Who Keeps the Score on the London Stages?

Kalina Stefanova

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134429899
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medien & darstellende Kunst
• Subtopic: Theater

How does one become a theater critic in London?
What do the theater critics think of their profession?
How are they judged by those they critique?
What do both critics and theatre-makers think of their mutual object of desire - the British Theatre? Who Keeps the Score on the London Stages? sets out to find the answers to these questions and many more in this long overdue publication on Britain's current theatre scene. Included are comprehensive interviews with more than fifty major London theatre critics and theater-makers, including Sir Alan Ayckbourn, Stephen Berkoff, Michael Billington, Martin Coveney, Nicholas de Jongh, Sir Richard Eyre, Sir Peter Hall, Sir Cameron Mackintosh, Adrian Noble, Sir Trevor Nunn and Irving Wardle.
The author has gathered together a lively discussion about the contrmporary state of the British theatre, drawing a picture of its strengths, weaknesses and the problems it faces today. This volume serves as a long overdue guide to the Theatre critics' profession in Britain.

Part I

In Their Capacity As An Ideal: Enter The London Theatre Critics

1

Roads to Perfection: 27 Ways to Become a Theatre Critic in London

Paul Allen

Kate Bassett

Michael Billington

James Christopher

Michael Coveney

Nick Curtis

Nicholas de Jongh

Jane Edwards

John Elsom

Lyn Gardner

Robert Gore-Langton

John Gross

Bill Hagerty

Peter Hepple

Ian Herbert

Robert Hewison

Jeremy Kingston

Alastair Macaulay

Sheridan Morley

David Nathan

Benedict Nightingale

John Peter

Ian Shuttleworth

Charles Spencer

Jack Tinker

Irving Wardle

Matt Wolf

They answer the questions:

– When, how, and why did you make up your mind to become a theatre critic? Was that a continuation of a family tradition? How has your career evolved through the years?

Paul Allen:

I wanted to be a journalist and I wanted to specialize in the arts. Of course, the arts were not seen as very important and, in any case, first you have to learn typing and shorthand, the law and the rules, so I spent two years being an apprentice. After I had proved I was a serious journalist by doing other things, I started specializing in theatre. Then the time came when I also wanted to write plays, so I gave up my job and became a freelance. I did some reviewing for The Guardian and The New Statesman and various other papers, and I was writing plays at the same time. It was almost casual that I became involved in radio. I had done a little bit of local radio. In Sheffield in North England where I lived, there was somebody who had been reviewing for Kaleidoscope and who moved away to another part of the country. So I asked whether I could review for them. They tried me out on one review and then almost immediately they said, “Do you want to present the programme?” The first one I did was somewhere around 1980. Then I would spend half of my time writing and the other half – on the radio. But then the time came when they said, “We have to concentrate on a handful of presenters and have them work with us. Are you prepared to do it every week?” I said, “Yes.” … I have enjoyed the job very much but it has stopped me writing. I can review for The Guardian any time I want to but I just don’t have the time. And I don’t believe in one person reviewing one thing twice. When you present a radio programme, you can steer very clearly the way the reviewer goes. Even if it becomes an argument, you can still have your say.

Kate Bassett:

In my early twenties I was working both in the theatre and as a freelance arts journalist and had not absolutely decided which path to take. In the theatre I worked, mostly as an assistant director, for the Gate, Hampstead and The Royal Court. My last post was at The National Theatre Studio — as ‘Young Director On Attachment’. In terms of arts journalism, I was writing for various publications: a few reviews in The Guardian, Time Out, some features in The Spectator, The TLS.

Just as the post at the Studio ended, Ian Shuttleworth – the theatre editor of City Limits magazine – asked me to be his deputy. Then, when City Limits folded, the arts editor of The Times offered me a job as their third theatre critic. I was very lucky. That was a great job to get at 25. At that point, I knew I couldn’t have a foot in both camps anymore. On the continent, people seem both to work in the arts and write as arts journalists. But it’s very difficult to be frank and objective if you mingle with the people whose work you then appraise.

