The Reluctant Critic

Gilbert Cadiz, aka Gibbs is a writer of theater reviews, news about theater events, among other things, of course. A lot of theater artists call him a theater critic, but he modestly balks at the label saying that he sees himself more as "a journalist covering theater, that's it." ok then, Probably the best journalist for theater I've ever met. during my younger years, we'd read reviews and press write-ups written by the Orosa sisters (Leonor and Rosalinda), Barbara Dacanay, Wilhelmina Orozco, Nestor Torre, Jr., Amadis Guerrero (who still writes, though covering more than just theater.). and then there's the next generation of reviewers, the one I can recall in that league is Cora Llamas.

Gibbs laid out his own perspective as "someone who covers theater." when I read this piece of self-explanation, it got me thinking and, well a bit confused. So I asked if I could post it on my blog, along with a counter-"monologue" that i'd set out to write. Maybe Gibbs and the rest will ask what a counter monologue is. Honestly, I have no idea. But let's see where this goes....

just one note: GIBBS' lines were taken verbatim from Gibbs himself. I may have added a few "stage directions" for effect. gibbs' lines, however, i must take full responsibility for.

So pasintabi kay Gibbs, the reluctant critic:

LIGHTS FADE IN. GIBBS CADIZ, approaching 40, is seated on a stool, he smiles at the audience-- all of whom are theater artists. We sense a bit of anxiety from that smile, but then a hint of mischief and then two blinks. He takes a deep breath, holds it a bit and then...

GIBBS:

Akin lang 'to, my own perspective, and i don't intend to speak for the rest... (a beat)... frankly, and with no disrespect meant to anyone in the theater world--i don't consider myself part of the theater community.

(He looks around and notices that the audience stops short. He raises his hand. House lights are turned on. He sees actor friends, director friends, fellow critics, national artists for theater, and in one corner, near the exit door, sits gibbs cadiz, approaching 40, listening to GIBBS onstage, a bit circumspect, pen in hand, with a notebook on his lap, but waiting for what he's going to say next.)

GIBBS:

(a little cautious at first but eventually getting more confident) I... see myself as a journalist covering theater, that's it. i am from the outside looking in. and whenever i write a review of a play, it is, in effect, my report of what i had experienced while watching the play. i try to describe what i saw and what i felt, and why i think i felt that way from what i had seen...that means that i am, in fact, a member of the audience. i suppose with one difference:

(At this point, we hear a voice from that same seat near the exit door. gibbs, seated on that chair at the rear is syaing something almost simultaneously, but inaudible. GIBBS continues.)

GIBBS:

I am a bit more informed about theater--not because i am smarter, but because i have chosen to spend more time, effort, money, etc. watching plays and covering the industry. the sheer number of plays i watch, the private research i do, the effort i put in to try to understand and see in perspective everything that i'm able to watch--even if i'm half-alert lang, that should make me a bit more informed than the average theater-goer who goes for a more select repertoire of plays. i try to watch all--simply because i like to and i enjoy it.

(Audience of theater artists turn around. gibbs stands up and approaches Gibbs, who remains seated on the stool. gibbs walks on stage.)

gibbs:

so this is how it feels! i could never imagine myself--

GIBBS:

This is not part of my job at the paper. My job is simply to edit. that's my main job. i wasn't assigned to cover theater. i took it on my own because watching plays isn't at all work for me--i enjoy it without reservation. it's a privilege.

gibbs:

sino?

GIBBS:

Ha?

gibbs:

sino sa ating dalawa?

GIBBS:

Ang alin?

gibbs:

sino ang journalist at sino ang nag-eenjoy?

GIBBS:

It doesn't have to be a contradiction. I mean at any rate, I don't see myself as a theater practitioner and more an outsider covering the field, i limit my coverage to what's ultimately presented in front of me. to be specific: i am not, and don't see myself as, part of the the process that playwrights, directors and actors go through backstage.

gibbs:

that's true.

(GIBBS and gibbs looks backstage. they see the stage manager, looking confused, turning her script back and forth, not knowing exactly where they are right now.)

GIBBS:

in fact, on a couple of occasions, i've been invited by two directors to attend their final rehearsals and asked to "critique" the work/offer improvements. i refused at both times, because i felt it wasn't my place to get involved in the process.

gibbs:

why not? di ba mga kaibigan mo sila?

GIBBS:

that's just it... look, as as an audience member, generally when i watch a play i have not had the chance to read the text (unless it's previously published/staged and the text is available commercially), or learn the process it's gone through before it eventually reached the stage. i can only judge what's ultimately, finally presented on stage before me. of course, if i am discerning enough, i should be able to understand what the material is talking about, to appreciate the quality of the text, to see how stagecraft is able to bring it alive before my eyes, etc.

gibbs:

and so?

GIBBS:

but again, everything based on a product being presented to me already functionally whole, and whose evolution i wasn't privy to. that means that the way you as a playwright/director look at your work, and the way i look at it, would certainly vary. ideally, i suppose, a one-on-one correspondence between what the playwright and director are trying to say and what an informed audience member actually gets would be most welcome.

gibbs:

a product.

GIBBS:

yes.

(There is a silence. Gibbs looks at his audience. All of them in their evening best, as though it was awards night. they look at their tickets. We hear the audience getting a bit shifty, a little confused. "akala ko awards night ito?"-- "ano ito, front act?" "marunong ba siyang kumanta?" "di ba seminarista siya dati? baka..." But this too dies down.)

GIBBS:

when an artist releases his work to the public, it's no longer his.

(At this point a sharp spotlight is focused on a playwright, killing himself. some directors stand up and shout "Bravo.")

GIBBS and gibbs, together:

the people who will look at it will invest their own viewpoints, perspectives, biases, temperament, etc. into it, and take away from it whatever suits their state of being at that moment. that's art.

gibbs:

At what point does it become art? doesn't it become art at the point when someone perceives it? the world became art, when humans evolved to appreciate Creation. the world waited thousands of years: rehearsing, editing, covering previous drafts, rewriting, creating multiple palimpsests before man's awareness was born and opened his eyes, perceived the world, breathless for a moment, then uttered, "beautiful." and so art is created not merely by its creators but completed by its witnesses. so tell me, Gibbs, which came first, man the critic or man the artist?

GIBBS:

But i think it might be wishing for the moon for an artist to wish that the public will get him or her every time, fully and down to the last nuance.

gibbs:

exactly. but aren't we all?

GIBBS:

aren't we all what?

gibbs:

wishing for that moon... or, to put it another way, bound to be misinterpreted. critics, journalists, artists, writers are almost always bound to be misinterpreted. But then, there is, always, the factor of Consensus. When audiences watch a play or film, when viewers look at a painting, when readers read a book- they may have different interpretations but they do arrive at a certain consensus, no matter how contentious.

GIBBS:

A contentious consensus...

gibbs:

In the end, the work gets its "verdict" of being a critical success, a box office hit, a fluke, a classic, or a forgettable pretentious flop. And this "verdict" is ultimately handed out by the summation of a consensus of artists, critics, and the public audience. and the work latches on to that "verdict", doesn't it? the critic's opinion is just that: an opinion. a ballot, an articulate vote that will eventually mix in with the general regard for the work. Sometimes we influence our readers, we convince them that our point of view is the definitive one, or maybe that's what we'd like to think. But sometimes, we ourselves boldly proclaim something that the public disagrees with. We pan a work, and the work becomes a huge success...

GIBBS:

thanks to us?

(they both laugh. a silence.)

GIBBS: (continues)

i write for a general-circulation paper. my audience consists of people like me--people who read, who try to be updated, who are reasonably intelligent and open-minded--but who are not part of the backstage, offstage life of theater. we don't know the process, we only get to see the final product.

gibbs:

but YOU chose to demarcate that line.

GIBBS:

which line?

gibbs:

the line between off and on stage.

GIBBS:

Shouldn't we?

gibbs:

But you said you are a journalist for theater! shouldn't you probe into what's happening behind the curtains, as well? why should you confine yourself to what you see on-stage? why should you deprive yourself of knowing the "process". A journalist surely must know the ins and outs of something, yes? And maybe, so should the critic.

GIBBS:

what i can write are my opinions about what i see--sabi nga ni ebert, what is a review but an opinion? and he's won a pulitzer for his. yun lang.

gibbs:

hmm. the same Ebert who panned Brilliantes Mendoza as he went on to win Best director... haha... but seriously, why would you deliberately draw your curtain from seeing what's happening off-stage because of that? Shouldn't a critic/journalist be just as interested in how this "product" is made? for how can a critic sufficiently understand artistic intentions and weigh them to ascertain whether these intentions succeeded or not, if he is not aware of how the piece was being set up in the first place? Shouldn't an art critic know about paints, colors, brushes and how the artist created the images on the canvas? Shouldn't a music critic know about harmonics, technique, dynamics, even notation and how the musician uses them to compose his work? Should a theater critic be confined to just THE work? Or is this your approach-- the approach that probably distinguishes a critic from... a reviewer.

GIBBS:

Well, now that you've mentioned it... the word 'critic' has always carried a lot of baggage such that, in the beginning, i never used it on myself. ibang mga tao ang unang gumamit niyan to describe what i was doing. i was content to say i was writing about plays. the long antagonistic relationship between critics and artists was something na i thought needn't necessarily be where i would end at, for two reasons.

one, i come from a position of friendship and support. i like the theater, i wish it to succeed, i have enormous respect for the people in it. that's precisely why i devote a big amount of my time covering it (inquirer does not pay at all for my pamasahe going to plays, or tickets whenever i need to buy, or pay me for the reviews i publish--kasama na yun sa basic sweldo ko) and getting more people to be interested in it via my blog.

two: i want to be as fair and objective as possible. that's the main reason why i don't want to get involved in the backstage/offstage process and become, in effect, an insider, a practitioner just like you. i'd like to believe i can honor your and your peers' work by keeping myself at a certain distance. quite a number have taken this the wrong way, but i also consciously don't hang out with theater folk, even if, in an ideal world, i'm thinking the closest friends i have would be artists from there too---given the shared likes and interests. if i weren't covering theater, i'd probably be an all-out groupie sa teatro. totoo yan!

but because i'm covering you guys, i just feel it's the proper thing to do, na wag ako maging intimately involved. training namin yan sa dyaryo--you are not part of the beat you cover. friendly, but not familiar--because the detachment and distance will (hopefully) help me see things in a clearer, fairer manner.

gibbs:

no one can be objective in the world of art, we both know that. Fair, yes, but objective? the critic has his own opinions, and therefore must take a stand. Journalists, however are a different lot-- which makes our position quite untenable now. Critics do not usually mingle with artists because everyone knows how hard it is to criticize your friends. you know that, don't you? Remember how many times we got the cold shoulder from those who were hoping we'd give them a "thumbs up". But that's what we in the Inquirer call par for the course. Critics get that all the time. But when journalists get it, they usually show up dead.

GIBBS:

(looks at the audience of artists)

it all comes down to this. your process is your own.

gibbs:

the process continues with the audience and back to the artists, should they wish to keep on polishing the project. many times, the critics offer a viewpoint that enriches the work-- unlike film that has a more definite finish. In the theater, ideally we'd have previews so the players can improve upon the work. Imagine new works being developed through years of constant exchange with artists and critics/audiences until they truly open to the general public as a "final product." Shouldn't we work towards that process as well? they've been doing that all across the U.S. before they open on Broadway, for instance.

GIBBS:

But i'm happy enough to be at the receiving end of their creative efforts! believe me, i may pan a work, i may find something objectionable with it, but in the grand scheme of things, i'm always grateful enough na me naipapalabas, me nagagawa at me napapanood.

i can't guarantee i will see the playwright/director's intention with 100-percent accuracy, all the time. all i can promise is, with everything at my disposal sa puntong yun, bubuksan ko ang isip ko sa kung anuman ang gustong pumasok. i know i will never satisfy everyone; me magagalit at magagalit sa opinyon ko, but wala ako magagawa sa ganun--in the same way that artists would have to resign themselves to the fact that their works will be received in as many different ways as there are viewers. ganun siguro talaga. we have more in common than we think.

gibbs:

and yet, as critic or journalist: knowing the process, what happens backstage, interviewing the director/playwright about their intentions and juxtaposing this with what you've seen onstage, witnessing the rehearsal, contextualizing this project in the whole scheme of theater history, if you must, and writing about it with all this in mind: shouldn't this be our contribution to the "ecology of theater"?

(GIBBS and gibbs look at each other.)

gibbs:

(avoids GIBBS' eye and looks away)

but then again, it may be a responsibility too much to ask from us, i guess.

GIBBS:

(looks down on the floor.)

there's just so few of us. we cannot take on so much.

(Silence.)

gibbs:

(goes up to GIBBS, a pat on his shoulder)

We who watch are part of the process, Gibbs. But yes, by all means, be fair.

(gibbs walks off. GIBBS goes back to his stool, sits and looks at the audience. a long silence.)

(LIGHTS FADE. )