Ksenija Radulović
THE CRITIC AS AN OUTSIDER AND AS AN INSIDER (the phenomenon of internal
criticism)
One of the possibilities for bodily co-presence of the critic in the ,,eventness” of a theatre
situation (,,performance”) is related to the notion of the co-called internal criticism. The word is
about the practice, which – as stated in the invitation to this Symposium – is not quite new, but is
still predominantly alternative, it does not represent the dominant stream of critical practice. This
phenomenon was one of the central topics of the Sixth International Symposium of Theatre
Critics and Theatre Scholars, held in 1985, at Sterijino pozorje: Criticism in theatre – criticism
outside theatre. The discussions held on that occasion were important for elaboration of this
paper, moreover because during the Symposium, different experiences in implementation of the
internal criticism were shared, and added by numerous observations of theatre theoreticians and
practitioners in connection with the strong and weak points of such a practice (specificity,
experiences, possibilities, limitations and the seamy sides).
The very notion of the internal criticism, as opposed to the so called external criticism (classical,
written, the one that analyses and evaluates the finished artistic event) includes, in a narrower
sense, ,,entering” of the critic to the process of the performance creation. Most often, through his
presence at theatre rehearsals, and based on that, his observations and proposals are intended to
authors of the performance (first of all to director). Such a criticism is primarily verbal (spoken),
and then fragmentary and intervening (Georges Banu). - Nota bene, the director Miroslav
Belović (Serbia, former Yugoslavia), names the occurrence of the critic from within the theatre
theatretrophe , as the analogy with the notion misantrophe, and regards it as useful in the
complex mechanism of the theatre performance creation. ,,They (theatretrophes – comment by
K.R.) are necessary to the creators because their opinions, no matter how extremely negative
they may seem, may point to the real failures in their work.“1 This ,,evil“ critical eye2, probably
has certain relationship with the practice of the Hollywood studies, which engage professionals
for reading different versions, i.e. development stages, of a film scenario (they point to failures
and weak points, participate actively in finishing the scenario until a satisfactory, final version is
1
Miroslav Belović, Proceedings Criticism in Theatre – Criticism outside Theatre, Sterijino pozorje, Novi Sad 1985,
95. (In addition, on the same occasion, three decades ago, Belović stated that the classical division on critics and
creators was overcome, that new theatre needed to be accompanied by new criticism.)
2
This form of critical influence on theatre is just one (conditionally speaking –basic) aspect of internal criticism.
This, however, is not its only purpose, it is not exhausted in it, about which we will speak in the next part of the text.
developed).3 As opposed to theatretrophes, says Belović, there are also theathrephiles – and
their judgments on the value of performance are also a form of useful criticism.
In this paper, firstly we will deal with the mentioned internal criticism in a narrower sense 4.
However, in a wider context, the phenomenon of internal criticism (criticism from within) is
much more complex. In view of the fact that theatre itself has become a critical activity (Bernard
Dort), that the art in itself has become criticism, in the contemporary world, theatre criticism is
just one form of criticism of a theatre act. Namely, internal criticism implies also making of a
repertory based on the programming and aesthetic requirements of theatre, selection of pieces,
director’s and others interpretation positions; in this connection, the position of the director –
especially from the perspective of the actor - is the first encounter with criticism; furthermore,
the function of a dramaturge is a sort of institutionalized ,,internal criticism”5; control rehearsal is
a par excellence form of internal criticism.
This context can be further expanded to the practice of organizing discussions (debates, forums)
after performances. Some directors (e.g. Peter Brook, Patrice Chereau) used to organize, more
than three decades ago, discussions with actors after performances, and sometimes, even the
audience joined the process; an interesting and successful experience in our country was the
discussion after the performance The Heroes’ Square (Heldenplatz), by Thomas Bernhard,
directed by the leading Serbian director, Dejan Mijač, in Atelje 212, ten years ago, in which
participated theatre professionals (critics and authors of the performance) and the audience. In a
wider context, internal criticism does not have to be necessarily/closely related to the process of
performance creation. There are various ,,provisional forms” which address those who are not
theatre professionals (audience), i.e., the modality of interiority transforms (changes) to the
modality of exteriority. The situation is similar with the position of theatre festival selector and
programme maker, round table moderators and similar – the activity of these professionals is one
of numerous (no matter how marginal) modes of internal criticism and sometimes the
provisional form from internal criticism to external criticism.
