When other audience members respond to reviews

A fellow Blogger known only as The Hessian took offence at my review of Hull Truck's Every Time it Rains, and published a blog slating it. I responded thus:

Well, 'The Hessian', I'm glad you responded to my review and have written your own thoughts out. I hope you don't think my entire blog is offensive (just this review), as some of it is pretty positive. Also, I'm glad you enjoyed Every Time it Rains – it was certainly competently and professionally done, can't fault that, nor the response of the bulk of its audience.

But any review by any critic is entirely subjective, and your opinion will differ from mine. Fair enough.

"This piece, more than any other, celebrates the strength of character displayed
by the people of Hull in the face of great hardship and adversity."

Unfortunately, that's not what I was getting from the piece. Your response is entirely valid, but mine was different. What I was getting from the play was, as you quote, a "torrent of misery". Undeniably, much of the play is far from cheerful.

My review is one where I've tried to make the review feel (as much as I can) like the piece on stage. How well that succeeds is another question. But (and I agree with you here) Creed has injected humour into this play. There are definitely funny moments, and I believe this humour amid misery is a typical human response – and flippancy in the face of tragedy is what is in my review. In a way, that's the point behind what you take to be me commenting "glibly". You've mentioned "they also have better rows", and said that it's not informative or insightful. Perhaps not, but it follows a dash in a sentence, and as such is a little separate from the rest of that sentence ("a much more proactive, materialistic attitude (once the enormity of the situation has sunk in for Gary) – they also have better rows."), it's a casual, throwaway comment, a bit irrelevant and a bit frivolous – like most humour. We tend to use humour as a coping mechanism when life throws something horrible at us (for example, as a child, my response to hearing my nan had died was to laugh; if I laughed, I couldn't cry – though I cried soon after), every funeral I've been to has been full of off-colour jokes and black humour, partly to avoid the grief and the real reason the family has gathered in a graveyard. The humour and flippancy within Every Time it Rains (and, I hope, my review) go some way to demonstrating that point.

I've done something similar with my review of Confessions of a City Supporter, which is mentioned in this review. I don't know if you've seen it, but it's another Hull Truck play based in Hull. In it, the main character claims the play is for non-supporters, which I took to mean dirty non-Hullians like myself (from Wolverhampton, which takes a knock in the play – I was thrilled the place even got a mention outside of the Midlands!)...but it was actually all about the fans. I've no objection to that, but I felt lied to. So, my review has a lie in it, which I reveal at the end, rather like my realisation at the end of Confessions.... These are reviews aiming to convey my reaction to the reader.

You're right to say that the "painfully local...feel" comes from a local writer writing about local people and local events – and if you pick out the main parts of my review (rather than cherry-picking the less positive ones) you can see that I very much admire the work Hull Truck does in producing community-specific pieces of theatre. They excel at that. I've said it before and am happy to say so again:

"[Hull] Truck is very good at this sort of thing. Their shows consistently tap
into the currents of feeling in this community and distil that community onto
the stage. Every Time it Rains has five actors playing a stream of characters,
all in some way affected by The Flood. So it feels like there's a lot of them
onstage, and the almost constant flowing and shifting of characters creates a
real feel of community and of change."

My Confessions... review also has a section highlighting the interaction of Hull Truck's current Programme with the local community - and I hope such interaction continues. But - as an outsider - maybe that's why I struggle with some of their work. Good as it is, it is tailored to the locals, which doesn't include me. That's no one's fault, I just happen to be watching theatre outside of my native city. Big deal. But then, it's not an issue when I see theatre in Birmingham, Edinburgh, Scarborough, Newcastle, Coventry, York or London (which is perhaps a tribute to the Truck's dedication to community work). So, yes, Hull Truck's work does tend to "resonate with with the inhabitants of its surrounding areas", and is often of a "consistently high quality". I'm not denying that. But sometimes you can get a bit sick of hearing about Hull's problems.

Case in point: the audience were asked - at the start of Confessions... – to 'confess' to being City fans, then being told they were 'brave' for doing so. It was hardly brave, in a room full of City fans. Throughout, City fans were shown to be hard done to. Frequently in Every Time it Rains, Hull is shown to be hard done to.
Whatsonstage.com has an interview in which Michael Barnett Snr. says that "It’s the classic thing about Hull thinking of itself as the forgotten city"; Hull on the Hull Truck stage has almost given itself a victim mentality that it doesn't entirely warrant. Barnett then says of Hull, "during the War you couldn’t mention its name because of intelligence.” I suspect that was true of everywhere, not just Hull. I'm afraid they do come across as rather deserving of pity, “poor little Hull folk” as you've quoted me saying.

My comments aren't "dismissive" at all; they're based on much thought on the basis of at least two full-length Hull Truck plays. Also, my review doesn't go so far as to say that the literal people of Hull are actually ""celebrating...self-jubilant victimhood"". What it does stress is that the locals "almost seem to be celebrating it [victimisation], as they sink into self-jubilant victimhood" - not that they have sunk into it, but almost seem to be in the process of doing so. And that's just the onstage Hull, not the literal city.

No, you've a good point: I don't refer to character journeys. But then, for me as an audience member, it wasn't about individual characters. It was about the community in Hull. That's the central thing to this play. Again, "it feels like there's a lot of them [characters] onstage, and the almost constant flowing and shifting of characters creates a real feel of community and of change." As for "the atmospheric lighting, the seamless depiction of the different effects the floods had on the local community, and the gentle use of comedy" – there's only so much I'm willing to fit into a review before I feel it's too long and cumbersome. Especially if I think that something else is more important to a piece's overall effect than the staging, say. Like I've said, it was about the community and The Flood for me. The staging did its job, as did the lighting (though that had its more dubious moments (I concede the saving of the Renault Twingo was inspired)). I've already mentioned the "gentle use of comedy".

