicity to theaters (although both are strong capitalist incentives for the reviews). They are also key pieces of evidence used by professional theaters to raise money through donations, grants, and corporate support. Money for productions is raised long before the show goes on, so theater's must point to other evidence of artistic merit, this is especially true for small companies where full productions are only intermittently staged. Without constant live theater to showcase to funders, overly positive reviews are development staff members’ best friends. And, yes - theater reviewers are aware of this fact.

Thus, Victory Gardens is now armed with Weiss’s review of Equivocation for their next meeting with a major donor or submission to a granting agency. The review can be handed as evidence of artistic merit with key portions highlighted: “a snap, crackle and pop production at Victory Gardens Theater,” “Director Sean Graney, in peak form, deftly moves his supremely brainy and talented cast in the play’s speed-of-light mood shifts,” “Everyone here is operating in breathtaking overdrive in a play that also pays homage to the theater.” Each is a handy sound bite to use when trying to garner funds for the theater’s next production.

Course Blog 21: Wrong Review (Whitney)

Reading the reviews of Black Watch, I was struck by how much Chris Jones’ review stood out from the others. Coming from the chief theater critic at one of the largest Chicago papers, I expected his review to be a useful and thorough analysis of the performance. Instead, his review demonstrated a disappointing framework of expectations for the genre and a consequently unsuccessful report of the show we witnessed.

Jones spent two full paragraphs discussing the writing, beginning with, “[t]he writer, Gregory Burke, hit on the just the right paradox to hang his show.” In a roughly 750-word review, to spend 150 words on the script seems excessive, but Jones also wasn’t the only reviewer who used significant space to review the writing. It seems, though, that a theater review is much more successful if it reviews the specific instance of performance rather than the text of a play. Because that’s the same every time. Maybe if this was the first production in Chicago, it might behoove the reviewer to report on the success of the script to garner interest, but Jones himself reminds us that this is the play’s second visit to Chicago in only 18 months.

The element of Jones’ review that really set him apart, though, was his level of generality. Every other reviewer spent at least one or two paragraphs discussing in detail their thoughts about a particularly intense moment of the show. For instance, Chicago Theater Beat, The Sun Times, and Stage and Cinema all spent at least two sentences discussing the letters from home scene. But Jones doesn’t provide his readers with a single detailed moment of the show. His review is filled with statements like, “[s]imply put, ‘Black Watch’ is a clear-eyed look at one of the great regiments of the world.” Understandably, a short theater review can only report on choice aspects of a production, but generalizations like Jones’ seem a waste of the already precious amount of review space. Towards the very end of his review he writes, “[a]nd 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.” But after failing to explain how the soldiers’ movement is “organic” or what the show’s “existential themes” are, he ends his review only two sentences later.

The tone of Jones’ review was also very different from the others and, while it may have fit well with his generalizing statements and overall style, it presented theater as an “event,” rather than providing a useful analysis of this particular performance of Black Watch. In other words, Jones’ review was more about the need for his readers to “be there” from a sort of “high society” standpoint, than it was about anything real within the performance itself. His last sentence beings with, “[a]s I headed out toward the St. Andrews pub across the street, smelling shepherd's pie,” signaling to readers that they, too, can make “an evening” out of their trip to see Black Watch and will feel a sort of cultured satisfaction in having been part of this show’s run in Chicago.

I’m struggling to reconcile Jones’ review with his position as chief theater critic for the Tribune. I may have expected something like this from a more amateur reviewer, but it does shed light on the genre and the expectations both media outlets and readers have for “successful” performance reviews. Jones is considered an expert because he’s been reviewing for the Tribune for over 15 years (according to his bio on the Tribune website). But his review of Black Watch shows no real depth of expertise in terms of actual performance analysis. Rather, what it seems to point to is a very specific kind of expertise at the level of style and tone of the performance review. Perhaps it’s more important for a theater critic to capture the expected essence of the “review” than anything essential about the performance itself?

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”).