Comments on: Kitty and Damnation

By: Tom Howard

Tom Howard — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:53:32 +0000

Unlike commentator Mr Cooney or critic Dr Harrop I believe the performance of a play should be considered on the basis of what is performed with the sole exception of when audience members are provided with some prior information as part of their admission and requested to read it. You are assessing the play and the way it is presented NOT the programme notes or the poster. If a director has to explain when he is trying to do for you to understand it (s)he has failed

That doesn’t mean you can’t refer to them (especially if you feel they don’t deliver what they promise – or deliver much more).

A synopsis for un-surtitled work in a foreign language or a list of patois or slang that would be incomprehensible to many of the audience.

Of course, a critic should bring all their own knowledge and understanding of theatre (and everything else) to their work but they should also be aware of their readership and explain what those readers may not share.

By: Stephe Harrop

Stephe Harrop — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:38:30 +0000

I’m afraid the furthest I would go would be to describe this production as a not-completely-successful attempt at a melodrama. I have no interest at all in categorising Crilly’s text one way or the other (at no point have I tried to do so).

And I wouldn’t presume to attempt to “get into the mind” of any creative artist (or anyone else, for that matter). I don’t believe that’s an achievable aspiration. I watch a play carefully, think about what I’ve seen, and then write what I think about it, on the basis of my own experience, judgement and taste. And, for my money, any critic who claims to do more is only deluding themself.

By: John Cooney

John Cooney — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:10:24 +0000

I am grateful to Stephe Harrop for having found the time to respond, as I imagine she must be very busy. I am sorry that my comments have been misinterpreted as a suggestion that she is not entitled to an opinion, as in 70 years of theatregoing I have always regarded enlightened, informed and balanced professional criticism as the lifeblood of theatre. The value of this correspondence seems to have been borne out by her latest comments which now acknowledge this work as a melodrama. Accepted definitions of “melodrama” all contain the same essential elements eg “theatrical poses”, “histrionic gestures”, “sensational”, “comical”, “violent”, “exaggerated” and “extravagantly emotional” features. In this context her comments about “more exuberance than finesse”,”too much reliance on broad comedy”, “ranting and over-acting”
“implausible situations”, “histrionics” etc merely seem to underline that the author has succesfully included the essential elements of melodrama in his work.
I support her conclusion that “a succesful production oughtn’t to require its audience to do exploratory reading”, although in some circumstances it might prove beneficial I am, however, left unclear as to whether she feels that the role of professional critic falls into the same category as the rest of the audience before publishing her critique, even if not before viewing the play?
H L Mencken took the view that “The critic, to interpret his artist, even to understand his artist, must be able to get into the mind of his artist, he must feel and comprehend the vast pressure of creative passion.”
Had this been done I wonder if any of this correspondence would have ensued?

By: Stephe Harrop

Stephe Harrop — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:27:31 +0000

Just a couple of thoughts:

I believe I’ve mentioned before that I think everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. Even critics. Even me. In this instance, my opinion was informed by detailed reading of the programme, a long-term interest in melodrama and some quite attentive listening (and watching) during the performance. None of which particularly illuminated the detail of the intended relationship between the historical and invented strands of the story. And I do tend to think that a successful production oughtn’t to require its audience to do explanatory reading.

Please don’t get me wrong. I’m very keen on melodrama. It’s a fascinating form. I go out of my way to see examples of the genre whenever I can. But I also think that there’s much more to melodrama than unlikely plotting and furious over-acting. I’ve no wish to damn this production – I think there’s lots to admire about this company’s energy and their ambitions. But there’s also plenty of work still to be done before all those ambitions are achieved.