The notions internal criticism and verbal criticism are not necessarily synonyms, but very often
there is an unavoidable and strong correlation between them: this especially refers to internal
criticism in a narrower sense (activity of the critic in the process of a performance creation),
which is most frequently verbal. Many other forms of internal criticism have a verbal form,
3
In quite an institutional and informal way, similar practice is possible also in literature. As an illustration, we quote
the words of the great Yugoslav writer Danilo Kiš: In this world, there are two women who read my texts first,
before they are published (quotation from memory – K.R.)
4
From the historical point of view, this is the activity institutionalized by Lessing in Hamburg Dramaturgy.
5
Although it is not always possible to establish a clear boundary between the function of a dramaturge in a show
(project) and internal criticism in a narrower sense (entry of a critic to rehearsal process), yet there are certain
differences: while dramaturge is a part of a project team, no matter if he is engaged by theatre on a permanent basis,
or if he participates in a specific project, critic is a person from the outside, outsider. Apart from this difference,
dramaturge often participates in shaping of the structure/text of the project, he does not have primarily or only the
function of ,,keen critical eye”, which is more often intended for the critic. The word is about general, generically
different positions, with the possibility of changing, i.e. overlapping, of their roles and places.
almost as a rule. An example for that are discussions of directors with actors and other members
of the team of authors after the premiere, which are aimed at analysing the achieved artistic
result, its improvement and corrections. Apart from being verbal, such a discussion is not
externally oriented, towards the audience, but is conducted completely “internally”(internal
criticism). On the other hand, form of a round table is quite different. Here we have a variable
internal/external modality, so it can be treated as an emphasized transition of the internal
criticism to the external criticism, if not even as a form of external criticism. It initially
originates from the inside (its organizer is more often a theatre or a festival, and less frequently
some printed or electronic media), its basic form is verbal, but by way of transcript it can also
become written , it addresses both spectators and professionals, but all of them are at the same
time, its participants. However, it differs to a certain extent from the classical external criticism,
not only by less requiring, ,,more relaxed“ form of discussion (because of the very fact that it is
verbal), but because the participants in forming of this critical discourse are not exclusively
professional critics, but also the audience, and the authors of performances – and the kind of
critical discourse may depend on that . We conclude that many forms of organization of debates
and discussions in theatre constitute varieties of internal criticism – and can be held both during
and after the completed work process (control rehearsal, analysis of performance after the
premiere through discussion of director and actors...), but there are also certain debate forms,
which step in powerfully to the area of external criticism. The round table, which was set an
example, could be, in an ideal form, an integral form of external criticism – if all participants
develop critical discourse. In practice, however, such a modality need not be exhausted in that:
level/type of critical discourse may depend on several elements (moderation, participants, total
context...), so it can be filled also by non-critical talking (reflexions and observations of general
type, anecdotes, etc.).
Finally, numerous reactions of theatre professionals and spectators as well, on published
criticisms, or those available in electronic form, can be understood as an independent
phenomenon of criticism of criticism. And it can be focused either externally or internally,
depending on whether it is based on internal discussions in the theatre, or it is carried out as a
medial debate in public.
In view of the fact that internal criticism – in the narrower meaning of the notion - is manifested
in the work process, it is made on an emerging piece, and not on a finished one. It changes the
course of things, it is fragmentary and not global (G. Banu). It is verbal, it is manifested on the
move “ because if it were formulated in writing, its intervention could cause a spasm, or even
paralyze the very process”6. For Banu, “it is more credible to the extent it is freer from the
chains imposed by responsibility of a written text, the nature of a publication or echo of
formulated opinions beyond theatre. ”.
6
The same, 21.
However, the very absence of a written form is a “handicap” of this type of criticism. That
“handicap” is conditioned by its very nature: due to lack of written traces, i.e. any kind of
,,fixedness” of materials and sources, it is impossible to research fully the phenomenon of verbal
criticism. Since the critic’s activity in the process of creation of the performance is most
frequently left without any material traces, it appears in practice that the phenomenon of verbal
criticism can be researched only partially, fragmentarily, based on individual, and therefore
relatively subjective experiences of the participants in the process.7
A principle question regarding internal criticism relates to the impact of the critic on the process
of creation of a theatre act: should a critic enter the theatre ,,from the inside”? If the answer to
this question is affirmative, the next dilemma relates to the extent of such an impact: How deep
should the critic go to the theatre?
In addition, the question if, for writing criticism, it is necessary or requiring to be familiar with
the technology of creation of a theatre performance (technical aspect – and this is the knowledge
that can be acquired precisely by entering the process of creation) is definitely important for the
relationship criticism-performance. Furthermore, is presence at rehearsals required/necessary in
the domain of theoretical articulation of the art of acting?8 Of course, there are many more
ethical questions that inevitably accompany the phenomenon of internal criticism, and generally,
they are reduced to (im)possibility to keep a critical/impartial approach to finalized work, on the
part of the critic who entered the process from the inside.
Here we do not talk about opposed positions in terms of value (or structure) : the critic’s position
outside and inside may vary, one does not necessarily exclude the other. Jovan Ćirilov thinks that
verbal criticism is incomparably more difficult discipline than the written one, and here he refers
to his rich experience in both areas. - ,, …I can tell you that it is much harder to say something
that will really help actors and the enterprise, after the so called control rehearsal or any other
rehearsal, than to sit down after the opening night and write a criticism. (…) I know that some
specificities of a single moment in the work process appear as much more difficult than making a
single free position on general things, in which an actor can be the last in a funnel”9 At the same
time, he is in principle against writing a criticism after the critic’s inside experience within the
framework of a project: in that case, if the critic has followed the creation process, he will be apt
to justify all faults of that theatre performance. If, for example, he is familiar with financial,
7
Except in the case when there is a diary of rehearsals, which also the activities of the present critic from within.
The word is about a separate topic, complex enough to be a topic of another text. Some critics regard such
experience as valuable, and yet limited (it is not possible to fully articulate “in literary terms” the unfathomable
nature of acting), whereas others state that different forms of actors’ psychological resistance are an obstacle to the
critic’s impact on the internal work process.
9
Jovan Ćirilov, The same, 49.
8
staff-related, organizational, and other troubles that accompanied the work on the performance,
he will explain its failings by concrete rational reasons. And, as opposed to that, if he writes
external criticism, without looking at the reasons, the critic will make the theatre overcome its
financial and staff-related hardships; the theatre will try “to overcome all its limitations,
philosophical, material, aesthetic ones, all its deepest limitations, even when the criticism is not
justified, and even if it has not understood everything necessary for a an undertaking to be
complete”10. A different source of scepticism in relation to this issue is seen by Jovan Hristić, a
doyen of Serbian and Yugoslav criticism, also based on his own experience. He regards in
principle that the experience of the presence at rehearsals is valuable, even necessary for
everyone engaged in criticism, but he points to a dreadful cut between verbal and written
criticism. If the critic gets too deep in the creation process, he may become ,,blinded” in respect
of what we call magic of the performance. He describes his presence at rehearsals of a
performance as very interesting and constructive, including the discussions held with the director
on that occasion. However, when the premiere was given, and when he had to write criticism
about that performance, to depart from the stage to the literature, he faced the situation that he
could not do that. ,,And then, I realized that I could not write a word about that performance as a
critic, because I knew too well what it was like from the inside, and which mechanisms were
started, and I knew why the actress X had made a move which everybody regarded as idiotism,
and why in turn the actor Y had done something everybody thought to be genial. And I knew
what it had been like, and perhaps that actually leads to a different distinction – that our sense for
the value of the results is shifted if we know how the result was achieved. Because, sometimes, a
most common witty remark may turn into something genial, and if you know about the witty
remark, there is no more geniality in it for you”.11
The majority of the Symposium participants have agreed that for writing criticism, it is necessary
to know the technical aspect of theatre performance creation. For the rehearsal processes, Hristić
uses a gastronomic metaphor, namely – he compares them with the cuisine (culinary art), arguing
that a work of art is created by hand rather than by brain – and that is why for the critic who, by
definition, creates using his brain, such kind of experience is indispensible. The critic ,,may not
be just the one who eats a kind of a food, and says “this is too salty” or ,,it is not salty enough”.
10
11
The same, 50.
Jovan Hristić, The same, 46.
In a way, he has to know what it is like in the kitchen”12. However, a separate question is what
kind of/which specifically technical knowledge, and to what extent, should the critic acquire.