Because I studied English – which involves literary criticism – and because I’d worked in the theatre, I think I felt drawn to and confident about being a critic. Thinking further back, as a child I remember being really thrilled – skipping in the Aldwych after my parents took me to see, it must have been Love’s Labours Lost. I got a real kick out of seeing theatre as a child. I don’t skip about much in the Aldwych anymore, but really brilliant theatre still thrills me.

It wasn’t a family tradition. My family, on both sides, worked in teaching – with a lay preacher and a Cornish smuggler sometime way back. My father is a civil engineer and university lecturer. My mother was an infant school teacher. She encouraged me to love the arts. My brothers work in computing and medicine though, thinking about it, my brother (the doctor) used to do lots of theatre lighting and was member of the theatre society at the college I also went to. He encouraged me unstintingly when I wanted to join in. So maybe there’s a mini-tradition there. Also my grandfather wrote a terrible stage adaptation of a Chekhov short story when I was about sixteen, sent me a copy and asked my opinion. My opinion did not go down well. He wrote me a very sniffy letter back. Still, maybe he started me off all the same. How has my career evolved through the years? Well, I’ve gone from being the third critic at The Times to the second critic at The Telegraph. I’m not paid 20 pounds per review anymore either – which was City Limits’ rate – that’s if you ever got the pay cheque. I get to see better shows, generally, now. I’m slightly wary of the idea of pure evolution. There’s a theory that critics have eight years of decent reviews in them, which is an alarming thought. My end is nigh, if the theory’s right.

Michael Billington:

My devotion to theatre criticism has something to do with Stratford-upon- Avon. I was born eight miles from there, and what used to be called the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre – now the RST – was a kind of Mecca for me. I remember being taken there at the age of eight to see Troilus and Cressida. Later I became addicted to that theatre and by the age of 16–17 I’d seen the bulk of Shakespeare’s work performed by actors of the highest calibre like Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, Michael Redgrave, Peggy Ashcroft. I’d also seen modern plays, pantomimes, and the music hall in Birmingham and Coventry. This wide variety of theatre was, of course, a major influence. But the job of the critic is determined to some extent by temperament as well. I’ve always been a watcher. I’ve felt I’d rather be a commentator than a doer. I suppose it has something to do with a sort of reclusive and bookish temperament. This is why I prefer to stay in the room called Prospero’s Cell when I’m at the Shakespeare Hotel in Stratford-upon-Avon.

I went to university in Oxford and studied English. Strangely enough, the way the English exam system works is in a sense a journalistic training. You spend three years studying literature and then your degree is determined by a week of two-hour exams in which you have to write everything you know about a subject. I was very involved in the theatre in Oxford: I wrote for student newspapers, I acted and directed. So when I left there were only two things I was keen to do: theatre criticism and directing.

I went to journalism in Liverpool, unsuccessfully. Then I went into the theatre for two years in Lincoln hoping to run a repertory company. It was very useful but I decided I wasn’t born to be a part of the theatre. So I came to London, in 1964, and spent a long time just looking for work. The turning point came in the spring of 1965, when a friend came to tea and suggested that I write a letter to The Times. By then I had already a stack of reviews. The Times ‘ arts editor liked them and set me off to see a production of Shaw’s Saint Joan in Bristol. Thank God, from that moment on he just kept commissioning me – week in, week out. So it was a combination of determination, of wanting desperately to be a theatre critic – I thought that was what I was chosen to be – and good luck. The Times editor, John Lawrence, was a patron not just to me but to a number of other critics, like John Peter and Irving Wardle. He was magnificent in giving us encouragement, work, and commitment. For the next six years I kept running around theatres, films, and TV, doing interviews and writing articles. This was my training as a critic.

Now I get letters from people who say, “I want to be a drama critic. How can I become one?” The answer is: There is no formula. But I always reply to them because I remember once upon a time when I was very grateful because this man was so generous to me. If you’re to be a critic, the thing you need most is some encouragement, some stimulus.

