No 43 -- 1995 Edited by Michael Walters
Some time ago I received a detailed criticism of GILBERTIAN GOSSIP from an American reader, who claimed that my reviews were destructive, insensitive and ill-informed, and that they were of no value because they probably did not represent "popular" opinion. The following represents the substance of my reply; I would be interested in any comments readers may have on it.
The first point is that to criticise is not necessarily to condemn. Indeed, to be uncritical is to fail to properly understand, and therefore to appreciate. The writer seemed to be under the bizarre impression that because I criticise a production I therefore did not enjoy it. All his criticism of me seemed to be based on totally erroneous assumptions. He said that I consider myself an expert on G&S production. I have never said so. I merely express my personal opinion. It is possible that after reading what I have written, one might decide to regard me as an expert, but if so, that is a private opinion. He further said "I do express concern that your reviews may not reflect popular opinion ...". But who ever suggested that any review should? Actually, I think I know the answer, but the only reason I do is because I heard an interview given by the impressario Cameron Mackintosh on Irish radio a year ago. He pointed out that American press criticism differs fundamentally from British. I was amazed to hear him say that most American cities have only one major newspaper (whereas in Britain there are several) and that that critic's view is taken to be "gospel". In Britain no-one would dream of suggesting this. A critic's review is assumed to be precisely what it is - the personal opinion of one person.
In Britain no two critics ever agree about the merits of a particular production - and I would have thought it would have been obvious that my practice of, whenever possible, including several differing reports on a production - which frequently disagree fundamentally with my own, would have borne this out. I know more than one person who react in adverse relationship to anything a critic says. However, my correspondent continued: "Americans tend to be tender - even generous [-] when we write a review". My experience of clippings from American newspapers which have been sent me from time to time, does not bear this out. Most of those I have seen have been vitriolic, even vindictive, and often ill-informed. I certainly would not have said that they claimed to reflect "popular opinion".
I was born in Northern Ireland, where there is virtually no professional theatre (this must apply to large parts of the USA as well) and the amateur theatre was far from being a dilettante passtime, but an important part of the social life of the area, and of the city of Belfast, where I worked for 6 years from 1962 to 1966. Audiences expected and received the very highest standards of performance. As well as this, the "local" Belfast papers were also the national papers for the country. It was quite possible for a prominent company or a good amateur actor to be known all over Northern Ireland. It was not unusual for one to be stopped in the street by a perfect stranger who would say "I saw you in such and such the other night, I enjoyed it, but I thought ..." and would discuss the merits and demerits of the production in a totally friendly and objective way. I recall one Belfast critic pointing out that the actors in the company in question were forced through circumstances to earn their living by taking other jobs, but leaving no doubt that acting was the raison d'etre of their existence. And he was right. In many ways amateur theatre was valued more highly than professional (as it was in imperial China). When the late Hilton Edwards (a famous actor from the Gate Theatre in Dublin), came to adjudicate in the 1960s at the finals of the Northern Ireland Drama Festivals at the Grand Opera House in Belfast, and said that he thought the very best of amateur drama was on a level with the very worst of professional, he was hissed by the audience.
When I came to the London area I was fortunate to move into the sort of circles where the same sort of criteria apply. The Richmond Shakespeare Society, to which I have belonged since 1968, have their own theatre which they run entirely on their own. Ralph MacPhail came to see a production there a few years ago, and expressed amazement at the high standard of production (and it was a production that was far from being one of our best). He couldn't believe that the whole set-up was run by unpaid staff, which he said you would never have got in the States. "Don't you even have a paid administrator?" he asked. The Richmond Shakespeare Society regard themselves as fully professional in every way, except that nobody gets paid. There are plenty of other such societies in Britain. In Britain, there has always been a tradition of the amateur. In my "profession", ornithology, much of the work has been, and is still, done by unpaid workers. Much, if not all, of the early groundwork for the science was conducted by men who were of private means and devoted themselves to the study of the discipline without pay. They were thus technically "amateurs", but they knew as much about the subject as any professional.
The great choirs of England are made up entirely of amateur singers, and admission is strictly controlled - you have to be very good to be allowed to sing with them - and pay a large subscription for the privilege. And there are many operatic companies which employ professional singers (with or without pay) to play leading roles, and amateurs for the chorus and smaller roles. My correspondent may not have realised that a number of the singers that I criticised were not in fact strictly amateurs at all, but semi-professionals; i.e. people who have daytime jobs, but take professional singing engagements in the evening when they can get them, and at other times sing for nothing (and love) in amateur concerts and productions.
Here are two quotes which may or may not be relevant. One is by John Craig Toy commenting on me as far back as 1971 in The Jack Point Press - "He loves G&S enough to review it honestly". The other (which has nothing to do with me or G&S) is from an American now resident in Britain, the TV personality Lloyd Grossman: "Anything the British do as amateurs is brilliant. It's only when they become professionals that it's more hit and miss" (Radio Times 4-10 June 1994, p. 41.).
The last point I should make is that one of my fields of study is the first night press reports of the Savoy Operas, which I have been examining in the British Library. In Gilbert & Sullivan's day, there were over 70 newspapers in London which would send critics to a first night and printed long and detailed reviews, often of several columns (not the miserable little perfunctory reviews one gets today). However, in spite of all this verbiage, often describing the costumes and scenery in minute detail, remarkably little of any lasting value is said about the performers. One looks in vain for comments as to what Rosina Brandram's voice really sounded like, or how Richard Temple interpreted such and such a character. That people could write such in-depth comments is shown by a wonderful book by one Arthur Goddard called "Players of the Period". Unfortunately, he only treats of 2 Savoyards, Grossmith and Barrington, but what dazzling and vivid accounts he gives of them. If only the real connoisseurs in the audience (and there were evidently many of them) could have left accounts of what they thought of the productions. In GG I have made a modest attempt to describe exactly what the production and performances were really like. I don't claim that I'm always right, but I do claim that I am always sincere.
Web page created 26 July 1998