For the Record Dance Review Panel Transcript

8/9/2019 For the Record Dance Review Panel Transcript

1/39

________________________________________________________________________

1

FOR THE RECORD Edited Transcript

10 OCTOBER 2009

AT TAPAC

SF: Speakers from the floor

Transcript of Interview

Linda: Celine Sumic and I have been planning this for some time now and while

unfortunately Celine cant be here today shell be missed and it wont be

the same without her. Shes been the driving force behind this event and

its a pity she cant be here to share the fun that were going to have

today.

Were very grateful to Creative New Zealand for their financial support of

this event and would also like to extend a big thank you to DANZ Tamaki

and Susan Jordan, who was there for advice and support throughout.

Basically what were going to do is look at the different approaches that

reviewers have, because I think we are all quite different people and

certainly when we sit down and write reviews Im guessing we come from

very different planets. So its going to be quite interesting to see what

everybody does today.

Also were going to hopefully engage in some interplay between dancewriters as opposed to reviewers, choreographers and dancers; the

different kinds of ways of thinking and what we share in common as well

as the differences between us. Your interpretations, well thats going to

be another matter entirely and that Im going to leave to John to herd the

cats later on.

Im not going to say much more because Im more interested in what the

panel has got to say, but I am going to introduce John Smythe who until

today to me was just a person behind a screen, and I did wonder what he

would look like in the flesh.

John: I should say Ive got an identical twin brother in Auckland, so if Ive met

you today and then I ignore you in the street thats my brother Michael.

Linda: John were very, very grateful to have you here today, and Ill just

introduce John and then the rest of the panel. John Smythe's going to

chair the panel today and Im going to read the details of his amazing


2/39

________________________________________________________________________

2

experience.

Decades of practical experience as an actor, scriptwriter and director,

producer, teacher and advocate for the performing arts. Quote a born

again New Zealander. He has a bachelor of Dramatic Arts from

Australias National Institute of Dramatic Arts. He has also writtentheatre reviews for The Melbourne Times, The Australian, Theatre

AustraliaMagazine and The National Business Review. John is the author

ofDownstage Upfront, The First 40 years of New Zealands Longest

Running Professional Theatre and also of the Peace Monster an

historical novel based on the Opo story. To keep his role as a critic in

perspective John participates in an annual play reading at

Victoria University of Tom Stoppards The Real Inspector Hound, in

which he and Harry Rickets play the extremely dodgy theatre critics

Birdboot and Moon. So a man of vast experience, Im sure youll agree

with me on that.

Okay, so from your left to right, thats because Im a dance teacher in my

other life, I am actually a dance writer and choreographer myself, and I

lecture at AUT University, but enough of me.

First is Jack (Gray). Jack is an independent dance writer, choreographer

and performer with amazing charisma and Ill be a testament, I love

watching you Jack - thank you for coming today.

Jennifer (Shennan) has come up from Wellington and while not on the

same plane as John they did meet up in the airport so they could share a

taxi. Im sure many of you will know Jennifer as a highly regarded

independent dance writer, critic and anthropologist of great note; I have

admired Jennifers work for many years and its absolutely fabulous to see

you again, Jennifer - thank you so much for being here.

Next is the lovely Francesca Horsley who has a very busy life juggling her

role at McLeans College, with that as our esteemed editor of the DANZ

Quarterly magazine, also writing and reviewing for The Listeneramongst

other publications - and thank you Francesca for coming today.

On the far left is Nicholas Rowe who works at the University of Aucklandand who has written dance reviews for Dance Europe as well as for

Theatreview, (of which John of course is the owner, editor and lead

dramatic on the Theatreview web site). Im sure a lot of you have been

on the site and read some of our reviews over the last few days, and

maybe you have some thoughts youd like to share with us later about

our reviews.


3/39

________________________________________________________________________

3

Carrie Rae: Theyre also up on the wall in the foyer as well.

Linda: Oh yeah, thanks Carrie Rae. Okay so enough from me, thank you

panelists once again for coming and Ill hand you over to the capable

hands of Mr Smythe.

John: Thank you. This event is called For the Record and I think the thing

were recognising in the title is that dance is an ephemeral form, it exists

in the moment and then disappears. Unlike theatre, its not easily

available in script form. Although there are ways of notating it, only

experts can read it. So, one of the functions of reviewing is to write an

ephemeral event into history. I think Im quoting from Miltons

headstone or something where it says their work is written water.

Most of you would agree that even though you can get a video record of

a stage performance, its not ideal. It may be a good historical record,

but it doesnt actually represent the same experience you have sitting in

the live audience.

What I would like today to be is a sort of mutual inquiry into the

questions of criticism, rather than us being the experts up here

pontificating. Were here to open up some questions and discuss them

between ourselves and then open it to the floor.

What I propose we do is that - there are four questions that weve

mapped out as starting points, and after that all hell can break loose.

Meanwhile if anybody has got something to say on a particular question,

please put your hand up and well include you then. I dont want to limit

participation from the floor to questions; I think thats a bit arrogant to

say you can only ask the experts on high so if youve got a statement to

make thats perfectly okay by me, but initially if we just stick to the topic

of each of the questions and then we can open it up later on.

Weve got till 4 oclock so hopefully there will be time to get stuck into

some areas we might not have even thought of that are very important

to you. I think the overall quest is for continuous improvement, and that

would include all of us here on the reviewing side wanting to

continuously improve our part. I would imagine anybody whos a

practitioner is onto that quest as well.

What I would like to be able to answer at the end of this is what is it that

makes critics critical? in every sense of the term. Are we important at all

and critical in that sense? Jennifer pointed out that critical is also a

medical term that means that close to death. Of course theres the

critiquing dimension of it too.


4/39

________________________________________________________________________

4

So, the first area is the question of the two extremes of the importance of

a critic as being expert, or ignorant; a blank sheet or someone with a

whole lot of preconceptions. Its quite an interesting span to investigate.

Im going to ask Jack to lead with that one, Jack being a practitioner as

well obviously you have some expertise.

Jack: Yeah, I think when I started writing I went to Europe and my writing was

a way of being able to get into the communities over there as an

outsider, and to make comment and understand part of the culture. Not

knowing a lot of the different cultures that I was going to see. I was

seeing Dance Theatre that was talking about, say, Croatian history, which

I knew nothing about and they were speaking in different languages, and

I couldnt read the programme. I didnt know anybody to tell me

anything about it, and I didnt know these people, so it created a way that

I had to perceive what was happening on another level without actually

knowing the details of what it was, and finding a way of translating and

communicating that.

Coming back to New Zealand to live, to choreograph and to work, writing

about dance is an off-shoot for me where I can bring that level of

expertise from the practice of doing, and then commenting on these

social and political cultural issues, that I know from being a New

Zealander, that may or may not be within the world.

Sometimes its quite difficult in that I know everybody and I know people

who Im writing about. So maybe last week we went to a party together,

and now Im sitting back and I have an immense sympathy for the artist,knowing the struggle as choreographer and performer to being in an

intense period of creating a work and then and then putting it out there

in the public arena.

While I think its an incredible process, and thats totally why we do it, as

a performer when I talk to people after shows, about things that theyve

seen of mine, hearing different responses, sometimes I feel like theyre

totally off track, or maybe theyve seen things that I dont see - and so its

from the space in-between that we inform each other.

Im interested in not being judgmental or critical of that person or theirideas but in trying to further through my writing ways in which we can

connect with what they may be doing.

John: Youve raised some interesting (points). So Jennifer where do you stand

in terms of the issue of ignorance or expertise? How do you ?

Jennifer: Well that word expert, I found a quote from Oscar Wilde that an


5/39

________________________________________________________________________

5

expert is a person whos often in error, but never in doubt, so I thought

there was something there.