In the beginning of the 70s, The Times cut down on the quantity of reviews and I wrote to The Guardian. It so happened that the then Guardian critic was suffering periods of ill health and couldn’t always go to the theatre, so they were looking for a replacement. Again it was a mixture of good fortune and encouragement. I happened to write to them in the right time but also their features editor Peter Preston, with whom I’d been at Oxford, knew my work well. So I joined the paper in 1971 and here we are – more than 25 years later – I’m still working on The Guardian.

James Christopher:

I went to Edinburgh University and, of course, I went to see the Festival and I got caught up with it. I started doing reviews for a student newspaper but in 1986, the last year of my studies, the newspaper folded. So I set up my own festival paper – sheets of A3,1000 copies – and handed it out for 20p. There was a whole bunch of us doing this. We literally started with a photocopier. We went to all the strange East European stuff that was performed in the smaller venues. That’s how I started.

Then I came down to London and became a decorator for two years. But since I’d always wanted to write, in 1987, I applied to Time Out and started off as their wine correspondent. I knew nothing about wine at all. But that’s how I got a regular column in Time Out. Then I asked Jane Edwardes if she needed any freelance reviewers. She said, “Yes. Let’s try you out. Go and see this play and write 50 words.” It was a very tough thing to do. But I did it. I went to see the most ridiculous show I’ve ever seen, called Spike. It was so bad it was hysterical. Jane liked my review and gave me another, and another. In 1989 I was employed full-time to do theatre in Time Out and I gave up the wine column. You’re encouraged there to write in any way you want and since it’s the make-or-break publication for the fringe, you have a lot of power as well. That’s a wonderful combination for a young critic.

In 1996 I was asked to write for The Sunday Express. The interesting thing in reviewing for a right-wing newspaper is that they’re completely personality-led. They don’t want you to review the shows but the major stars in them. So you have to change your style, which is a great challenge. … So from the Edinburgh fringe I’ve moved to the West End.

Michael Coveney:

As schoolboys, my brother and I got involved in the local drama company in Essex. Anyone who wasn’t in the play each month wrote a review and read it out to the people who were in the play. So you learned a good lesson: to say what you think to people you know. Then I went to university at Oxford where I wrote in the students’ newspaper and took part in the students’ theatre. When I left, I started script-reading at the Royal Court and teaching. Then, in 1972, I became the third-string theatre critic on The Financial Times. From 1975 to 1978 I was involved with Plays and Players. I was with The Financial Times for nearly 20 years – as a third-string critic until 1976, as a second-string one until 1981, and then as their first critic. In 1990 there was a change around and The Observer’s theatre critic, who had been in the job for six years, wanted to go back to being a literary editor, so they asked me to work for them. At the same time Irving Wardle went to The Independent on Sunday. In 1997 I moved to The Daily Mail.

Nick Curtis:

I got into criticism by doing English and Drama at university and a one- year course in journalism in Cardiff. Then, in 1989, I was offered a two- week placement on Plays and Players magazine. The person whom I was substituting for left and I took over as a deputy editor. I stayed there about three years, the last nine months of which I was an editor. Then I started freelancing for Time Out and The Independent. In 1993 The Evening Standard rang in and asked me whether I would do work for them. I’ve been with them since then.

Nicholas de Jongh:

I find it very difficult to remember the time when I decided that I wanted to be a theatre critic. As a teenager I was very much caught up with what I believed to be the romance of theatre criticism: going to first nights and seeing these men who were always rushing out and next morning being able to read their experience of what I too had seen. That romance has now gone from the theatre and disgracefully almost all theatre critics take 24 hours to write their response.

I did a degree in English Language and Literature at University College in London. Then I came into criticism by accident. I had a bizarre wish to be a producer of radio drama but I failed narrowly to become a trainee at the BBC. They offered me a contract to do news and magazines at Bush House, which I did for six months. Then I got onto The Guardian amazingly: while I was unempl...