Unlike the comedy though, I can't agree that the piano music was gentle. Nor was it especially evocative, for me. It was another occasion where I – as an audience member - felt manipulated, as though I was being told "Now you should feel sad"...as if the untimely death of a young man related by the man who tried to save him wasn't enough. As if a father talking about his son's early death wasn't enough to convey a sense of loss and tragedy to me which - with Martin Barrass playing it – it emphatically was. The piano shouldn't have been needed.

But thank you for expressing what you think. Hopefully, you're less angry than when you posted your critique. I always think that if I'm willing to have my words printed and placed in a public domain, I should be willing to have my name alongside them and be willing to stand by what I've said.
Do let me know when you next see a Hull Truck show – or any show, really – and we can
compare notes, if I've seen it too.

Oh, and "disappointing"?

'Never Enough' at Hull Uni - my second viewing

It has to be said, that while it wasn't massively different, I enjoyed Never Enough much more in Hull than in Scarborough. It's probably something to do with a home audience being more willing to laugh and play along than a more demanding NSDF audience, but - in their defence - RashDash have improved this show in the last month.
They also didn't lynch me, despite me being on the front row. So that was nice. The review's short, because the show hasn't changed much since I last reviewed it:


RashDash Theatre return to their home venue in Hull University's Donald Roy Theatre with a show – Never Enough – that hasn't changed massively since its airing at NSDF09.

The award-winning choreography is still present, still vibrant, still vital and alive. At times, it feels a little tired, but maybe that's just familiarity with the material. It's not that the pace flags – it doesn't – it just all seems a bit familiar, like these are the moves RashDash have been doing all their lives (and can be seen in their previous work, not only Strict Machine but other Hull shows). But there's nothing wrong with carving a niche and playing to your strengths.

Thankfully, the story has been trimmed a little since NSDF09, and doesn't feel quite so long as it once did. This may be partly due to proceedings being whipped along a little quicker now too. The biggest change though is that Never Enough – which raised the one giggle at NSDF09 – is at Hull genuinely funny. Played for laughs, it enjoys a much higher degree of success than it did as a dance/physical piece.

What struck me while watching Never Enough for my second time was that it's a piece of theatre that has nearly everything in it. RashDash tell their story using most of the tools available to them in their dramatic toolbox. The movement and dance serves to demonstrate the subtext of the characters presented through dialogue, while their monologues (like the conversation between Helen Goalen's Becca and her own thoughts, voiced by Abbi Greenland) shed light on their inner lives. Considering the opening of their earlier work, Strict Machine, it's a shame there's no similar singing in Never Enough – it's the only big thing missing.

When performers respond to reviews - RashDash and 'Never Enough'

It's always interesting when someone you've reviewed talks to you about said review. Partly, it's the knowledge that, actually, the stuff we people write does get read...that's reassuring. But partly, it's the knowledge that someone has read what you've said and thought about it – probably because it applies so much to them.

Now, I've been in trouble over reviews in the past (when a company objected to their work being referred to as 'physical theatre'), but today I found it seems to have happened on a bigger scale than before. What makes this amusing – rather like the last time this happened – is that the company in question seems to have misunderstood the review in question. In fairness, that makes it sound like I've not been clear enough, but performers don't usually have problems with 'getting' what I say.

One of the companies performing at this year's NSDF claim that I wrote their worst review...which surprised me because I thought mine was pretty positive. In fact, I really enjoyed their show, rather like I enjoyed the show they'd entered the year before. The fact that RashDash Theatre Company is from my own University is irrelevant. Still, if my review was the worst thing written about them, they must have done pretty well on the whole – and let's not overlook their joint award for most popular show at the Festival.

But it's interesting that the company of Never Enough should take such objection to what I wrote.
My first comment about the company itself is:

'what is worth noting – and commending – is the fact that RashDash have been
selected for NSDF in a second consecutive year.'

I draw special attention to the word 'commending'.

RashDash might then have taken issue with my point that their energetic show borrows from different dance styles. Possibly. But at no point have I said that it's a bad thing, as I think it's quite a good thing.

Then, a few lines later:

'This is a company that has invested time and effort in perfecting their
physical technique; they gel together beautifully, moving fluidly and easily
around each other'.

I'm struggling to see how this is their worst review, when some people really didn't like Never Enough.

Apparently, they don't like the idea that I've claimed their acting wasn't very good. This response to the review surprised me, as I was pretty sure I hadn't said it; there's not much to fault in their acting. So, I re-read said review.

'as is so often the case, these dancers aren't so hot on acting. None of the
trio can quite hold their own when delivering monologues [...] It's not that
Graham's description of his dream house isn't interesting, it just pales away
when compared with the drive and passion of his dance work.'

By which I mean that their dance work is better than their acting. That doesn't mean their acting is bad. It's just not their strongest point.

'it's a testament to the strength of the ensemble that no individual is able to
stand out.'

is also no bad thing.

But thinking about it, I gather the cast aren't keen on being referred to as 'dancers', for some reason. I don't know why, as all three excel in that field, and much of their work has a distinctly 'dancey' feel to it. Maybe they objected to my comparing their show – loosely – to the BBC's Mistresses in the way it balanced several stories at once. Once again, that's no bad thing; it's what I love about Mistresses.

Still, Never Enough is being performed again at the University of Hull tonight and tomorrow – so I'm told. Hopefully, when I turn up, they won't throw me the seemingly angry looks they threw me at NSDF. Personally, I look forward to seeing how they've changed the show in the month or so since NSDF.