I really hear what Jacks saying about a Croatian performance when all he

can get is what he can see and feel. And the other extreme, of knowing

your cousins brothers classmate is in a performance that youre writingabout, and you just go with all of those things, its a bit like knowing

people whore not even performing now. I look around and I see some

very dear friends from a long time back, students and colleagues and so

on, and yet others are new faces to me. Were all here to try and see and

hear and do something together this afternoon. So what am I saying?

If youre going to write about a performance, you better do that, and if it

involves a word count and a deadline you have to work within those

guidelines. Other times its not so constrained, and its all better the

more voices that can be heard. Its not great when one voice alone

appears in a daily paper and its typed and done in 20 minutes. Noexcuses for that, its just the chips, but thats - it shouldnt be the only

voice. It has to be its own voice, but the more people who can discuss

that, perhaps,

We have to credit John Smythe for running Theatreview, thats a

phenomenal pioneering and soldiering-on thing to be doing, unfunded

for ages, progress congratulations etc. But its a forum where you dont

want to write a review of the review and be sort of just throwing stuff

back and forth, but you can be motivated by something you saw and if

you thought oh its not what I thought you can say something more.

So, just - many voices, and Linda and Celines enterprise today for this

discussion is just another way to help us see that there is something

called a crit, and its a pity that the word has to do so many different

duties. It sounds negative, critical in some context - to be critical of

someone say oh you didnt clean your shoes and didnt blow your nose

type word. It shouldnt be that. Critique is sometimes a bit hard to take,

sometimes a bit hard to write, but it is a form (of reflection on a

performance) that will last and help you to remember your (experience

of the work) longer. If the option is to have had no crit at all then Im not

sure thats a comfort I would choose.

John: Someone pointed out that critic and criteria are from the same root, so

you comment on the basis of criteria that you set out for good or bad I

suppose; on some spectrum between good and bad there are certain

criteria that you intuitively or consciously bring to your criticism.

So Francesca, where do you sit on this question of coming, not so much


6/39

________________________________________________________________________

6

with ignorance, but with an open mind I suppose to a review as opposed

to a set of, if not preconceptions, a body of knowledge that youve got?

Francesca: Well, just to look at the second quote, it says, The first tool for a critic is

not knowledge or research but sensibility. I didnt have a chance to look

up the word sensibility but I always think of Jane Austin, (sensibility) asopposed to sense.

John: Sense and /or Sensibility, yes.

Francesca: But thinking about the processes I bring to (a review of) a dance

performance, I was thinking in terms of the word senses and I think that

you cant really be a critic unless you have senses, the open senses.

From my point of view I starting loving dance long before I had any

research or knowledge. I had an open heart to dance and it reaches into

my senses, so in a sense thats the first element that I bring to a show Isee.

Because Im not a dance practitioner, although I have danced myself, and

studied and taught dance, I am also a trained writer, so thats the other

aspect that I bring to it. So I marry those components; writing, the senses

and research, which I always try and do. If Im reviewing ballet or

something I do a lot of research before I see it if I dont know it really well

or (I draw on) the research Ive gathered from my (previous) studies.

So I looked at the question (of ignorance vs expertise) and was thinking -

its not really one or the other, but you bring all those elements together,and that gives a reviewer the validity of something of an expert, if you

marry those things together.

I also agree with Jack and Jennifer that we do need that - because one of

the other questions we are looking at is the issue of subjectivity and

objectivity, and of course our sensibilities are very subjective. So we

need many perspectives, many voices and many different ways of writing

and seeing.

John: Okay Nick, what have you got to say on this one?

Nicholas: I love the word critic, and I think its a perfect word for what we do.

Were not setting out to be dance teachers or dance connoisseurs or

dance history or dance experts, were there to present a critical

argument on the dance and critical argument requires three things:

opinion, a reasonable rationale for that opinion and evidence to support

that reasonable rationale. And that can come from anyone, it doesnt


7/39

________________________________________________________________________

7

require someone with any knowledge whatsoever of the piece theyre

going to see. In fact if we start to suggest that there should be some sort

of expertise relevant to the field of the show that were going to see, its

going to marginalise that art form very quickly. If we say okay, the only

person who can go and see ballet or properly critique ballet is someone

who has this deep knowledge of ballet, youre going to be writing topeople therefore from a position that suggests that people might have

less knowledge than they do on ballet. Its going to separate that form

from others in the community.

I mean if Im getting a criticism, Im happy, you know, if its a

fundamentalist Islamic cleric whos going along to write a criticism as long

as they present those three forms of the criticism; opinion, rationale and

some evidence. Then youre going to help make the dance form a more

inclusive part of their society, and therefore help foster a multicultural

society. So I think we have to be very careful about moving to any

idealism or expertism. Sure experts are important if its going to be a

dance teacher or a dance historian or a dance connoisseur or in some

other form of dance writing. If were talking about criticism all that really

matters is an ability to construct a critical argument and bring it to the

dance.

John: Do you believe, or does anyone believe that a passion for the art form

youre critiquing is a pre-requisite?

Nicholas: Not at all, no I think if we demand that as well it makes for an immediate

bias -

John: So youre happy for instance for a sports writer to go along and review

the ballet, because they were the only one that wanted to?

Nicholas: Not because theyre the only one that wanted to, Id imagine theres a lot

of people whod want to, but Id value hearing that persons opinion as

much as any, as long as they can substantiate it within an argument,

theyre not just presenting an opinion, but an argument based on a

rationale and the reasons why. Because thatll give me an insight into

what ballet means to that sector of the society.

John: But what if theyve been told to go and do it, and they say look, Id

rather watch a rugby match and this load is a load of wank?

Nicholas: Well again - thats getting into an institutional problem of how a

newspaper may be structured, but again, as long as hes going in and hes

presenting those three things that I mentioned, an argument, a rationale

for the argument and evidence, its still going to be worth it. If he does,


8/39

________________________________________________________________________

8

as you say, he says its a load of wank and doesnt give any evidence or

rationale, then yes I wouldnt value it at all, and it wont be a dance

criticism, itll just be a dance commentary.

Francesca: So are you talking about off the cuff criticism or published dance

criticism?

Nicholas: Published dance criticism.

Francesca: Because I went to the ballet yesterday to see the launch of the Southern

Lights Company and behind me were sitting some Christchurch,

Southland people. Who - their criticism was very valid because they

compared it entirely with rugby, and their view was that it was very

boring and in fact that theyd much rather have seen, you know, a rugby

match. Now while they were there supporting their wives, they were in

the foyer making a lot of noise with their voices, so the criticism was well

heard - so the validity of that?

Nicholas: Well this isnt talking about published criticism this is just talking about a

manner of people in a foyer. Whether theyre saying really great things

and whether theyre speaking as experts or whatever, that can be

disturbing as a social experience. But I think the point is, if those people

were able to construct an argument, and said well this is why I didnt like

it, and this is the proof. Where they did that type of dance and when

they did that sort of jump, that meant this to me. Then theyre

presenting an argument, it makes it valid, and you think well thats a valid

criticism. Maybe from that open learning, try to figure out actually how

to make ballet a little bit more relevant for that sector of the society,

rather than just thinking, well theyre uncouth, they should just listen to

the experts who know what dance is about.

John: Jennifer, thank you.

Jennifer: A quick question; (consider) a scenario where a ballet performance will

take place and there are three works, one of which is called Bliss based

on a story by Katherine Mansfield. The choreographer has commissioned

some music for the work etc. Would you not want to read Katherine

Mansfields Bliss before you went along just to give yourself a little bit ofspring?

Nick: From me as a critic?

Jennifer: Well for any individual, as you say, describing what you see and arguing

for it. Would you choose not to read the story?


