TOO EMBARRASSING

You are not a reviewer. This is not a review.

Best,
Simon
www.squarewhiteworld.com 

 Your gross assumption that devised works are self-indulgent, contrived, boring - "'We don't believe in Directors or Dramaturgs, WE know what we're doing, TRUST us" Yeah, right' is pretty harsh. I'm sure this group would have thought of the direction of the piece, and perhaps some dramaturgy.

But regardless of this, the best aspect of the Fringe is that it is open invite. Anyone can have a go, and risk failure or success. It's participation in the art of creating a performance. Glib dismissals and assumptions such as this do nothing to support the spirit of Fringe. I welcome strident reviewing, but don't go dissing devised work. It is a legitimate method; one than has inherent risk.

Risk nothing and that's what you'll get. Nothing. 

I'm all for taking risks, and I want to see shows that push the boundaries. What I would also like to see though is some risk management, as opposed to risk aversion. The danger of any free-for-all like the Fringe is that it can so easily become about the performers at the expense of the audience.  Therefore it is a case of "caveat emptor"

And Simon, you're probably right, this is more of an opinion piece. But I try to find something constructive to say about most things I see, and in this case I did mention the very nice lollies.

I suggest that you go and see the show and make your own mind up. And if you have seen it and have a different point of view, post your own reviews!

Completely disagree with Simon.  This is one of the best reviews I've read in a long time.  

While many of your observations had me chuckling in recognition, I disagree with your notion that what's needed is risk management. "Caveat emptor" should be the mantra of the Fringe; Fringe shows should be seen as a collaboration or contract between artists and audience where both sides agree that the work is completely unmoderated and as such is exactly what the artists want to present, within the bounds of budget.

There's a good chance these works are not concerned with pleasing their audience, because they're on for 3 nights and charge $10 a ticket. From that perspective, then, although I personally didn't find it to be an enjoyable work, to a large degree this wasn't a work for me, it was a work for the artists that I got to join in with. I'm not going to go as far as Simon and say that the failure of the work was my fault, but if I can't say I'm glad I've seen the work I can at least say I'm glad the work exists, and exists free of the meddling or "management" of any external body.

The work (presumably) pleased the artists, and I think the Fringe is stronger for it, as opposed to forcing them to attempt to cater to my whims as interpreted by someone else.

I agree with you, Mark, about the value of an unmoderated ‘free-for-all’ Fringe (although it should be noted there is a small participation fee involved). But I cannot for the life of me see why anyone would put on a performance for audiences without wanting to give them some sort of value for the time and money they have invested – on trust, and at the expense of choosing something else (given that in a Fringe festival one simply cannot see everything).

You speak of a “contract between artists and audience”. Surely we should be able to take it for granted that the performing artists intend that it will be worth an audience member’s while to see their show. Otherwise – regardless of whether it’s for 3 performances or 30; $10 or $100 – why should anyone bother?

John, yes, I think we can assume that the vast majority of artists want to make a show that engages and connects with an audience, which is why I think reviews that seem to just write off a work, or the intentions behind that work, seem more disrepectful than anything else.

You might argue that work that doesn't engage with an audience is equally disrepectful, but I think it's important to say why this might have  happened, rather than just writing something off as "embarassing". I don't imagine that anyone wants to prompt this response in their audiences, so if they have, it might prompt a more constructive dialogue to dissect why this has happened rather than dismissing a whole area of theatre practice.

I agree, Bronwyn. Whole heartedly. In principle.

I didn’t see Undergrowth but all who did that I have spoken to have said they wondered why they were there: the presence of the audience seemed entirely incidental to what the ‘artists’ were doing, which all called self-indulgent. I do empathise, in such circumstances, with a critic feeling it’s beyond the call of duty for them to deliver a ‘Performance 101’ tutorial. It is very hard to constructively critique a work to which you have not felt ‘invited’.

It seems to me the makers of Undergrowth should be able to glean some fundamental value from the reviews and the comment stream so far. Vituperative anger as a sincere response is something to take notice of. Some may argue it is more attention than they deserve given their apparent attitude to audiences. 

What do you mean 'It is very hard to constructively critique a work to which you have not felt ‘invited’. Surely being impartial is a vital aspect of critique, and that the reviewer is able to step away from any emotional outburst and examine clearly the performance and any 'failing' that might have occurred. All performance is able to be constructively reviewed, no matter how difficult the work, be it that ii is poorly written, performed, staged, whatever. Any reviewer must have a basis of understanding why and what is happening in order to convey their opinion. To merely have a 'i didn't like it' response without due course to explanation  is lazy, unhelpful, and fails as much as the so called performance failure being reviewed.

Well then noone can accuse me of patronising the performers, having met like with like. This however is not something I have made a habit of, as regular readers of Wellington reviews will know, nor do I intend to.

I am interested however in the notion that the reviewer is held more to account than the performers, given the relative roles they play.

For a more detailed and objective critique, follow the link to Ewen Coleman's review.

You are absolutely right, of course Marty, but by ‘impartial’ you appear to mean ‘inhuman’. Yes of course we must get over our rage, boredom, disappointment, whatever, then do our job – especially when others have failed to do theirs. 

But heaven forbid that we should become so dispassionate that we operate like robots.  And in the thick of the Fringe with so much competing for our attention and time, it can sometimes be very tempting to say “why bother?” when it seems that others have not.  That’s not an excuse, just an observation. 

ah no, I don't mean 'inhuman', that is something else completely. What I suggest is that while a critic or reviewer can participate in the active part of being 'audience' they can also be an observer outside of this. A duality is at play here. It is not unlike the actor who is both 'in' the moment of acting but is also able to observe themselves in the greater picture of the story simultaneously. Impartiality does not imply being cold and immune to the effects of what is happening, but that it is possible to bring to bear the greater knowledge of what is happening at the same time, thus being able record and understand the event for others to read about.

Might I suggest you're viewing Undergrowth with inappropriate criteria?

I found it to be a sensitive and beautiful musical performance, which incorporated aspects of theatricality. I especially enjoyed the use of sounds produced from everyday objects, as a contrast to the more conventional sources, such as piano and singing.

So the staging, and the performance were in the service of a musical structure which this review fails to acknowledge.

Here's another point of view:

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1002/S00161.htm