'It's not fair,' wrote Ted Loveday: Cambridge reviews simply don't do justice to the quality and depth of student theatre. And there's a 'mismatch of talent': 'While Cambridge is teeming with top-notch actors, top-notch reviewers are as rare as hen’s teeth.'

Two of our writers take on his claims.

Hannah Greenstreet:

A bad review is a student director’s worst nightmare. It can seem an uncaring dismissal of weeks of hard work, a setback in your plans for ADC domination, and, because of the insidious staying power of online journalism, a tormenting ghost every time your name is googled. 

The reviews of the first night of Richard Sheridan’s first play in 1775 were so bad that it was taken off stage. In the next eleven days, Sheridan completely rewrote it and, when it reopened, The Rivals attracted great acclaim. The criticism, which might have strangled his career, in fact spurred him on to write many successful plays. In the Preface to the new version of The Rivals, Sheridan wrote: 'For my own part, I see no reason why the author of a play should not regard a first night’s audience as a candid and judicious friend attending, in behalf of the public, at his last rehearsal. If he can dispense with flattery, he is sure at least of sincerity, and even though the annotation be rude, he may rely upon the justness of the comment.’ Sheridan’s comments can also be read as a defence of reviewers, who should comment on a production ‘as a candid and judicious friend’ and ‘dispense with flattery’ to achieve ‘sincerity.’ Crucially, Sheridan emphasises the ‘justness’ of audience and reviewer opinions.

I firmly believe in the importance of theatre criticism. Reviews stimulate debate, provide shows with publicity and feedback, and guide potential audience members on what to see. We are lucky in Cambridge to have such a strong and busy student theatre scene and we are lucky to have so many people who want to review it. Between Varsity, TCS, The Tab and Cambridgetheatrereview.com,which sends two reviewers to each show, plays in Cambridge can receive up to five reviews and almost every show will be covered. This abundance of reviews should capture a breadth of opinion and response, allowing people to decide for themselves whether they want to spend money on a ticket.

The best student theatre criticism constitutes a creative engagement with the reviewed production. It is a joy to review a production that has captivated you, when you feel like you ‘get’ what the director was trying to say (the discursive Four Stars). It is even more remarkable to be transformed by theatre and to try to communicate the nature of that transformation (the elusive Five Stars). Insightful and sensitive criticism of where a production went wrong) can be even more useful in the long term to a production team than praise. Student theatre-makers and student journalists are both learning; neither is infallible.

Reviews, of course, are not always ‘fair’. The worst kind of review is one that slates a production without giving due explanation to its criticism. When giving a negative review it is crucially important to write and argue well. Yet timidity in a critic is even worse than an unwarranted negative review; both are sometimes the recourse of new critics. No critic wants to write a negative review, no editor wants to publish one, and no production wants to receive one. However, for the sake of the integrity of the student critic and that of student theatre, reviewers must ensure they write what they actually think about a production and not what they think they should think, or that people will want to hear. Theatre slots in Cambridge are competitive; every production should be held to account. I still look back with a shudder to the first production I reviewed at Cambridge, which used selective quotations from my ambivalent review for their publicity. I had hated the play. Star ratings do, perhaps, play a part in such distortions, sometimes leaving thoughtful reviews to be ignored after a first glance at the score or, conversely, making reviewers write solely to justify their star rating. It is up to theatre editors to instil in their reviewers a kind of best practice and to maintain it by editing.

Despite the occasional dodgy review, theatre criticism in Cambridge is thriving, along with debate, not least in the Facebook comments. Rather than viewing reviewers either as potential scourges or potential soundbites, directors should be (and often are) in productive and creative dialogue with reviewers. We are all learning how to think about theatre.

Hannah is co-editor of Cambridgetheatrereview.com

Anne O'Neill:

My biggest problem with Ted Loveday’s article is the implication that thespians create art while reviewers merely comment upon it. There is no defence offered for the review as a piece of original and thought-provoking writing. I can’t speak for all reviewers, but I think the vast majority of us are conscientious about how we choose to express ourselves: balancing one’s own personal response to a performance against a more objective, open-minded assessment is a delicate business. It’s not an exact science, but it’s an ever-developing skill, and one to which many of those serious about writing dedicate themselves. I reject wholeheartedly the idea posited by Loveday that: "Nobody expects writers to dedicate their student years to getting better at writing." Just as Cambridge student theatre is supposed to encourage new, inexperienced performers, so too is student journalism. Being inexperienced does not make one disinterested or less sincere than a young student actor. Nor have I seen much evidence of the reviewer who “knows little about theatre, having volunteered for one review to expand his CV.” Most of the reviewers I follow have become regular contributors and, just as an actor hones his/her craft, so too does the reviewer. 

As with all creative arts, each reviewer brings his/her own unique style and turn of phrase to bear on his/her assessment of a piece of theatre. Nor can a reviewer be expected to practice complete objectivity, because, let’s face it, that concept is a myth. Loveday focuses a lot upon what makes a “fair” review and offers some helpful suggestions for ways to ensure that reviews are balanced, but just as the term “fair” is an ambiguous one, so too is the concept of “top-notch reviewers”. Pray, tell me, what makes a top-notch reviewer and why is Loveday so convinced that Cambridge is lacking in them?

The word limit often is restrictive, and it certainly doesn’t allow every facet of a performance to be unpicked, but it also restrains the more verbose among us. I think it is more helpful to think of a review as a snapshot of a performance rather than an extended essay. Most sensible people reading a review will know that the rating is a combination of the reviewer’s personal opinion and his/her own, not necessarily ignorant, assessment of what makes a good play. Reviews act as guides to those who are unsure whether to attend a performance, or as food for thought for those who agree/disagree with the evaluation. If the rating appears to be incongruous with the review, then it is the job of the editor to address this, just as it is the role of the editor to curb those writers who use their review to push their own agenda.

Reviewers are audience members, but not every audience member is a reviewer. The reviewer has to capture the spirit of the piece, to weigh up its flaws and its strengths, and present these in a coherent manner. When I go to see a play which I am reviewing, I am conscious of how I will have to write about it later and focus on details which might otherwise escape my notice if I was attending for mere pleasure. Loveday urges you not to expect too much of reviewers, but I’d ask you not to write us off. It is attitudes like Loveday’s that perpetuate his belief that 'journalism is simply not considered as big a deal as acting here'.

Do you think Cambridge theatre reviewing is fair? Comment below or write to us at theatre@varsity.co.uk – selected emails and comments may be published.