9/39

________________________________________________________________________

9

Nicholas: The thing is, I wouldnt privilege myself having read the story or see my

criticism as more valid over someone who hadnt read the story. Again, it

would come down to, well I could read the story but Im not trying to

write it again as a critic. Im not trying to write a history or an academic

analysis, Im not trying to write a theoretical understanding of where the

influences were in this choreography - Im simply trying to present acritical argument.

Jennifer: So youre not going to read Bliss before you go, I definitely would.

Nicholas: If I didnt Id say, - Id really have to see the book engagement fully to be

honest, I wouldnt therefore say oh well your criticism would be

therefore far more valid than mine because youve read the book, so -

what really matters is the argument constructed, the critical discourse

provoked, the rationale and evidence is given; it can help us take a hold

of that and agree or disagree with it.

SF: If Ive got my Sunday paper and have read something about the ballet

that youve just seen and I can see quite clearly that you havent read

something to preempt yourself and give yourself more knowledge about

what youre going to see and share with me as a reader - I want to know

that you would maybe know a little bit about it. Sure I think its great if

you go along, and say yeah I saw that, and it was great but youre

presenting a published piece of work that Im reading on Sunday so I

want to know that you know what youve seen more than just your eyes

that night.

Nicholas: The thing is I dont think anyone comes to a dance performance ignorant

I think (the concept of) ignorance is rather misguided because

everybody comes with knowledges of different forms that represent the

different cultures and facets of society that they come from.

SF: I guess Im talking about the responsibility as a critic?

Nicholas: Yeah, but I dont think one does have that responsibility to put on an air

of being an expert, to suggest well Im enabled to present a constructed

argument, a critical argument because Ive done so much more research

than you have on this topic.

SF: No..

Nicholas: Well that seems to be the suggestion here - that if you havent gone and

read about it or certainly know a lot more about this topic, then you

dont have the position to be presenting something to read on a Sunday

morning?


10/39


11/39

________________________________________________________________________

11

John: And I think the thing is, who you are writing for. If you write esoterically

for an esoteric audience then thats a completely different thing than

someone with a level of expertise and experience and understanding

articulating a response and evidence for whether they felt it worked or

not or whether they - I mean, you cant critique the adaptation if you

havent read or seen the original material. You can obviously expressyour view about what you experienced in the moment, but the question

is knowing who your audience is, and if youre writing for the general

public then your job is to is to convey your critique in a way that the

general public can either confirm the feelings that they had, and are not

able to articulate themselves perhaps. Or understand a bit more about

things that they may have appreciated or not appreciated. Theres

something that I wanted to say, but yeah.

SF: Is it therefore important or the responsibility of the reviewer to help

communicate where they are coming from when you are sitting in there?

John: I think youve got to be quite honest about whether youve got prior

knowledge or not. I mean I saw Pericles the other day, I didnt actually

write the review, someone else did, but Ive never seen Pericles before

and I thought, I wont read anything about it, Ill just go and see it - and I

was absolutely stunned. I got it absolutely clearly; it was as good as an

episode ofOutrageous Fortune.

It was done in Chinese and Japanese theatrical conventions, and they

elucidated the thing so clearly, I am amazed at the capacity of university

students these days to do Shakespeare, largely because most of themhave participated in the Sheilah Winn Shakespeare and they have such

passion and understanding, and communicate so clearly.

I was delighted to have come with a complete blank mind to that, and to

have tasted the quality of it. But if I go to a Hamlet, I cant help but know

the thing backwards.

SF: Dont you think your review then of Pericles becomes almost more valid

than your review of Hamlet, because you are experiencing it using your

senses. Youve still got your passion for theatre and your toolbox of

expertise, but its a much more visceral and perhaps genuine responseand in regards to what Nick was saying, its kind of amazing for a person

who goes along without convictions and knowledge, that always is

interesting and valid.

John: I think its very important - and would everyone agree with me? - that if

you do have a knowledge of the work youre going to see - a classic or

(well known contemporary work) - that you have to make a conscious


12/39

________________________________________________________________________

12

effort to clear your mind of any preconception to be receptive to what is

being presented. Its not our job to say, well if I was choreographing it or

directing it, this is what I would have done.

Nicholas: Why not?

John: Well because these people

Nicholas: Just pulling it back to a critic just being somebody whos presenting a

critic label, why are we trying to set around a parameter as to what other

influences they should bring? I think if theyre coming in as an artist who

would say well, yes if I had done it I would have done it this way and this

is why and this is what they didnt do and they present that argument

then theyre contributing a critical discourse on the subject.

John: Sure.

Nicholas: So theyre fulfilling their role as a critic

John: I think, to be respectful of the artist as someone who has worked for

weeks or months on their interpretation, our first responsibility is to be

open to that. Then if we find flaws in it or we want to compare it to

something else including what we would have done if we had the

opportunity, sure. But to block your receptiveness to their work because

youve got this preconception would I think be irresponsible.

Nicholas: Thats a different idea from the notion of not wanting to critique it from

the perspective of an artist. Inevitably for those of us who are dancers,we are going to take that with us. It doesnt mean we go in with a sense

of, well this is how I would do La Slyphide and whatever theyre going to

do is going to fall short but you are going to view it from that perspective,

so I think trying to nullify that doesnt necessarily help the critical

process.

John: Yes?

SF: Just a comment, your process seems to be a process that academics use

when putting together dissertations or theses, and the process that a

barrister has to put together to when present an argument at court. Thedifference is probably that, in so far as opinions are subjective, the

rationale part of it has to be understanding your own responses and

putting those forward.

Nicholas: Exactly, but I dont see a distinction there between the word academic

and any other person in the world who is constructing a critical

argument. I mean, we can certainly take a clich question of what an


13/39

________________________________________________________________________

13

academic or a barrister might be, and suggest oh, theyre going to

(construct their argument) in a very clinical way

Again, what I think happens when one does a really good review, and

presents a good critical discourse on dance is that those elements

become apparent. You say, oh yes theyre presenting a clear opinion,theyre not wishy-washy or uncertain; theyve given a reason why and

then shown, given illustrations and examples from the work or from

society to support their opinion and give us an insight. When they

construct it like that we can then take hold of it as a critical discourse and

engage with it, take it further now. Again, words like critical discourse

are, yes, academic, but I think the same process pervades the tabloid

newspaper process.

SF: And being subjective and objective.

Nicholas: Not at all, no, because I think you might be subjective also when youreconstructing a critical argument.

John: And, as you mentioned, the barristers job is to argue a certain side of the

thing, it may not be their personal opinion, but their job is to argue from

the polarities so that you get to some sort of truth -

SF: When you get your rationale, thats when you get to the objectivity -

Nicholas: Not at all, but in any case, youre never going to - nobodys every going to

construct a completely objective argument. Theyre always going to be

subjective, but for it to go beyond the process of being an opinion, andthis is where I think the distinction is from what a critic is and what is

often passed off as criticism, it is actually just an opinion even if its from

someone who has an expertise or knowledge in the topic. Is when they

distinctly say well this is what I thought of it, without having to explain

why, without giving illustrations, then thats what subjective and

opinionated; also its subjective when you present it a complete

argument theres no sense of oh, Ive now removed myself to a higher

plane because Im presenting Im just going into a deeper process thats

all.

John: You had questions?

SF: Yeah I think one of the dilemmas in dancers arts is theres such small

number of reviews. When you read the reviews of the rugby on the

weekend, there are usually about five reviews of the same game, and

they are all speaking from their own voices, they all see different parts of

the game, and theyre all biased in their own way. But I love reading the


14/39

________________________________________________________________________

14

different ones, you know, (inaudible) will always pick up on this and such

and such will always pick up on that. At the end you come away with all

these different angles, its like watching it on TV with five cameras getting

it in slow motion: the big shot, the long shot. So I think the important

thing is for each reviewer to have their voice, so that as the audience, the

person whos choosing whether to spend their $20 on this show or thatshow, or go to a movie, or just not go out at all. Then they can make an

informed decision.

John: I think we ought to also compliment Raewyn Whyte on her indefatigable

efforts sending out (notification of) every review (via her dance news

email list). I think that the whole point is that its all part of the bigger

conversation. Nothing is written in stone, its going to go on long after

weve departed this mortal coil. The important thing is that by writing it,

it is there, for the use of Its amazing when I realise how much of the

stuff that turns up on Theatreview is probably being used as we speak by

people writing essays or theses.

SF: There has been at minimum mostly two reviews of all the tempo shows,

occasionally three if you also read YellingMouth.

John: Yeah.

SF: And the Luminere ones arent out yet because they take a long time to

put theirs out. So unless you only pick up the Herald, youll find your

reviews online, you cant buy them any more, you basically have to go

online to see. During the Auckland Festival we were in the amazing

position of having seven or eight reviews of some individual shows online

simply because people could.

Linda: Also during the Auckland Festival Metro Magazine did that amazing daily

sheet, which had reviews of shows from the night before and was

incredibly helpful - especially in a festival setting where youve got two to

three shows and thats it. If you wait around for a Herald review after the

weekend, you will have missed it; you will have read about it, but your

chance to actually see it and make a decision for yourself was very

limited.

Jennifer: That is quite an important point, in the sense that in writing a review that

you know will get published and read while the season is still running,

there is an ethical under current to that and that I admire totally Nicks -

John: Nick, yeah.

Jennifer: I always admire an uncompromising stand. But what if you went to the


15/39

________________________________________________________________________

15

show and really didnt feel great about it at all, but you are professionally

committed to a review; youd be a fool to lie and say you loved it when

you hated it.

Lets pretend, I saw the show, the reviews got to go in 30 minutes after

curtain down to be in the mornings paper and theres four /five nightsstill to run. Lets say I didnt really love it all that much, thats not the

number one information to give the world, Ive got ways of letting that

between the lines, people whove been reading a while oh boy you

didnt have a great night did you Jennifer, but I didnt (write) that.

I dont want to lie or confuse myself totally, thats not going to help us at

all. But theres the box office, and survival and respect to pay to these

people whose work is valid and loveable by somebody else, who just

happens perhaps not to be me on that night. Im not scared to say what I

think, but not as a black and white thing.

Youre quite right (Linda) not to want dichotomies; were all on a point

somewhere along the spectrum. Yet the kind of review that you can mull

through and think about and then put a damn good argument in, you

know, Geordan Wilcoxs dad writing about Black Milk weeks, months

after weve all seen it for the last time. You know, youre going to keep

that on your book shelf, you may or may not clip reviews from the more

ephemeral papers that you saw the show or not. So whos the reviewer

actually speaking to as they write?

SF: Well I think you bring up a really interesting point about dichotomy as

well as the review as a record of an event at the same time it is a review.

So youve got that subjective voice as well. I think what a good reviewer

does do is balance the two, so that it does serve both purposes and

without getting too academic or too over the head of the audience, but

at the same time respecting any knowledge or pre-knowledge that they

may have.

Jennifer: When youre writing to the choreography, the dance performance, the

dancers, the audience who were there with you on the night - who are

maybe waiting to see a review before they will go and see. The other

readers of the paper who wont be going at all, but are very interested tosee what they missed, and the people in other towns - thank you John for

going national, and then international readership. So its a bit of juggling

on the trampoline -

John: I want to move on okay, last one.

SF: How much weight does the audience of whos reading the review bear on


16/39

________________________________________________________________________

16

your - like each of your reviews that you write. Like how much weight is

there on your opinion? Like this will be specific to all of you, and like

what papers you write for and whether it comes out before the show

ends or afterwards. How much does it affect your opinion of the show,

like who you are writing for?

John: I would say nothing can affect your opinion - your opinions your opinion.

SF: But it does modify the way you -

John: Its interesting, I dont feel that - I have no idea who my constituency is

out there, I havent surveyed them.

SF: So you dont know who youre writing for.

John: Im not sure that even though people may know who their advertisers

think theyre pitching too, who else picks up the publication that theydidnt subscribe to? Whether its in a dentist waiting room or circulated

around the office - when I wrote for the NBR, you know, it wasnt

necessarily business people. Its anybody working in the office that saw

the thing on circulation.

Nicholas: I disagree, because I think whenever Im writing I always inherently know

Im writing for someone in my mind. Now that person may be dead, they

may be never going to read it, but somehow, the experience of the show,

the construction of the argument is channelled towards someone.

So I have someone in mind that hopefully is usually connected withwhichever publication Im working with, be it in the Middle East or in

London or here in New Zealand.

I dont think one can force oneself to say Im just writing it, just to put it

out there and it has nothing to do with anyone. Theres usually some

sort of mind out there that Im trying to connect with and convince or

engage. Im not always completely conscious of who it is; sometimes its

only emerges later, oh yeah I wrote that for my father.

John: Francesca, have you got a sense that your Listeneraudience is different

from (DANZ Quarterly)?

Francesca: Yeah, Im quite conscious of the (Listener) audience. The demographic is

quite well known for the middle class, middle aged which theyre trying

to get younger. So its people who read; who are educated and interested

in dance and have some kind of knowledge or desire for knowledge.

I was told by the arts editor a while back that I wasnt writing for the


17/39

________________________________________________________________________

17

dance community and I wasnt writing for the dancers, I was writing for

the Listenerreaders and I should remember that - and I do.

When I write DANZ Quarterly, I can use quite different language; I can be

more humorous, take more liberty with language. Ive got so much more

space. Its not a conscious thing but I can see the difference in my writingand also with articles as well. Sometimes DANZ Quarterlydoesnt

necessarily want more general information about artists, they want

dance information because of the editorial quality, and its the same with

the Listenerbeing more open. So yeah, definitely the audience is in

mind. I think thats a key to all writing, to know your audience.

John: Jack, have you got -

Jack: I was just thinking that actually I write knowing that the dance

community will look at it. Im quite aware that the people who Im

writing about and the situations are mostly people in the community. Soit is really hard when you have an opinion of a show that isnt really

celebrating...

I feel personally that I always want to support dance, because if I dont

then I wont be supporting myself. So I like to uphold dance as much as I

possibly can, but within that we can all develop and refine the art form.

I also see the history of dance in New Zealand is very short, and so theres

room for expansion. Thats the perspective from which I try to write; as a

way of illuminating and ultimately trying to give the best - but if that

seems impossible then trying, as you say, to rationalise a point of view,knowing that youre going to put yourself up for people to disagree with,

and thats okay its kind of hard.

Jennifer: A little bell rang. Sitting here is my review of Swan Lake from the

Imperial Russian Theatre Ballet Company from last night in Wellington.

Its not yet published but I brought it along if you want. It rarely gets

trickier than that I have to say, because its politics and a whole bunch of

stuff. In the break you can have a read if you want, but - if I can just put

in a word for the fast turnaround general publication, as opposed to the

dance specialist publication coming four times a year or once a year orwhatever.

Its this; you put in your copy, and you hope and pray and you dont sleep

until really you know for sure, that what appears is what you submitted.

For sure, darling, you dont meet the subeditor; you dont know who the

subeditor is. You ring in after youve posted it in, you proof read it after

youve sent it and send the typos and hope that what you wrote is what


18/39


19/39


20/39

________________________________________________________________________

20

shitless!

