The language of theater criticism is no exception, and in an effort to use my column to be transparent about my work, I propose a translation of some of the jargon’s favorite phrases.
Friday, January 24, 2020
Theater criticism jargon, translated
The language of theater criticism is no exception, and in an effort to use my column to be transparent about my work, I propose a translation of some of the jargon’s favorite phrases.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Alright, I chuckled. This was a funny, short, and sweet article. But it also does a good job at illuminating some of the implicit bias in theatre reviews. Many (if not most, or all) respected/accredited journalists and critics seem to be white men. And yes, the role of critic largely involves putting your own opinion on the page for others to utilize as they please, but, as pointed out many times in this article, white men write from the viewpoint of, well, white men. And with that seems to come a uniform set of expectations for a piece of theatre. Taking an artistic or theatrical risk with a performance is always, well, risky, but reviews almost never reward that risk, especially if it made the white man writing the review uncomfortable. The terms and their satirical definitions seem to rag on any point of view outside the white male gaze, which can shut down quote-unquote “risky” choices before they even make it to the stage.
This article is sweet and funny, but it does bring up a strong point. We have developed a set of terms to describe the art we witness. But if we recycle phrases, how descriptive are we really being? Maybe theatre has adapted, and producing certain plays has become trendy. Alright. Yet we must continue to be sharp and observant, especially if one is writing a review on a piece of theatre. This list of terms reveals a sense of frustration with the past and the narrow opportunities it had presented. We are now finding a way to pull ourselves out of there. The breadth of new works cannot and should not be painted over with the review of being "woke." We must dig deeper, and analyze what makes these works successful. We must be meticulously observant. By this, I don't mean to say overly critical. One can appreciate a work that has not met ultimate perfection (which is likely impossible in the theatre).
A witty and concise article. This list of terms feels like a list of phrases I would use to review something about which I can't think of anything to say, which is a comment regarding the ingenuity of most reviews. A lot of the terms shine a light on the implicit bias we have against women and people of color by making comments when they a) no longer fit into a box prescribed by societal stereotypes or b) when they are being compared to a white male main character. Often, well-established theatre and film critics are white men who, by virtue of being white men, have an implicit bias against minority groups which shows in their reviews. While some of these phrases can be used from the heart, it is always good to rethink our biases before we share out thoughts.
This article was very funny and well written. I thoroughly enjoyed it and it’s unapologetic sarcastic ness, but at the same time it got me thinking about who the critics are that write about theater and what they say really means. I never really thought about it but I guess sadly it makes sense that most theater critics are white males. Also, it seems like from the theater critic jargon that was defined a lot of it made the writers sound so fake. My favorite term was Sentimental: “This play made me feel things, but I don’t want to admit that it made me feel things.” Besides the ones that were just funny a lot of these descriptions of terms seemed to be inherently sexist and/or racist. I also thought it was interesting that both woke and ironic meant that the audience was aimed at younger or cooler audiences.
This article was short and very funny. However, the way this list of phrases was defined by jargon makes me rethink how ingenue many reviews really are. These words and phrases sound simply like words a phrases used to describe a production where there is not much to say. I also found it interesting how a play "written by a person of color" or "written by a white woman" are labelled as urgent and whimsical, respectively. This emphasizes the way if we see a play is written by a person of color, the bias held by many people is simply that it must be important and that it must be an extremely relevant story simply because the writer is not why when, in fact, that's not always the case. The same goes for plays "written by women." Saying that a play that is written in a "whimsical" nature must be written by a woman emphasizes the way people automatically jump to conclusions based off of stereotypes. I think the message to take away from this is that there might be (not always) so much more to a play or production of any kind; details that may shock an audience member who holds these biases.
This article was dripping with sarcasm and angst. I think it was a funny little parody/jab at theatre critics, but it also kind of makes me think about the fact that, a lot of times, these reviews feel very... copy and paste. They offer no substance in their review of the show and look like they could’ve been a quickly-filled-out template. This goes deeper into the “I need to get this out as quickly as possible to be the first” and “I need to get as many clicks as possible” direction that news and reporting is going, Although, to play devil’s advocate, I don’t know how it’s totally possible to avoid all these words. They became standard for a reason, and perhaps finding a way to purposefully avoid the clichés will simply lead to a new wave of clichés forming. While it’s an interesting, light-hearted article, I don’t think it’s necessary to think TOO deep into it. In the grand scheme of things, it may be “lazy,” but not an entirely big deal.
Post a Comment