By: John Cooney

John Cooney — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:47:57 +0000

I doubt there is much point in responding to James Shapiro’s somewhat emotional comments other than the following, about this play which in fact didn’t open until THIS week. In my initial comments, and in this response, I have made no attempt to tell anyone else how or what they should think .
Neither have I expressed any opinions about the merits of play itself. I do not, however, accept that the theatre critic’s role is merely to express his views in the same way as a member of the public. The critic is a professional to whom specific responsibilities apply eg “To analyze factors such as theme, expression and technique, and make comparisons to other works and standards.” (In this context I would be interested to hear whether the critic’s views on the irrelevance matters of background research etc chime with those of Mr Shapiro) The moral and ethical considerations apply in view of the needlessly harmful affect that professional criticism which does not adhere to certain rules and standards could inflict on the career and reputation of other professionals. I do not see how the critic’s professional responsibilities can be properly discharged without knowing the genre in which the playwright has written (it would not seem reasonable to criticise a drama for not having enough comedy scenes, or musical numbers!) . What might well be interpreted as a criticism of the producer, and the leading lady does not seem supportable unless it is placed in the context of what the playwright has actually written. This is not an attempt to “diss” the critic, but to raise serious ethical issues about the principles of professional theatre criticism. The opinions which Mr Shapiro and I might express in the pub after the show are really not comparable with the work of a professional critic which is made available to many, on the internet, and often remains there for posterity.

By: James Shapiro

James Shapiro — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:16:16 +0000

So I saw this play last week and yeah it was better than I expected, there were things I liked and things I didn’t like. I got the melodrama, I got the farce, and I even got the idea of redoing an old form of entertainment, but let’s no get carried away here, you can’t tell me or anyone else how or what they should think about it.

I don’t care how true it is to the past, or how much research was done, I don’t care about articles and interviews or programme notes, or what the director expected us to see, or who’s perfect for this role or that, at the end of the day as a member of the audience I base my opinion on what I’ve seen on the night. And If I don’t like what I see, for whatever reason, that’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it.

For me, the same applies to the critics. If a critic can’t say what he or she thought about the play with total freedom, then what’s the point of writing about it in the first place? She might as well join the marketing team and write PR copy all day.

If you don’t like the view of a critic then that’s your perogative and your free to argue the differences, but to sit there and diss somone for having an opinion that didn’t fit the mold is just plain stupid and it makes me wonder if you’re not part of the PR team yourself!

The only critics I read are the ones who tell you exactly what they think, because if I met you in the pub after the show, that’s exactly what I’d expect of you. I’d expect you to tell me what you thought of it, not what someone else expected you to think of it and I’m pretty sure you’d expect the same from me.

By: John Cooney

John Cooney — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:35:13 +0000

I was saddened by Stephe Harrop’s criticism of Kitty and Damnation, indicating as it did a significant gap in understanding of the melodrama that writer Joseph Crilly wrote. To accuse it of a lack of finesse, failing to explain the link between Catholic emancipation and Kitty’s travails, and being unable to decide whether it wants to be a history play, a melodrama or a farce, seems to indicate a confusion in the critic’s own mind. All these issues seemed to be quite clear in the mind of the audience on the preview night I attended. Careful listening, intelligent reading of the programme, and an interview with Joseph Crilly published the day before the Press Night should each or all have made this clear, and are the essential tools of a critic if credibility is to be preserved.

As the critic makes it clear in her last paragraph, she would have written the play differently, as straightforward drama, rather than a melodrama in the style of 19th century works so popular in the theatre of that day. However the proper function of a critic is to comment upon it in the genre in which the author has chosen to write it, not to criticise it for being in a genre of which she clearly does not approve. Joseph Crilly commented in the interview, “Amy is perfect casting in this role, and captures perfectly the pathos and the humour and the downright madness of the emotional downhill sleigh-ride of a life that Kitty creates for herself.” In short the audience understood and thoroughly enjoyed the play which Joseph Crilly wrote, Rafe Beckley directed, and Amy Molloy performed. Stephe’s criticism in summary seems to be that she would have preferred a differently written, directed and acted play. From others critics comments to date, and audience reactions, I fear that she is the only person in step.