By Jaime Benitez
As a graduate and a teacher of the Humanities Program of UA&P, it is pretty much in my nature to be a critic.
I believe the word has been maligned over the last couple of decades, especially with the dawn of the internet critic and online forums, to the point that I think it has lost its true meaning. Criticism was never just about evaluating whether something was good or bad, but about describing and interpreting. What is this that is in front of me? What could it mean? Only when questions like that are answered — usually in the critic’s review itself— that their opinion about its quality can be stated.
But a critic ought to be unbiased, right? Would you trust a critic if he was not completely “impartial?” If the critic was, theoretically, working with a different production by a rival organization, does that not taint his stance?
That was the dilemma I found myself in when I was asked to write a review of Dulaang ROC’s season opener production, Sierra Lakes: Live @ UA&P, based on the incredible script of the late, great playwright, Tony Perez.
I knew exactly what I felt about Sierra Lakes when I was asked. I had watched it on two different show dates. I had extensive discussions with colleagues and mentors in CAS about the play. I myself had acted in a staging of that play for my Theatre class while I was still a student of UA&P (pictured above, left), meaning I had read the original script extensively, many times over, and I actually still continue to do so to this day. Needless to say, I spent a good amount of time with this play, and I knew how I felt about it.
But you could not say I was unbiased. At least, you could not say it without acknowledging that I was also directing a season opener production, Dr. Joem Antonio’s Newspaper Dance, but this time, for ViARE.
ViARE and Dulaang ROC are not “competitors” in the sense that they are competing with each other for audiences or recognition, but there are enough overlaps between the two student theatre organizations to merit comparisons — comparisons that, given I am “on ViARE’s side,” might sway my perspective. This potential conflict could call into question the objectivity of my arguments.
So, that’s it, right? Review cancelled. Because I’m biased, because I may have an “allegiance” — and a temporary one at that — that means I can no longer share my opinion, right? I don’t think that’s fair. Given my training as a humanist, I’d like to believe I can achieve a level of impartiality that makes me a fair judge (I have read my fair share of Kant’s Critique of Judgment — not that that’s the license for impartiality). However, I can’t deny that that bias is there. I would like to believe the play I am directing is a good one, and at the very least, I aim to match, if not surpass, the level Dulaang ROC was able to get to.
So, why am I still here, writing an article on Universitas anyway? Initially, it seems the solution to this dilemma is something down the middle — write with as much impartiality as possible, while still being clear about my beliefs, my influences, and my loyalties. That ideally addresses the issue of opacity; if my biases are mentioned, that should make it easier to assume there are no ulterior motives behind my thoughts.
The issue, however, remains incredibly complex. For one, how can I identify with certainty which parts of my thoughts are influenced by my ViARE bias and which aren’t? Also, how can I reconcile being a critic with being a director? As I write this, I am currently in the middle of ViARE’s run of Newspaper Dance, going through all the challenges and difficulties of directing. Will my empathy for the director of Sierra Lakes, given my witnessing of the challenges of directing, also influence my thoughts? There is also the recently concluded run of plays for my Shakespeare students’ 10-Minute Shakespeare Festival, for which I operated more as a producer than a director (pictured above, right), but where I nonetheless handled theatre from the teacher’s pedagogical perspective. Will that also change the way I look at theatre? The conversation is a complex web of intercrossing biases, experiences, and schools of thought, and that made me realize: that is what I should write about for Universitas.
The conversation, in itself, poses a lot of questions that, to me, are all worth write-ups in themselves. Yes, I will share my thoughts on Sierra Lakes (eventually), but what led me to those thoughts, and more importantly, do those thoughts change after going through my experience directing? I want to track that journey, one that will interweave the perspectives of those I encounter at each step, and that ideally will present, through my own perspective and experiences, the state of theatre and criticism in UA&P.
So, this is my venture: a multi-part series of articles, chronicling the perspective of someone examining not only the productions being mounted in UA&P, but my perspective on the state of theatre and the forces that influence that perspective. Perhaps, in the journey into both experiences, some insight about what UA&P’s brand of theatre is (and what I think it ought to be) may emerge. I just recently concluded my 10-Minute Shakespeare Festival run, and I am still in the thick of the run of Newspaper Dance, but even if I haven’t had time yet to fully process everything, I can already sense my perspective shifting, and I wish to document that here.
If this is of any interest to you, I hope you can join me on this journey.
Stay tuned for Part 2!
Photos by Angelica Agor & Lee Shan Dionisio
Leave a Reply