Marko Kovačević trusts it is sufficient that the critic is present at rehearsals of about ten
relatively different performances in terms of genre and style, and that he thus becomes “armed”
with knowledge in this area (therefore, he advocates the approach that respects the process of
creation but does not mystify it). The topic of the relationship of criticism and technical level of a
performance creation was developed, in particular, by Georges Banu, who linked it with
inevitable ethical moments of critical work. His principle position is that technical knowledge
gained at the rehearsals is useful for the critic, but that he should not write about the specific
performance whose creation he witnessed – and that he should apply this knowledge when
writing about some other piece. And, we are adding, that can be understood also as a kind of a
professionally responsible and justified compromise solution. It is interesting how Banu
considers some of the important forms/aspects of internal criticism when it comes from the very
theatre creators. ,,Platini analyses a football match equally well as Vitez analyses staging by his
fellow director. These comments, which are closest to the reality of a competition, or a
performance, are interesting because they manage to unmask secret strategies, concrete solutions,
and specific answers. But we should be reminded that artists are good judges only for those
pieces whose aesthetics is close to theirs and that, on the contrary, they are blind for
performances that are opposite to their practice. Theatre man is the best critic of the piece created
according to his way, and the worst critic of the one departing from that way. Being a prisoner of
specific aesthetics, an artist becomes, in that case, equal stranger as a critic who is the follower of
one method or one philosophy with a universal key.”13 However, he adds – and here it is almost
impossible not to agree with Banu – that responsibility of the critic is greater, because his,
whereas “the criticism by theatre professionals may be strict, but it is rarely publicly
responsible”.
The “limited” critic’s influence on the process of creation is also advocated by Georges Slokker,
whose reply to the question if a critic should know in detail the conditions of creating a
performance is negative. ,,But what he should do is give sense to the work by observing it and
establish the connection between what the creators had done and what he saw, and what he
12
13
Jovan Hristić, The same, 46.
Georges Banu, The same, 22.
thinks, as well.”14 The relationship criticism-performance could be seen as an immanent
approach to the work of art, which allows a legitimate possibility of using also some other
“auxiliary” methods, when there is a need and justified reasons for that. For example, when
structuralism in literature is expanded by certain ,,auxiliary” approaches (biographical,
sociological). In a similar way, the relationship of criticism and performance is manifested in
practice – we are interested in the performance as a finalized act, but for the analysis we
sometimes need also technical (or other) knowledge.
Yet, some critics are completely against the practice of internal criticism. Among them, is a
Slovenian/Yugoslav critic, Vasja Predan. Based on his own experiences in such attempts, he
mentioned certain misunderstandings with actors, the way they felt about the presence ,,of a man
from the outside” at rehearsals. In brief, no matter how well-intentioned the ,,voyeur’s” eye may
be, actors thought they could not reach full concentration in its presence. ,,In addition, they asked
themselves: is not the critic – just like every spectator – obliged to surrender to the ,,fluid of the
theatre magic”, at least at the opening night, no matter how ambivalent that fluid may be?”15 For
Predan, criticism is relevant and possible only outside theatre, whereas criticism in the theatre
(criticism from within) is contradictio in adiecto of the very nature of theatre criticism. - ,,To
step in the theatre ,,from the outside” means to start a totally different creative process, with
different protagonists, roles and functions, in any case, not with those of the predominant
majority (…) of theatre criticism according to the European tradition.”, argues Predan16. In
addition, individual participants point out that excessive pride, felt by the creators, may be an
obstacle for internal criticism. However, Anatolij Kudrjavcev (Croatia) reminds that the critic
should be protected also from the outside, from the voices announcing each performance,
because all the previous information is just an attempt of seduction.” (,,If the critic is not able to
do that, he should not engage in criticism”.)17
In the territory of the former Yugoslavia, there is an interesting experience of the critic Mani
Gotovac (Croatia), who was following, for years in the continuity, creation of the theatre
performances, and based on that, writing her theatre diary, a kind of personal reflexions on the
14
George Slokker, The same, 44.
Vasja Predan, 73.
16
The same, 74.
17
Anatolij Kudrjavcev, The same, 122.
15
basis of what she had seen in the very process. As her colleague, Darko Gasparovic (Croatia),
notices, such written down scenes may even be unfinished, floating in the space between ideas
and realization, be subject to unpredictable changes and uncertainties. Mani Gotovac maintains
that, as opposed to the critic who believes in the sense, there is a critic who is in constant search
for it18. As opposed to the critic who holds a position of judge, who closes the theatre event with
his judgment, there is the critic who does not see this or that sense, but qualifies for a new sense.