Then she asked all the people on the panel that were there, and it turned

out that all the women were writing books and novels with male

protagonists with three out of the five of them writing in the first person,

because to them one of the big mysteries in life is the male psyche, andso they had the creative opportunity to put themselves in this alien space

and try and understand it.

I think critics like to go along to something that really extends their

understanding, not only of the art form, but of life itself; of the society

theyre in; of the politics, of any of that stuff that provokes them beyond

what they think they already know. This is one of the most exciting things

to experience and to convey to someone else in the way that you write

about it.

SF: Just before you move on from this question about whether you expectthe reviewer to have some expertise - well, as a reader and as a person

who has a deep experience of dance, I get really angry at critics who dare

to give an opinion that is just so ignorant.

John: Right.

SF: And critique something where they dont understand the history or the

background its come out of, because theyd gone with an expectation. I

mean I wont read them.

John: But would you expect therefore that the only people that should go tothat performance are the people with that historical knowledge?

SF: No I expect the critics to be able to interpret and to put it into context,

especially if its a cutting edge work; they need to be able to locate it.

Linda: Thats what I was saying; everyones a critic. But thats the difference

between what we do - is connecting - trying to figure out why - its the

rationale thing. Why does it connect?

SF: Im not directing this at the panel, but we do have lots of critics who do

publish and who are really ignorant, who go along with a classicalunderstanding of classical ballet and will critique post modern work.

Thats just insulting.

John: Without being excited that theyre being taken into unknown territory -

SF: Yes, because its habit, because theyve applied -


21/39

________________________________________________________________________

21

Nicholas: Are you critical of this because its an opinion being expressed, and it isnt

substantiated. Would you be just as critical of it if it was someone who

said okay this is my perspective of classical ballet. I didnt like this

modern work, and heres why; they gave a rationale and then they gave

illustrations from the work. So its not so much the issue of them being

ignorant, but its the fact theyre not constructing a full argument?

SF: Well I dont think they realise (inaudible)

John: Youve got that thing that what theyre writing about themselves more

than the work.

Linda: There are some 400 words in the New Zealand Herald you often cannot

substantiate an argument of the kind that you need to in order to do

justice to somebodys work.

SF: Also, would you get insulted if the review was a positive review?

SF: No its not positive or negative, its the stand point from which that critic

has come.

SF: So even if they praise the work still coming from an ignorant place -

John: That can be one of the most irritating -

SF: Im not criticising the positiveness or negativeness of it.

Nicholas: How marginal will that make either that art form or the communities who

arent associated with that level of knowledge.

John: The way you write about it its whether youre using language that

communicates to your reader.

Nicholas: Thats all fine; the issue that were talking about here is the issue of

whether the person whos ignorant of a specific art form should be

allowed to have a public voice.

John: When I was writing for the NBR, I did start to write dance reviews

because I was limited to 300 words and I had to fill a certain space. I

decided that with 300 words it was a notice and I didnt have to do too

much critiquing but I could at least write it into history. But I much prefer

to commission other dance writers to write dance reviews because they

have the conceptual understanding and the language. They can look at

something and know its apli; they can find the right word to describe

and hopefully use language in a way that someone who isnt a PHD in

dance knows what theyre talking about. But theyre using language


22/39

________________________________________________________________________

22

accurately and I think thats quite important. I dont see how you can do

that if you dont have some level of expertise.

Linda: I think it would be really interesting though if someone were to set up an

online site and the only people to critique were just ordinary people. I

think it would be fabulously interesting to see what people think aboutwhat we do because we know what we think about it, but a lot of other

people think loads of other ways.

SF: Auckland Theatre Company has done this already.

Linda: Sorry?

SF: Auckland Theatre Company have already done it, and theyve got very

few responses. But they still encourage you, the audience, well I dont

think thats true actually, ordinary people do go to their shows. But

people are reluctant to express that opinion in public, you know, theyllsay -

Linda: I still think it would be a fantastic thing for TEMPO to do next year.

John: Well lets change the perspective a bit because Im sure everything

everyone wants to say will get said one way or another.

The next perspective to look at it is the question of to what extent is the

dance review or reviewer responsible for providing a record of the

performance event.

This is an interesting one for me because when I was writing the history

of Downstage Theatre, in many ways the only record available of what

happened was the reviews. And, you know there is this whole thing

about oh so and sos a terrible critic because all they do is tell the story,

but if its an unpublished brand new New Zealand work, and its not

published, and they dont tell the story, or they dont give you a sense of

what it is all about let alone how they did it, then its very difficult to

write a paragraph about it in the history. So that was one particular issue.

I think my concept of writing reviews has shifted a bit from that

perspective. Jennifer, do you want to lead off on this one?

Jennifer: Well Im reminded by your history of Downstage, when I was asked to

write the history of the Royal New Zealand Ballet for 50 years, a

ridiculously short time to do so, but it seemed on balance better to do

something than nothing. It broke my heart that it was not possible to put

in two appendices, one would be the list of every dancer who had ever

been in the ballet company since 1953, and the other would be a list of


23/39

________________________________________________________________________

23

all the works at first production. Because thats the history and I can put

whatever spin on it -

John: And then an index of course - an index that has all the - all those people.

Jennifer: I did manage the appendix of the works but it broke my heart because Iknow what that feels like. Somebody danced in that company for 10

years or 20 and theyre nowhere in the book. Now theyre not just small

minded, theyre only looking for their name, but they want to see this is

coming through. So, you can only do what you can do and not a lot

more.

In terms of a more ephemeral view of a performance, if its ephemeral

lets hope somebody saves one copy of some review. Its not the 100%

obligation of that review to record, document - when I read a review that

lists all seven performers by name fully, if its not an exceptional thing

they did, I wouldnt be listing their names just for the sake of it. Its theirobligation to provide a printed programme with the date, the venue, etc

to go into the Turnbull or Auckland Public Library or somewhere. So

thats (the artists) the initial responsibility to document the work. But I

know often a programme or a poster says 17th of September at 7.45 pm -

what year?

I spent more time looking for the year to get that appendix ready than

the review. So, yes, you better make sure you spell peoples names right

if youre going to quote it, and get it accurate, but I cant see that in the

350 words you can waste or spend many documenting something that

really began as a novel. But we are talking a lot about here are reviews

for the record, and thats fine, but theres a lot of other ways of writing

about dance.

I suppose books would be there, but even less than books, contributions

to books and even other pieces that youre writing and that arent yet

published, but you can be exchanging them. Its not as though everything

is pinned on the reviewer, and whether by good design or bad editing

what got published - you know, should that be the last word on it?

I hear what Susan is saying, somebody does an inadequate orincompetent piece of work and you say pan that critic. And thats true,

you can, but a letter to the editor is apparently the most read thing in the

newspaper. Theyve done their polls, and crosswords come next, so eat

your heart out for the headlines.

Youre asking where a voice in response should be allowed to be heard so

that dance literature is a big beautiful thing thank God, its not as big as it


24/39


25/39

________________________________________________________________________

25

I guess, that is the historical perspective and it has changed now with the

new technology. Nevertheless, if youve got a number of people writing

you get a bigger view, you understand more of whats happening - its a

bit like with a jury, you know, I find juries fascinating. It seems everybody

lies when getting caught, and then somehow you seem to manage to be

able to find some sort of truth, whether it is the truth or not I dont know.But its the same kind of thing. If youve got a large number of records of

writing you can begin to assemble some kind of understanding and what

might have actually happened.

I was also interested in the quote in italics from question 2, which I

thought refers to the actual process of writing with

Description is often meant to convey believability to portray images,

its also designed to persuade, convince, express or arouse passions.

Descriptive words can carry overt and covert moral judgments except

that they are judgments which are conveyed through descriptions.

