Billington quits as Guardian chief drama critic

Billers is THE voice of 20th century – and early 21st century – theatre. Whilst times change, and Billington is (or should be) the last of his breed, I’d argue that he’s served as a remarkable last of this breed; frankly he’s produced a better body of literature than half the bloody playwrights he’s been contemporary to.

When I saw Harry Potter, it happened to be Press Night/Day. I bumped into Quentin Letts, grumpily drawing attention to himself, and very much had to hold my tongue. However, in the corner, was Billington standing there, eating his interval ice-cream, grinning like a schoolboy. Of everyone in that auditorium – most of whom were, like me, enthusiastic fanboys – ONE PERSON had the right to call this a theme park, decry his theatre being taken over by populist claptrap, be a snob. Instead, at the time, this septuagenarian was clearly getting into the younger swing of things, and seeing this piece of theatre as exactly what it was. He then posted an eloquent and thoughtful review barely a day later. That mindset, that enthusiasm, that writing – that takes skill, that takes passion. Of his reviews, I’m a particular admirer of how he contextualises the genre expertly but excitedly highlights the new in The Flick, and beautifully commends why this interpretation of the Shrew touched him so. That ability – to capture both analysis and emotion, and always be looking for the positive in the new – is something I hope to have when I’m 80.

Funnily enough, I disagreed with Billers oodles of times. I loved both the Maxine Peake and Andrew Scott Hamlets and knew before I read a word that Billers wouldn’t, simply because they weren’t political enough – THERE’S MORE TO HAMLET THAN JUST JAN KOTT. I think he has a couple of ideals of plays, esp. Shakespeare (too negatively) and Pinter (too positively), which clouds his view too much – his recent appearance on Front Row was VERY fuddy-duddy-ish. The imagined female critic in his book was, um, a choice.

However, a great critic is not someone with whom to agree or disagree; nor, I would argue, is it someone to compare opinions with. It’s a writer. When we remember Pauline Kael, we don’t ask whether we agree or disagree; we enjoy her turn of phrase and deft way to turn praise into literature. I’d compare Billington to her. No-one better documented the evolution of 20th century theatre and we should reviews for that – but because he knows how to contextualise whilst being emotional, we should celebrate his reviews as Pauline Kael’s were at her centenary this year. One Night Stands is a good read. His contemporary reviews are still good reads. I think he should be remembered like that. And to do it all overnight...  He’s the last of his kind.  He’ll be missed.

Nov 8, 2019 11:46:48 GMT Polly1 said:

She’s a great writer. This is a terrible decision. It’s not her. It’s her position.

We’re in the 21st century; theatre criticism isn’t. UNLESS you’ve got 50 years of experience seeing Olivier behind you, writing a review overnight is a waste of your, mine and the theatre’s time. No other medium is so backwards and formulaic. Film critics – esp. independent critics – are changing what film criticism is. Think of the podcasts singling in on film music or performance or stories behind production; video essays analysing moments; blogs with a genre niche; festivals written about under adrenaline; AND bogstandard weekly write-ups. We want film criticism to be MORE thoughtful. What does theatre criticism have?  “Live reviews”. LESS thoughtful overnight reviews. Just what we want. Thanks, George Osborne, thanks.

Personally, I think the future of theatre criticism is community – multiple critics across the country working and writing together. You could argue that that’s what Exeunt does, but I think Exeunt (excellent as it CAN be) does it too problematically. Firstly, there are too many voices. It’s often hard to know which voice is reviewing what, where their biases are, where their passions lie, and thus whether this review is a fair barometer of my opinions. Secondly, there are too few diverse voices. Looking at its roster that’s true literally, but I mean diversity of taste; their podcast was unlistenable as it was a bunch of middle-class hipsters agreeing over how progressive something at Battersea was, as opposed to, for example, giving that new David Mamet West End disaster a piece of their mind, or being open-minded about the surprisingly enjoyable pleasures of some touring musical. I don’t know one person outside of theatre who trusts Exeunt like they trust Quentin Letts or Ann Treneman’s mainstream reviews. That’s worrying.

I think people are have had enough of non-experts. In art, music, film, all things, what we want isn’t some bloke (usually a bloke) to say what they thought ten minutes after leaving; we want positivity and negativity, opinion and analysis, intelligence and experience, diverse voices from all over. As such, hiring ANYONE to replace Billington is backwards looking. They should hire someone, instead, to overhaul the antiquated form of criticism.

****

I do think this issue – the lack of diversity, accessibility and expertise – is an issue which has already harmed theatre AND criticism. This year, unexpectedly, had one of the most important shows for critics EVER in the West End, as it needed not just SERIOUS critical analysis but DIVERSE and especially YOUNG analysis – nonetheless it got NONE of that. This iconic show? Bitter Wheat. Really. This was one of the first mainstream, major artistic responses to the MeToo movement; David Mamet is the first bona fide artist and public figure to take on Weinstein publically. This should be as major as She Said in books and Bombshell in cinemas, for better or worse – it thus needs the analysis that the books about the MeToo movement are getting, or the criticism weird commissions rightly get. It needed the diversity of young voices, perhaps from outside the theatre completely, to see this in the cultural, not theatrical, context. Did it?  Pfft - so one of the biggest cultural responses to MeToo went utterly unchallenged. Why? Why did no editor worth their salt send a cultural commentator to cover MeToo’s iffy West End debut, or no critic of this generation attend and attack it (but for the Exeunt review which was fab)?