That way, believes this critic, the point of view shifts from the designated one to the one that
designates. Her texts, thus, represent a synthesis of her records from the rehearsals, theoretical
articulation of the text and idea, fragments of dialogues or examples of the director’s
instructions, reflexions on actors (linking sometimes their biographies with the roles they
interpreted), her discussions with directors, and general thoughts about the society or life.19 For
her, the critic is an insider and an outsider at the same time, with which agreed the majority of
the participants of the Sixth International Symposium of Theatre Critics and Theatre Scholars in
Novi Sad. ,,Outsider, because he comes from the outside, and an insider, because his only
possibility is in the theatre”. He is like a stranger in his native town, something that is not
individuum, but rather dividuum.20
There are different platforms from which he can choose, change or vary his position, opt for a
role of insider or outside, outsider or insider, and that place, maintains George Banu, should be
determined by the very performance (the work determines the position of the critic). Moreover,
for Banu, that is finding of an ideal position in relation to the performance, and the most difficult
part of the critic’s work. However, these two types of criticism do not differ ,,in terms of the
truth about the performance, but rather in terms of contacts with its materiality. From near and
far, different things are registered”.21 Banu formulates the synthesis of this reasoning in the
following way: ,,Criticism from within implies periodicity of achievement, whereas criticism
from the outside is always a single and unique event. The former adopts the rhythm of the
season, whereas the latter does not. Internal criticism is interesting for its repeatability, and
18
Mani Gotovac, This is how glory passes, Centre for Cultural Activity Zagreb, 1984.
Fragment from the text, M. Gotovac on the occasion of the performance Ivanov, directed by Ivica Kunčević
(Gavella, Zagreb, 1978.): ,,The director talks with actors for hours. The experiment resembles a session with a
psychiatrist. I myself feel freer at the end. “.
20
The same 62.
21
Georges Banu, The same, 24.
19
external criticism for its uniqueness. Internal criticism forms the public opinion, and the external
criticism illuminates it.”.22
Although the notion of internal criticism contains certain insufficiency in its very nature
(theoretical articulation and research of the phenomenon is rather aggravated due to the lack of
written traces), we can agree with the view that the variability of the critic, his ability to change
his positions, to re-position his own body in relation to the concrete theatre ,,eventness” – is his
constant/eternal potential, or at least his potential advantage. Even, no matter if the performance
or any other professional/artistic motive determines his current positioning (work process
analysis, discussions with directors, learning about technical or artistic aspects of creation…) –
because what comes from the outside, and that from within, always represent two parts of the
same whole. The critic is always related to the theatre, his existence is in relation with the
theatre, and therefore, not at all incidentally, the critic Tamas Koltai (Hungary) sees the
relationship of criticism and theatre as a wall crack through which Pyramus and Thisbe, though
whispering, manage to establish communication in the Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s
Dream .
We have mentioned that the phenomenon of internal criticism has historical roots, that it covers
an area wider than the theatre art, but in the contemporary context, a specific form of verbal
criticism has been developed in the area of fine arts/visual arts, mainly through the practice of a
curator (leading through exhibitions). Development of this practice has been enabled by the very
nature of the medium. This does not imply exclusively that a curator becomes an unavoidable
link, a moderator between the creator and the audience, in order to bring closer the experiences
and ideas of the new artistic practices to those who are not professionals. The nature of the
exhibition also serves to that (at the same time here we have the same key differences between
the performing and fine arts). The audience in a gallery space has a relatively unlimited time (or
certainly less precisely defined/limited in relation to the audience that watches a stage event) and
(again, in difference from the theatre audience) it can simultaneously watch/look at a piece and
listen about it. On the other hand, during stage,,eventness”, an imaginary theatre curator would
disturb not only voices of actors but also all other sounds on the stage, but he would also – at
least potentially – have difficulties in reaching ideal time synchronicity between what is spoken
22
The same.
and what the audience watches on the stage (for example, it takes more time to verbally
articulate a very short event on the stage).
Finally, in the contemporary context, the phenomenon of internal criticism has been reactualized
with the development of new practices such as postdirectorial or postdramatic theatre. This
implies shifting of the focus from the performance, as a finalized act, to the process of its
creation, dehierarchization of the way of work, collective authorship, and definitely increasingly
higher relativization of strict boundaries between the so called practitioners and theoreticians /
creators and critics. Moreover, it can be noticed that internal criticism is at the same time one of
the earliest origins/nuclei of the change in the dramatic and directorial paradigm, typical for the
end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century. As of several decades ago, the critic has
shifted his focus from the finalized work of art to the process of its creation, and with his
suggestions and discussions with the director, he participates in its shaping. With variation of his
position, the critic was eliminating the barrier of external-internal and thus he announced other
important phenomena of the theatre in the changed context. He anticipated the elimination of the
precise boundary between the creator and consumer of an artistic act, i.e. a new role of the
spectator, who was no longer a passive viewer, but the one who as a person from the outside
became more actively a person from within. With his position from within, the critic actually
ensured the possibility for creation of a new spectator. And the contemporary artistic practices
keep expanding the critic’s potential activity: entry to/ and exit from the process of creation of
the theatre performance.