CRITIC WATCH: Are The STArs Out of Reach?

I stumbled across this amusing post at Stage Noise, writ on the eve of 2010; defending the position of the Sydney Theatre Award Reviewers (aka STArs) from what was apparently a parting shot by the blog formerly known as Sydney Arts Journo. The original post is now hidden – but the reply is a delicious insight into the privileged echelon of Sydney’s critical community, one that’s been itching at the back of my mind ever since. It’s time to scratch.

In short, an independent blogger wanted to join the group, and implied the STArs were being parochial by not being more inclusive. The response from the indomitable Diana Simmonds (as paraphrased by 5W): We’ll invite who we want, thanks, and besides, we’re not parochial, we just welcomed someone new to our group. Your replacement at the Sun Herald, and the wife of another member!

One cannot help but smirk… although I can see her point in keeping close guard of the organisation’s integrity, especially as a founding member. But the premise of the awards and the select few who decide them is slightly whiffy, and worth further inhalation. Take this, from the STA website on how this shadowy organisation came about:

“…a group of senior Sydney critics, naming themselves The Sydney Reviewers and meeting by invitation only.”

Upon the heath, no doubt, as they determine the fates of Sydney’s aspirational artists. It begs the question: what qualifies “senior” in critical circles? Looking at the various STAr participants over the years, the requirement is to have written regular reviews for one of several newspapers. Which pretty much puts the decision of who determines the awards in the hands of the various editors. Which is unfortunate since the dailies appear to make theatre coverage a token gesture at best. Most “reviews” in the major newspapers serve up embarrassingly trite summaries of plot and any insight is reduced to analysing whether the acting is any good. While this may well be simply case of chronic poor-writing on the part of the respective critics, I’d wager that there is some editorial influence for such a malady to be so widespread.

Far be it for me to deny the assertion by Simmonds that the STArs are “beholden to no-one”; perish the thought. Any critic bases their entire credibility on the assumption that their views are independent and the experience of such esteemed writers as that of Stage Noise is beyond reproach. What I’m getting at is that by inviting only those who write for daily papers to participate gives an implicit bias as to what even gets in the running.

In fact, The Sydney Morning Herald is a major sponsor for the STC and Company B; similarly, both companies advertise in the SMH on a regular basis. So it’s fair to say that Fairfax has a significant stake in their success. As such their writers, however independent will be at an editor’s behest as to where their critical attention is spread. So one may be free from aesthetic bias, but when the bosses say: “write about that play, not this”, you’ll tend to go and see That Play, and not the other.

With this in mind, a glance across the categories and respective nominees gives pause for thought. First of all, “Best Mainstage Production” seems code for Belvoir or STC; in five years, almost all the plays nominated were from those companies. It makes sense given that there are only half a dozen professional companies operating in this city, but why not more from Griffin, or Bell, or Performance Space, who are equally as consistent in quality? For that matter, why do we even distinguish between mainstage and independent? Is theatre not theatre no matter who or where it’s coming from? I would like to think that a solid indie production could trump at least half the professional fare. In fact I know it can. What is meant by “mainstage” is actually “mainstream”; but perhaps that’s an issue for another day.

Independent theatre gets meagre coverage by the papers at best, and this is where the STArs become truly vexing. It’s one thing that more than half the nominees for that category are at B Sharp, that could simply be the will of Dionysus for a particularly blessed company to get all the truly great shows. But experience tells me that if you run an independent show just about anywhere else, you won’t even get a look in. In the past, I’ve had some critics tell me that they would have loved to see the show I’d invited them to, but the editor wouldn’t cover it. So they didn’t bother turning up. Despite the fact that it’s your job, I bet you don’t see half the productions on at any one time in this fair city. And yet here’s this elite group claiming some overarching mandate to declare “Best Independent Production” or “Best Newcomer”. I don’t mean to take away from the nominees for these awards; recognition IS important. But I know for fact that not every great independent show is considered. So it rings a little hollow for those of us in independent theatre who aren’t graced by the anointed ones’ presence at previews.

So either let more critics or theatrical peers in to vote; or fight your editors to cover more independent shows – that is if you want this fierce independent credibility to hold any water. You can’t claim “best anything” without actually seeing everything.

As for me? I take my cues from Groucho Marx: “I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member”

and Bill Nighy: “I used to think that prizes were demeaning and divisive, until I got one, and now they seem sort of meaningful and real.”

What do you think? Is it easy or hard to get a critic to turn up to an independent show? Does keeping a select few critics at the cultural gates improve theatre appreciation, or limit it?