It’s because we don’t know what criticism is anymore. Are the reviews simply to say “Buy/don’t buy a ticket”? To sell papers over popular/populist shows? Are they actual artistic analysis? THEY SHOULD BE MORE. A great critic CAN be a great writer. Pauline Kael was. Michael Billington still is, for a month. I don’t think any critic writing today – at Exeunt, independently, Arifa Akbar – has the opportunity to be a great writer; they have the potentiality and the talent, but not the platform for the 21st century.

Nov 8, 2019 19:12:26 GMT theglenbucklaird said:

Nov 8, 2019 17:56:21 GMT Phantom of London said:

Who would you say is a good reviewer?

Nicholas on 'ere. Best in the business

Awwwwwwwwwww. I’m flattered. I wish. I’ve drunk enough to take that seriously (it’s Sunday, don’t look at the clock) but sober enough to write (unlucky you), so let me tell you why that ain’t gonna happen.

Money.

Oddly enough, when I was a student, theatregoing was cheaper, as I studied in London (whilst great for theatregoing, the isolation of central London can be terrible for your mental health). Nonetheless I never dared try blogging or writing independently, simply because I had no idea where I’d be after I graduated, what I could afford, and whether this could go on. And… As I expected, after uni, I was living with mummy and daddy, still just theatregoing, paying waaaaaaay too much on trains to London, and subsidising this passion by – I sh*t you not – performing as a musician at a funeral parlour. This wasn’t enough. Until I got a job, and a deposit, and a flat, all in/near London, regularity couldn’t be guaranteed. Oh boy. That’s a lot of money.

(and that’s to say nothing about wanting to write about regional theatre, and afford cross-country trains… There are a great number of great bloggers writing about their region, giving great insight into a much-needed niche, but we need a community to highlight these works and bring these writers together)

I’m sharing this because this inaccessibility for young theatregoers especially (admittedly, I was a cowardly young theatregoer) proves worrying when we think about who can go to the theatre, who can regularly write about it, and what that means our gatekeepers will be.

This is why theatres need to think about who gets free tickets, and why. It’d be infantile to say “Any blogger gets tickets”, BUT the more voices encouraged to see theatre BY theatres, and challenge it critically, the richer theatre will be! Let’s have young voices talking about old plays, the voices on stage in the audience, disadvantaged communities deliberately bought in and some positive discrimination. Let’s have a review of Iphigenia in Splott written by Effie. Theatres should themselves seek out diverse critics, and even non-critics to judge these shows in the real world. Until we do that, criticism/blogging will be the sole occupation of wealthy established Londoners. That’s dangerous.

This has apparently already come to head at the Fringe. It’s known that putting a Fringe show on is stupidly costly, and thus the talent it brings out is often that bit posher. Who, though, are the arbiters of taste up there? Either people established by big magazines, or people going independently – and those people are a bit posher. Edinburgh critics are a microcosm of the problems independent criticism is going to face – who can afford to be a critic or not.

I also have a horse in this race. I’ve banged on the Working Class thread because that’s my roots – almost no critical voices I read are, or if they are they hide it. As such we see frankly offensive portrayals of these communities, but no critics criticise. To give a very specific example, wonder.land was sh*te anyway – but particularly offensive if you went to a state school and saw that life patronised so hideously. And this is NICHOLAS – a cis white boy from f***ing Berkshire – saying we need someone as diverse as ME in our critical communities. Diverse young voices from a breadth of Britain struggle to attend theatre in the first place; why would THEY make the sacrifice to become an independent critic?

My story ends with jobs, money and life taking me far far far from London – though there’s NT Live and I return from time to time (usually just for the theatre, last time just for Patti, occasionally I say hi to family and friends too, I’m a terrible human being). I don’t know whether I’ll ever write about theatre seriously again, but I’ll always love it more than anything. There are shows that travel in my heart – I wouldn’t be here and happy with Nora, without Chekhov, without McBurney, without Clean Break, without theatre that I think about and cry about every day.

Thinking out loud, mind… These shows were accessible to all but encouraged by none. The Shakespeare Trilogy were on the Beeb, A Doll’s House on digitaltheatre, Angels on NT Live, Nell Gwynn touring – but no critical voice used their platform to encourage more people seeing these shows when they were accessible. A radio show, a podcast, could; a weekly diary better than a nightly review section. Appealing to less-able theatregoers would make more theatregoers! That none of our critics reach out to communities is, honestly, tragic.

We do need to seriously think about how we encourage new critics as much as we encourage new talent; how we encourage diverse critics as much as we encourage diverse talent. I’m being so autobiographical because if someone as lucky as me struggles in this field, what of the breadth and best of Britain, diverser voices, making theatre-writing let alone theatregoing accessible to all theatregoers?

Anywho, that was an overlong naked personal ramble about a throwaway comment stroking my ego. It was definitely money, and not my own flaws and lack of talent, that held me back.  To be fair, I know I have many, many, many inadequacies, so to blame everything on money and accessibility permits my own cowardice, laziness, aversion to risk and refusal to try. It’s easier to blame money than myself. Nonetheless I’m chuffed. Maybe one day…

I think Arifa Akbar is a really good writer.  I think this position should be retired alongside Billington, and the Guardian – pioneering as it is in other fields of journalism – should have hired Akbar to redesign what criticism in the mainstream is. I imagine Akbar will do the best with her position. Her position is not enough.