I find that really interesting because I spend quite a lot of time thinking

about the way I write and the fact that writing to me is an important

aspect of the words that I use; how I phrase them, the rhythm they might

have.

Those kinds of things are important to me so sometimes its a kind of

translation process Im going through of what Ive actually seen and

responded to and then trying to process the thoughts which are so much

more erudite. Then getting down to the paper where they become clay,

and trying to match them to what I might have seen, and put these other

elements in it - thats the task I set for myself anyway.

Im aware that I might see something which I may not necessarily like, or

it might offend you and then have to maybe work through it because I

think ones point of view is really subjective. Then allow those things to

challenge me, force me out of my opinions. So, I think - yeah descriptive

writing -

SF: To me just picking up on something you said, for me its the beauty of

listening when Ive watched dance theres that, coming from a dancewriting perspective, it is a conversation between you as a watcher and

the performers too. So when youre writing about it, youve received all

this information kinesthetic and visual information. So the way that you

write that changes with everything you write about. You could choose to

make it really boom chic, you know, if you want to do that, or if its an

amazing performance thats affected every part of you, your language

will change and thats the beauty about being a dance writer. Youve got


26/39

________________________________________________________________________

26

so much scope to express different things.

Linda: I so agree with - whats your name?

SF: Sarah

Linda: I so agree with Sarah. When Im writing often what I find is the poetics of

the words are quite resonant with the movement that Ive seen. Theres

some kind of beautiful interplay between the language Im choosing and

what Ive seen.

Sometimes thats really easy and it just flows and then other times its

actually quite... I mean, I had to for my sins review, the Hip Hop

Showcase, this morning actually, and I am not, as you can probably see, a

hippity hoppity kind of girl. Although students do say that I taught them

everything they know, Im sure thats not true. I found writing about hip

hop quite difficult because I cant do it - I cant feel that thing, so, I foundit quite difficult to find the words.

So I think youre right, in that for me theres a sort of poetic interplay I

really enjoy when it starts to happen, and that I can feel the dance

happening and the words floating around off the page - its quite an

imaginative experience.

John: Yeah I think dance writing and music too is quite different from being a

theatre critic where Im finding words for something that is a relatively

verbal form and so there are already words being exchanged. I am

absolutely astonished at the capacity of dance critics to find words for anon-verbal art form. Some of the most poetic writing on Theatreview is

of dance reviews and I have to say, a lot of it is quite evocative, even

though you might not be quite clear whats being said youre getting, at

an intuitive level, some sense of an experience, because of the words

that are being used.

I find that a really interesting way of doing it. I certainly wouldnt say its

the only way to do it and I wouldnt disparage anyone who is very plainly

descriptive, but to read a poetic response alongside a very objectively

descriptive one of the same thing is to get a real picture of what may

have happened. Obviously the poetic ones are likely to be a lot more

subjective, and I should imagine - which is another topic were going into

- I should imagine the people whove done the work reading that

response are going to have quite a different response to someone whos -

Linda: Can I just contextualize the quote that Francesca was reading from as

well, because you might be interested to know that in fact that quotation


27/39

________________________________________________________________________

27

was from the Basics of Qualitative Research by Corbin and Strauss, which

has got absolutely diddly squat anything to do with dance. I just thought

you might quite like to know that because the academic arena, it also has

some significance to what were talking about.

Jennifer: Poetic things are fine, but Im not fond of reading a precious two lines ortwo paragraphs in which someones saying dance is so rah rah that you

cant say it in words, and people are driven I dont know whether

Isadora Duncan or Martha Graham said it and Im not sure if they both

said it or neither said it. But if I could say it I wouldnt have to dance it,

or something along those lines, yeah and Martha Graham, youll find

books - no youll find books that say she did but whether she did or not is

another question. But soon enough where of we cannot speak, we better

soon stop trying, yes A J Eyre I believe, philosopher and so on, because

its true its a non-verbal art, but writing its a thing of words and youre

talking about emotional response and other things. So when you read a

book its verbal, thats true, but from your emotional response to it, you

may then review it in the way that you do.

Theres view, you know, view and review. Thats all were doing is sort of

going back over the view of it and by the time youve come to write

about it, it is a verbal matter; now to find some words to try and describe

it. Im always sorry to see the space wasted when a person is having a

hard time (with their response to a review), and they have to write, or

they talk about others who write, and demand how dare they, because

its non-verbal and really it should be allowed to stay in the turning

pirouette world or whatever. I understand its hard to find, but all goodthings are hard to find.

John: Yes well if you go to an art gallery and see what artists try and say about

their work sometimes, its absolutely impenetrable.

Jennifer: I wish theyd go to a dance more often.

SF: Well thats what we read about institutions like The University of

Auckland and probably AUT as well other places that are educating dance

practitioners, teachers, writers, whoever that come through the

programmes to be, for want of a better word, balanced writers,reviewers of these ephemeral art forms. In a way well thats good.

Jennifer: Yes youve got to start somewhere. Heres something you could all try if

you want to, its called Cake Walk, we did it in Wellington. Cake Walk is,

you know, that marvellous dance, big dress ups and a prize of a cake for

the best one, the wearable art type of stuff.


28/39

________________________________________________________________________

28

Anyway I sent an article round the week before, people read it and we

went for coffee we called it Cake Walk. Theyd discuss it if they wanted

to, or practice reviewing something. It was for people who wanted to

write about dance but are a little bit nervous to start. Its nice to try,

practice, and see how you go. So (one time) I said right lets have a few

rules which is, next time we meet we will have seen Black Milk, so youcan all write 300 words on it and bring it along. There were five of us

around the table in the caf, and if we could just have passed them round

that would have been fine, except - clunk, the day we met, somebody

said it was so amazing I had to write 1100 words, here they are.

Footnote - not fair, we could all write 1100 words, its a different game

/the marksman who said sorry to write you such a long letter, I didnt

have time to write you a short one.

Its not just a joke, its absolutely true, bring it down, bring it down -

youre distilling all the time, as with the choreography as well. If you

dance everything you ever thought of moving its going to be a hell of a -

So that is - I was sad because we were getting a nice momentum, and we

did meet about four or five times and you wouldnt do it all your life

probably. Its like a book circle, except targeted to dance. But my heart

sank because how am I going to say to this woman, if you put in 1100

words to a publication thats asked you for 300 words, ask Francesca

whats going to happen to it, ask Theatreview.

John: You havent responded to this one yet Nick?

Nicholas: Thanks for the chance, so yeah I think we do I dont like the worddocument because theres many other forms and ways with which one

documents the dance process, it isnt the 19th century, so in terms of

constructing histories this isnt the only way in which future historians

can gather that information. However, there is a responsibility for

anyone whos presenting a critique to be able to allow the audience - the

readership to go on that journey with them so when it does kind of

suggest before, when its more prosaic or poetic, what I read those kind

of reviews or criticisms, I think oh well it must be nice for you to be there.

But, you know, what am I doing with this piece of paper? Theres a

crucial role of having some good sense as well. You dont have to go into

great detail and document every little point, which will allow thechronology of the events to emerge to suggest what happened, what led

to the next thing happening. So that the reader as theyre gaining your

critique and your argument of it, theyre also gaining a sense of what

were the events that occurred in that moment.

Francesca: Im always aware of trying to because (inaudible) 400 word limit which is,


29/39

________________________________________________________________________

29

you know, very difficult but I try and map out a variety of things and I

really try very hard to describe the movement, I think thats really

important. So for me, its not just what happened or anything, but I

actually try to convey at least a segment of how the dance - which has

some kind of movement or some kind of action. But it really is only a

window because you cant really convey much in 400 words - but for me,the objective is for the reader to understand a performance.

