Abstract
LYN GARDNER reacts to a theatre’s threat towards unwelcome critics. Does being disinvited equate to being silenced?
THEATRES COURT CRITICS, even though they sometimes fear what they might write. The longstanding convention in theatreland is that critics are invited to press nights to review on a free ticket. There is always a risk that the reviews will be negative, but theatres are well aware that a slew of five-star raves can be box-office gold, and in these tough times they need all the help they can get. So, it’s rare that theatres refuse to invite certain critics.
But that looked more likely to happen this summer after the notices appeared of a production of the musical Legally Blonde at the Regent’s Park Open Air Theatre. Directed by Lucy Moss, the co-creator of sleeper musical success Six, the production featured a diverse cast of all shapes and sizes and considerable musical talent.
The Sunday Times theatre reviewer Quentin Letts responded to the production in a review in which one of the nicer lines declared: “The stage’s superstructure wobbles under the weight of the company’s loosely choreographed gyrations.” The theatre hit back by issuing a statement that didn’t mention Letts by name but referenced “the insensitive language of one review”, and took a stand by saying that “we expect that everyone comments with respect and sensitivity, and those who decide not to will no longer be invited back to our theatre”.
Critics being disinvited is not entirely new. Back in the 1960s, after a string of negative reviews, the Royal Court decided that Spectator critic Hilary Spurling was no longer welcome on press nights. Her colleagues on other titles stood shoulder to shoulder with her and said they would not review at the Court if Spurling were not invited.
Amidst talk of censorship and bans, the Arts Council threatened to remove its subsidy from the Court. Spurling’s invitation was quickly reinstated.
Will a similar solidarity be shown towards Letts? Unlikely. The Open Air Theatre is unsubsidised, and a younger, more diverse group of critics in a profession which has long been dominated by white, middle-class Oxbridge-educated men see there is a significant difference between a critic taking issue with the artistic direction and output of a theatre (sometimes over a long period, as Spurling did) and cheap jibes and personal attacks on the physical appearance of performers.
ABOVE: The cast of Legally Blonde from Regent’s Park Open Air Theatre, where one negative review sparked a backlash
CREDIT: Monica Wells/Alamy
In any case, there is a distinction between not being invited to review and being banned. When Letts was previously left off the guest list to review Kirstin Scott Thomas in The Audience, he simply bought a ticket.
I did the same when Cirque du Soleil decided one year that it did not want me reviewing its latest offering. Nobody stood at the door of the Royal Albert Hall and barred my entry. The Guardian still ran my thoughts about the show. My voice was not silenced, and I could and did write exactly what I wanted. Letts will continue to have the same right at the Open Air Theatre and other venues, whether he is invited or not.