Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Matt Baker May 9th, 2013

Ah, right. It sounded like you meant critics in general. Thanks for clarifying. I couldn't agree more, by the way - on both accounts.

Dean Parker May 8th, 2013

I was comparing writers who've made up their minds before the curtain goes up on their play and critics who have. The first half of that is metaphorical, the latter literal.  

Matt Baker May 8th, 2013

Hi Dean,

I'm genuinely curious, in regards to your comment "...there's one thing worse than writers who've made up their mind before the curtain rises, and that's critics...", does that place critics at the bottom of some sort of sliding scale of theatregoers? Or is there something worse than a critic in your opinion?

Editor May 4th, 2013

Dean Parker's MayDay piece in The Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10880726

Dean Parker April 26th, 2013

I've deleted my reply.

Paul Simei-Barton April 26th, 2013

If you really want to believe that expressing an opinion on your work constitutes giving advice on how to write then I’m guessing it won’t help to say that is not my intention. Like wise with ‘stepping back’ – I thought I’d been quite consistent. Yes - in my opinion (and only in my opinion) the play presents an apology for Stalinism. – I understand from your comments this was not your intention.

If a viewers response to work of art is at odds with there artist’s intentions there are 3 possibilities;

1 – the viewer’s perception was faulty

2 – The form of the work did not make the artist’s intentions clear

3 – Some combination of 1 & 2

With theatre this is further complicated as viewers are responding to the director’s and actor’s interpretation of the script.

You seem determined to prove that my interpretation of the play was false. Maybe it was - but artists don’t get to control how viewers respond to their work.  (that would be Stalinism).  People have been arguing for hundreds of years over the meaning of Hamlet and the debate wouldn’t end if we discovered a document stating the writer’s intention. In the end I can only write about my own personal experience of the play and you are free to dismiss this as you see fit.

The fact that a work can be interpreted in many different ways is usually welcomed as an indication of the work’s complexity – it does not imply any criticism of the writer.   

dragqueen April 24th, 2013

Best take down of a critic I've read in a while. Thanks Dean, it's nice to see a writer being able to defend themself.

Dean Parker April 23rd, 2013

I’ve just read this.

Having first of all accused me (rightly) of failing to write a spy caper and then of "rehashing standard left-wing apologetics for Stalinist totalitarianism", the Herald’s theatre critic popped up again to take a cautious step back, while at the same time giving me advice on how to write.  He still seemed to be claiming I was, one way or another, an apologist for Stalinism. This failing was the basis of his writing advice to me.

Now, presented with evidence contradicting him, he seems to be disappearing behind “a thousand and one other factors that could have contributed to my impression,” but stands (vaguely) by his claims.

Simply put, his impression was false and I have presented the evidence.

I note he writes at the beginning of his latest response, “I can't see the point of getting into this debate as all we are talking about is my personal response to a complex and multi-layered work of art.” No we’re not. We’re talking about whether it’s the writer who’s made up his mind before the curtain rises -- or the critic.

Paul Simei-Barton April 23rd, 2013

I can’t see the point of getting into this debate as all we are talking about is my personal response to a complex and multi-layered work of art. But as I’m being accused of insanity I better say something.  My impression on the night was that, taken as a whole, the play’s discussion of the Soviet system was weighted towards a justification of Stalinism based on the old end-justifies-the-means arguments.  There are a thousand-and-one factors that could have contributed to this impression include the way the characters present themselves and the writer’s programme notes. Obviously my own state of mind is also a factor and I’m happy to admit that I found the justifications for Soviet totalitarianism to be morally bankrupt – but  it  is impossible to respond to a work of art in a way that is not  subjective.

In the end if you are convinced there is absolutely nothing in the script that could have given rise to my response then you’ll just have to conclude that one insane critic was incapable of properly appreciating the play.  For my part I stand by my opinions including my view that the play was ‘sophisticated, entertaining and intelligent’

Dean Parker April 21st, 2013

>> The way the political material was presented seemed to me to be polemical rather than dialectical. The justifications for Stalinism were lengthy, articulate and a bit repetitive while the criticism of Stalin presented by Pastenak seemed to represent the voice of head-in-the clouds artist who could not understand the importance of electricity and with the Robyn Malcolm character her worries about the police state seemed primarily motivated by a fear of offending the Americans.  I thought the drama might have been richer, more complex and more dramatically satisfying if at least one character had shown some empathy with the victims of Stalinist terror.<<

I’ve written elsewhere that there’s one thing worse than writers who’ve made up their mind before the curtain rises, and that’s critics.