Linda: I want to say I wasnt just waxing lyrical in talking about the interplay of

choices of vocabulary. In fact descriptive writing can be quite covert; it

can have quite a lot of judgments in there if you read it carefully.

John: Yes, absolutely.

Linda: You can have enthusiastic bits where you can see that the reviewer is

really having some enjoyment in watching a particular part of a piece. At

the same time, if you then read some other parts of the review, Imtalking about my review, if you ever read any of them I would suggest

you read between the lines carefully, is that there are some quite covert

descriptions which are kind of like, oh well, was this really up to where it

could have been? Was it really as exciting or interesting or involving as it

could have been? Im not too keen on reviews that just describe without

some kind of greater intrigue.

John: One of the best examples of concise writing was a review of King Lear

and the critic simply wrote he played the king as if in fear that someone

was about to play the ace.

Linda: And that was a review?

John: Yeah

Linda: Thats exactly right; thats quite poetic but very telling.

John: Yes! Sorry, yes?

Raewyn: Its interesting that if you change your mind about the way you think

about dance, if you dont think of it as ephemeral or non-verbal, its a

highly material practice, its fully embodied, it happens in time and space.It leaves traces, behind which it has particular social significance and it

always has text and context and subtext. And those are the things that

some of us try to write about at least, rather than thinking of it as a

record or merely an opinion that we substantiate as fact. And that makes

a different idea about what the record of dance is, its an experience that

people have that affects memory and that may stay with you your whole


30/39

________________________________________________________________________

30

life, and Im sure all of us have, you know, moments that are still playing

behind our eyes.

John: Yes.

Linda: I agree with Raewyn, I mean the non-verbal thing is for me aquestionable way of describing dance. I know verbal language is quite

different, but the two I think just run along parallel with each other, and

sometimes they do this and sometimes they do that.

Jennifer: Is there a dance youve never seen that you wished you could, or had? Is

there a dance, a choreography like that - Raewyn?

Raewyn: That I wish Id seen?

Jennifer: That you knew existed once, was done somewhere and you didnt see it

because you werent there, maybe you werent born yet. And youd loveto see it, so you hunt down everything thats been written about it and

that will only take you so far - is there such a choreography in your life?

Raewyn: One of the Judson scripts which is called TheStar Map, I would have

loved to have seen that.

Jennifer: Yes so the best you can do is find who saw it and wrote something about

it, is it?

Raewyn: I would just read the script, I havent even read commentary on the

experience of seeing it - but I can imagine what it must have been like.But, I can only check.

John: And then you get things like Steel Ballerina which is a new work based on

another work that happened in the past. And it still makes you want to

see it, because she doesnt recreate Fontaine on the stage -

Raewyn: Well you cant, can you.

John: But no, then you get a whole sense of something having happened that

you werent there for, through another dance group.

Francesca: In terms of writing for theatre, if I go and see a play for example - you

have a whole set of ideas which are presented to you by the playwright,

and the performance of the actors and the general production. You can

then start to format a judgment on a lot of known information that

youve received. Therefore you are coming (to the show /to the writing

of a review) from a point of view of ideas already being formed inside

your head.


31/39


32/39

________________________________________________________________________

32

laptop out and we were reviewing live and direct for Open Floor(ph), and

we had an absolute blast didnt we? Well I did. That was completely, I

mean I didnt see it coming. And we were just really of the moment and

writing free flow and writing down the fact that Raewyn rolled her eyes

at one point, and all these kinds of things. It hasnt gone on line

anywhere because it doesnt make any sense but the point was that not the thing was, the review was very much what we saw. It was a real lived

experience of the wildness that was going on onstage, so it was actually

really groovy.

John: Look weve only got about 25 minutes left or probably less because

theres got to be a change around in the room before a 4 oclock thing, in

this room is it? Yeah. But the other perspective we wanted to look at all

this from was the responsibility of the review or reviewer to the dance

community as opposed to the general reader. So Francesca do you want

to?

Francesca: Take this one?

John: Yeah

Francesca: Its interesting; again I go back to my thesis because that was the reason I

got really involved into writing again, looking at the way that dance critics

saw ballet in the 1940s and 1950s, they were highly critical of New

Zealand dancers because they all - they carried with them this sort of

cultural cringe. So whatever they saw was never going to measure up

anyway, but if they did or not is beside the point, because they came with

that perspective. And I didnt actually think, in many ways, that the

reviewer did serve the dance industry because I think it left most dancers

with because most of them ended up with, the standards couldve

been higher, which no doubt they couldve been, but as against whom

and what are you measuring, and all those kinds of imponderables.

So I think there is a responsibility to try within the realms of what you can

possibly do in New Zealand in particular, to sort of unpack a lot of

prejudices and those kinds of things and see New Zealand for what it is.

To portray it as honestly as you possibly can and not sort of say, well, oh

God, Ive just returned from wherever, and our dancers are so outdatedor whatever. So in terms of what New Zealand is, I was also talking to

Raewyn Hill the other day and she said that the people in Europe

absolutely love New Zealand dancers, they just cant get enough of them

and they want more and more of them. And I thought it was really valid -

that New Zealand has so many talents that they cancel each other out,

that we dont really see them.


33/39

________________________________________________________________________

33

So all of these ways of viewing ourselves, in terms of the work of critics,

critics need to be informed of all these opinions so that we serve the

dance industry as honestly as we can.

John: Jack you touched on the issue of knowing people that youre writing

about and this is something that amazes European critics, that we can beseen in the bar, talking to and drinking with the practitioners that were

writing about. In fact Michael Billington was envious of us in that regard

and hes actually quite good mates with Harold Pinter now and wrote his

biography.

But in terms of - can I ask you this question, because youve already said

something about this, and I suppose it comes down to respect. What is

the difference between say, if youre a choreographer or a director in the

room and someones done a run through performance and youre giving

them feedback, and the person whos dancing before you is a great friend

of yours - what is the greater act of friendship; to give them really honestfeedback so that the next time they do it a bit better, or to say that was

lovely darling? Is there any difference to the role of a critic when it

comes to being ruthless?

Jack: Well, I think the people that have a vested interest in trying to be useful,

you know, like how can I be useful through offering what I see to what

youre doing and questioning them as to whether thats where they want

it to be. Or just to draw out some of the threads from their ideas. I think

its important to

John: So engaging them in conversation on different things -

Jack: I was thinking that, in terms of being within the community, there are

different levels of people within the dance community. There are people

who are, say Black Grace for example, who are funded annually and the

public know that. Then there are people who if I say, oh Im going to see

this show, and tell my flat mates, they wont have heard anything about

that person.

For me, theres a responsibility of going okay, so someone like

Maria Dubrowska for example, I think is an amazing choreographer, andshes just beginning to establish herself and get the level of funding

required to put her ideas out there and have them work-shopped and

seen to the same level as other choreographers. Its kind of a

generational thing and so my perspective is informed by where they are

in their development and the continuum of the dance. I try to support

the upward progression of all practitioners.


34/39

________________________________________________________________________

34

John: Youve touched on something there that reminds me of when I went to

one of these arts presentation things. Festival directors from Australasia

were gathered and people had 20 minutes to present their idea, often a

production, to try and get it brought into a festival somewhere. I was

absolutely amazed; gob smacked, at how many people would quote a

review - my review of their work - as part of the evidence for why theyshould get backing. I sort of was going oh no I dont want to know, I

dont want to think about this when Im writing my review, I dont want

to think that this is going to be used when theyre applying for funding.

And yet this is the way our work gets used, quite validly. What about you

Jen? I mean, you know John Trimmer pretty well, what are you going to

do if you go along and see him do something that you think is absolutely

rubbish?

