I don't know if anyone's read Philip Holyman's review of the Northern Broadsides' Othello, appearing in Metro on April 9th. I imagine someone has. I can't find it online, but I expect it'll go up at some point. It's only a two star review, and clearly Mr. Holyman wasn't very impressed with the show.
That in itself is fine; he's allowed to dislike it, no problem. Obviously, we all have different opinions on art, and he's entitled to his. If all critics agreed on everything they saw, we'd get nowhere, and art would become pretty stagnant. Diversity is pretty important in this field. Metro has apparently grasped this, considering that Mickey Noonan is so much more positive.
So should I worry that Holyman's review makes me angry? It's not that he dislikes the Broadsides and Lenny Henry's performance. That I can live with; it's his opinion, and he's right about Conrad Nelson's voice occasionally going a bit RP. What annoys me is the way that he doesn't seem to have tuned into what the Broadsides do and who they are. For a typical audience member, a member of the public, that would be understandable – but from a critic? I like the idea that the opinion-former of this piece – the critic – has a bit more information to go on than the average audience member. Surely, a critic ought to have the authority of a weight of experience behind them, they should sound like they know what they're talking about based on what's been done and seen before. Otherwise, why are they being paid for their opinion? I don't fault Holyman's opinion – it's an opinion, so entirely valid – but his review sounds so uninformed.
'Of course, Lenny Henry, in his first classical stage role, is the show's star
attraction'.
Well, alright, Henry is probably responsible for a large proportion of ticket sales, but Holyman completely overlooks the previous success of the Broadsides. They've been staging Shakespeare since 1992 (starting in Hull with Richard III), and with no small degree of success. They're (according to artistic director, Barrie Rutter) the biggest UK company touring to venues of different shapes – and they've got a solid international reputation. All of that happened long before Lenny Henry decided to have a crack at the Moor.
To come back to Mickey Noonan: 'Being Broadsides, it was never going to be a flop; this company never fails to put on a good show'.Yes, Holyman's point about Henry being a Box Office draw holds, but he manages to imply that the Broadsides couldn't have sold a tour of Othello by themselves. They could.
'Set and costume, score and (in particular) lighting are blunt and to the point,
never offering any instructive angle or comment on the play.'
But, Mr. Holyman, that's what the Broadsides do! First off, how much do you want in the way of costume? They were all dressed – for the same period – and always appropriately. What more do you want? The set was entirely sufficient; it gave background, it gave them some levels to play with, and it gave them several clearly defined areas on the floor – what more did they need? The score was another thing that did its job perfectly suitably.
But the lighting in particular, you say? Well...the Broadsides have never been ones for big spectacles. They – rather like the original stagings of the classical works they have made their speciality – don't use lots of special effects: smoke, lights, explosions, that sort of thing. They know perfectly well that there's no need for it. Rather, they allow a focus on the verse and the language of the plays they stage. Rutter is in love with the poetic verse of classical drama (be it Greek or Shakespearean), and his company has always left setting to the audience's imagination as much as possible. It's a bit like radio, in that the pictures are better than having a prescribed set that everyone has no choice but to see. The way they do it, we make the locations ourselves. Would you rather they dictated it all to you, Mr. Holyman? What the lighting in Othello did do was set out separate areas of the stage and offer them up for attention – that's all it needs to do.
'Cameo roles, such as [...] unforgivably, director Barrie Rutter's
Brabantio, are coarse and mannered'.
Unforgivable? What, that the director appears onstage? Why so, Mr. Holyman? With companies nationwide tightening their belts, but also having directors with acting experience (Rutter is one of the Broadsides' most experienced actors – he was Richard III), why is it a sin to save on the services of one actor? Admittedly, he's not their best actor, but Rutter isn't bad, and he nearly always has a role in Broadsides shows – whether he's directing or not. It's not like the Broadsides are the only people to employ an actor-director these days...
And then, on a purely writerly note, which I admit is a bit pretentious of me, this closing sentence:
'The show's only unqualified success is Richard Standing as Cassio, who alone
manages to give his character a tangibly real life without selling the beauty of
Shakespeare's text short'.
Firstly: unqualified? So, he hasn't qualified for that success, that Mr. Holyman then goes on to say he has qualified for? Secondly: that text is the one massively important thing the Broadsides go for. Mr. Holyman, you obviously noticed it, you're obviously aware of it, why have you not realised that it's what they're interested in? Thirdly: wouldn't that be a much better sentence if it read 'without selling short the beauty of Shakespeare's text'?
But maybe a review succeeds best when it provokes a reaction in the reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment