Monotone Theatre Criticism

There was a very, very interesting conversation on Twitter yesterday in response to Andrew Haydon's blogpost ('On Criticism: Killing Cattle') interrogating the locality of theatre critics in the UK.  His article asked whether the critics' geographical background influences their reading of the piece, to the extent that a reviewer sent out to the regions from London may not be best placed to understand the work fully and in context.  A fair question: are city-heads likely to appreciate work in quieter, rural towns and village halls, when they do not necessarily sympathise with the piece's targeted demographic?  Or, conversely, should theatre be expected to appeal to the majority?  To use the Salisbury Playhouse as an example, they know precisely who their audience is and their work appeals to them accordingly.  As a more mature, largely upper-middle class demographic, I think it's safe to assume that the likes of Anne Washburn's 'Mr Burns' would cause something of a stir.  So, no - we can't and shouldn't expect to appeal to everyone, but the critic's job is to be open to that.

But this extends the interrogation to encompass a wider question, and indeed, within the discussion, Vinay Patel had asked whether this awareness of ecology also goes for class and cultural background.  A potent question, and one that really got me thinking.  When we read a review, do we ever actually consider who the critic is?  Reading a review in a national newspaper, as it stands at present, we probably expect the writer to hold at least an undergraduate degree (usually in English or Theatre Studies), to have come from a middle class background and likely to reside in London.  Reading a blog, however, is more open to interpretation, and reading Twitter responses, more diverse yet again.  Of course, in an ideal world, the newspaper's body of contributors would reflect the diversity of Twitter (i.e: less Oxbridge), but that is a fight we must continue to fight.

And yet, there is another layer entirely, which made me feel sick to my stomach.  If we understand a critique of a piece of theatre to be a means by which we continue that work's conversation, surely the critic-base should reflect the same diversity that the work embraces.  As in, if we employ a range of artists from different social and geographical backgrounds to say something about our society, the continuation of that conversation should follow suit.  Otherwise, what was the point in starting to speak in the first place?  What I'm trying to say is, and let me jump straight to the point: why are our theatre critics predominantly white/British/middle class? If we are trying to move into a more diverse, dynamic panorama shot of British theatre (something that appears to have fallen sorely by the wayside, as a quick glance at this coming season indicates), why is theatre criticism not following suit?

I hope they won't mind me using them as examples, but why are there not more examples of the likes of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown reviewing for The Independent, or Sanjoy Roy reviewing for the Guardian?  Without more diversity, the danger is that work is thereby viewed through a lens that is not the best informed, that is approached with the wrong preconceptions - consciously or unconsciously - and does not communicate the full breadth of what the artist was trying to say.

If there is any hope of finding an answer, we need to question what the point of theatre criticism is.  If it is to give an accurate, insightful, evocative account of a piece of theatre, of course this relies on a certain degree of intellectual and writerly know-how, experience of theatre and of course, an appreciation of it.  In this vein, Broadway Baby stipulate that its reviewers hold experience in theatre in a capacity other than reviewing, such as acting, dancing or directing.  Which is fair enough.  But as far as I'm concerned, that's all you need.  I can only suggest that the lack of diversity in our critics lies within a far deeper issue, because surely the writers are out there.  Our universities are - largely - brimming with talent and diversity.  So where is it all going wrong?

I would love to know your thoughts and responses, and to know if anyone can direct me towards more comprehensive coverage of the issue.