Jennifer: Id be surprised first of all, but then if he mucks up Ill say he mucked up

or I wont mention him at all which is the same as saying you mucked up.

But, you know, I remember your comments about hip hop - you didnt

literally say, Im out of my depth here, but I think you implied that youre

not quite sure where to get in, how to get in. This is New Zealand, this is

a Pacific island and we are sometimes in front of a performance of dance

by the Tokelau community lets say, read any others that you may have

been at or represented R&D representative of and so on.

Now there is something New Zealand (art /artists?) can have, and thats

to uncover what is to be a New Zealander and its something New

Zealand can perhaps offer the world, why not, because certain American

dance writers have said to me oh how do you do that multiculturalthing, that ethnic thing? And I say well I just never use the word ethnic.

Everything is ethnic, therefore nothings ethnic, so just drop it and what it

is, is what is its.

But lets say if you were going to be seeing some Tokelau dance

performance is there something to read? No actually - well one booklet,

but I dont think thats the place to start. So do you just take it as your

instincts on the day did or what? Theres no point taking along the

references that are relevant for other things, the ballet of the Deep Blue

Sea. For a Tokelau dance you would describe the event and that there

were 5,000 people gathered for the Easter tournament and there wouldbe other things happening in those five days too, and then youll be

getting down to the Fatele which is haiku like in its text, very short and

repeated over and over, but never repeated. Bit faster, bit faster, bit

faster until they couldnt go any faster and its over the top and out and

gone.


35/39

________________________________________________________________________

35

So if you just described what you saw and you knew nothing, not even

what type of dance it was then you probably shouldnt offer to review it,

as its not going to advance anybodys life experience. But there are

ways, you can - if you have friends in that community, you can go to their

rehearsals, watch that Fatele being choreographed which is to say

composed and the words written up on a huge piece of newsprint peggedto the wall of their hall. You can track it through to an exquisite thing

that will happen, but blink and you might miss it.

So, you cant do a PHD in Tokelau dancing and say right now Im ready to

review it. They wouldnt thank you and thered be no such reality. But I

think we are lucky that we have a lot of dance relatively speaking and a

lot of voices, relatively speaking. We do have a unique opportunity to

see what dance is in its cultural context and how that works, because

theres not a lot left in the world, but New Zealand has a lot of it.

SF: Being a small community theres only a few of us and because we take onso many different hats when we do this freelancing thing, that we do,

that to have that place of being able to talk about each others work is a

real great privilege, because, like Jack was saying, we can uphold - even

though you can inform critical perspective and show the way where it

perhaps couldve been different or whatever, the motivation is for it to

go like this - which is awesome.

John: So one of the responsibilities perhaps is that, if you are not of the culture

that is being expressed, if there are conventions in traditional dance in

this culture that those in the culture understand, you know, like withKapa Haka there are all sorts of things in the action that carry meaning,

that a Pakeha might not know if they havent been told about them ...

Is it valid for a critic writing about that to simply say well this is what it

meant to me coming from this perspective; is that a contribution back to

them? Or then theres the other thing like Vivek with his Indian

performances where he teaches the audience about the form in the

process of doing it. He assumes that his audience is culturally outside his

experience so he makes it his business to educate them. Ive only ever

received hugely enthusiastic reviews of what hes done.

Jennifer: Yes but you know what he does, its very interesting for us to think what

does Kanan do? They both tour a little bit and they both do very

different things with Indian traditional dance as a starting point. Now

thats an interesting thing for us to know, because you do run out of

superlatives saying how fabulous the performance was.

SF: And I think, John that is where the difference is, because you can trace it


36/39

________________________________________________________________________

36

back to the history. Colonisation comes into it because the British have

influenced all the colonies. All the people in these fields will have to start

thinking and taking that into their different professions - and barristers

and that I come from that field as well from the family and I remember

back when (inaudible) and the law being practiced by the British citizen

and the tradition was that if you were sitting like that at the end of thecase barristers would not socialise with the judges. There was this

hierarchy between the High Court and the District Court and those (in the

District Court) could not mix with those (from the High Court), or they

were not to be seen by the public just having a good conversation and

talking about general things.

That is what was happening in most of the countries and which followed

in all of the professions. As an audience this is what our relationship is,

but that should not stop us from talking about different things outside

the room. We do not properly talk about the subject because we feel we

will reveal but that should not stop either you or I from discussing

dance. I think that is where politics started. So this is what happens.

Theres no need for it. So we need to educate people that way.

John: Francesca did you have a?

Francesca: I think -

Nicholas: I had a question regarding the extent to which the critic should be

responding to the dance community.

My belief is that the notion of dance community is bunk and that its notactually that useful a concept for us to be pursuing and if anything, the

role of the dance critic is to try to dissemble the notion of a dance

community and serve to integrate dancers and dance practices with the

wider population that it is serving, rather than fostering the support of

some separate bubble thats distinct and removed from the rest of the

world. Say, well no, there is no dance community, is it something we can

strike off and pat ourselves on the back and give ourselves a little bit of

support.

Its the critics function to try to break that down and integrate the ideasthat are going on between individual dancers or dance groups, with

people in the wider community - so that it doesnt somehow foster a

sense of oh weve got to protect them.

SF: Yeah, but within those smaller communities that go out bigger, people

like us who are in the dance community that practice were really

challenged to be able to communicate that to a wide audience and within


37/39


38/39

________________________________________________________________________

38

occasionally I get a whole flood of you know - and then I think oh God,

but anyway Im actually outside of the dance industry in terms of my

audience and Im aware that Ive got people down in Invercargill or

Westport or wherever who will never see the dance performance, but

nevertheless they can read the review and maybe just enjoy reading it

and learning a bit about it. You dont always have to be there toexperience something. I think within that context I try and be as open as

possible to serving the dance industry well so that Im not shooting it in

the foot or being quite subjective in any way. So thats my obligation.

The other thing were talking about what the ballet company - you know,

Ive actually found my writing quoted in books and stuff like that and, you

know, various things and I try to not actually write adjectives, you know, I

really work hard on avoiding adjectives, I try and use adverbs and I try

and bed my phrasing in a way that it cannot be taken out of context

when quoted, so thats a - because I actually got - you know - yeah, and

superlatives. So its quite satisfying that people dont use me in quotes

nearly as much they used to.

John: Weve got to wind up unfortunately. So I just wanted to finish by quoting

Diana Rigg who edited a collection of reviews that uses in its title, a quote

from George Bernard Shaw who said that a critic left no turn unstoned.

Ill paraphrase it a bit so its inclusive of dance;

There are so many wonderful qualities to be found in

performance and courage predominates every time an entrance is

made, every time an actor, actress or dancer undertakes thedaring or delicate task of making an audience believe, or engaging

an audience. Another great quality is generosity of spirit.

So what Ive said to every critic that comes on board Theatreview

(although I might not have done it more recently), and what I keep

coming back to for myself, is that a good critic has the qualities of

passion, generosity of spirit and courage - and thats courage to be

honest.

So; thank you very much panelists and Linda, thank you very much

indeed.

Linda: Thank you John and thank you panelists. That was really fascinating and,

as Jack just said to me, but were only just getting started.

This always happens; I know these events. This event today has a legacy;

there have been other events in the past, around about 2000, 2002 I

remember working on a couple of events with Susan Jordan. We


39/39

39

facilitated two events called Critical Mass as part of the dance festival

and I know there have been other events which Raewyn Whyte and other

people have been to. I hope its not the last of these events; I do think

you have a lot to share.

I think its absolutely fascinating, and weve had some fabulouscontributions from the panel which Im sure youll be thinking about for

several days to come.

John:

For the Record Dance Review Panel Transcript

Documents

Transcript of For the Record Dance Review Panel Transcript