What is the evidence we have before us? Let us look at the play proper rather than the vague recollections of the Herald’s troubled critic: 

... JUNE:  Please! I feel I constantly have to remind you all that we are living in a police state. Everywhere we go or gather there are listeners and listening devices, reports and recordings. There have been diplomats in Moscow who have walked out into the streets and simply disappeared. I do not want any of you to be one of them….

... BORIS:  You see the house in the distance? Through the clearing? That was Babel’s. You know his work? Of course. Well that was where Stalin had him arrested. May, 1939. “Counter-revolutionary activities.” His execution a crime against all humanity… Mr Toomey, this country has only two dangers. Writing. And conversation. Puts me in a vulnerable position. You know the first thing one should find out about those who worm their way into your favour? Whether they’re Party members…

... OLGA:  …He thinks Stalin will call for him one day. That Stalin will want to talk to him about life and death. The only death Stalin will want to talk about is Pasternak’s! Soon Stalin will come for Pasternak. And for me. We will disappear….

... JUNE:  Sophie, we are stationed in the capital of communism. It’s not sane at all. Quite the opposite. It’s insane. Why can people not admit the obvious? No matter how you detail it to them, no matter what you point to it seems to be either disbelieved or explained away with various rationalisations. It is not a noble idea put into practice. It is appalling in its inhumanity and consequences. Its people are poor, their dwellings are crowded, there are rumours of vast political prison camps... How do you think that canal was built that Madeleine talked about.

SOPHIE:  Look, I know Russia has its problems—

JUNE:  Problems? It’s drab and fraudulent... 

The Herald’s critic’s claim that “the Robyn Malcolm character” [June] had  “worries about the [Soviet] police state [that] seemed primarily motivated by a fear of offending the Americans“ – well,  fuck me, sport, where on earth does this come from? The play’s been published, the script’s in the public domain -- where’s the evidence for this insanity? Why on earth are you making this up? 

Paul Simei-Barton April 21st, 2013

I guess reviews can be misinterpreted like any other piece of writing but for the record I did not intend to suggest the play should have been a one dimensional spy thriller, or that the speeches defending Stalin should have been excluded, or that audiences cannot handle complexity.  If I wasn’t limited to 300 words I might have made this clearer by writing something like this:

In my opinion as a viewer there was a problem with the way the different elements in the play were balanced.  It seemed to me that spy thriller with its engaging reflections on the nature of betrayal was sometimes neglected in favour of some political reflections that I found a good deal less interesting. The way the political material was presented seemed to me to be polemical rather than dialectical. The justifications for Stalinism were lengthy, articulate and a bit repetitive while the criticism of Stalin presented by Pastenak seemed to represent the voice of head-in-the clouds artist who could not understand the importance of electricity and with the Robyn Malcolm character her worries about the police state seemed primarily motivated by a fear of offending the Americans.  I thought the drama might have been richer, more complex and more dramatically satisfying if at least one character had shown some empathy with the victims of Stalinist terror.

I think the original review made it clear that these reservations did not me prevent from enjoying the play and admiring the quality of the writing. Finally I would emphasise that these opinions are not intended as a prescription on how the play should have been written – they are simply offered as a viewer’s response to the way the play was written. 

Michael Smythe April 19th, 2013

The Herald reviewer seems to suggest we (the audience) can only cope with a single theme. The 'who's the spy' question was just one of many questions and issues raised in a beautifully layered evocation of a bygone era. Like a Walters work each moved from foreground to background - creating something much richer than black and white distinctions. The Herald reviewer needs to know that we (the audience) had no difficulty following and appreciating each interwoven subplot.

The Mikado strand brilliantly subverted our expectation of an irrrelevant but jolly little sidebar ...

Dean Parker April 19th, 2013

I do wonder if a perception of what to expect of theatre in New Zealand has shifted over the years away from the serious.

The NZ Herald's critic says of the Auckland Theatre Company’s Midnight In Moscow, “The central spy thriller… sometimes feels neglected in favour of political discourse.” If Paul Simei-Barton wants a spy caper, go to the movies.

I see he further claims, “considerable effort is expended on a rehash of the standard left-wing apologetics for Stalinist totalitarianism.” Hey, give us a break! Does he expect anything different? The characters stand on either side of the onset of the Cold War!