Björn Nilsson, at the Swedish newspaper Expressen kulturredaktion was for several decades one of northern Europe’s by far the best rubriksättare. I thought of him when I read Pia Huss replica ( DN 19/3) at the Johan Hilton’s chronicle of the all artigare teaterkritiken ( DN 14/3). Huss believes that this extent of disease depends on the that the editors want positive reviews to be able to put enticing headlines on them. Rather the green light than red. A success at the royal dramatic theatre is infectious, as well as on the magazine.
It’s not really my experience. What Björn Nilsson disliked was the vague reply. Even a genius like Bear needed inspiration for their literary paraphrases and cheeky puns. It is the worst insult a had experience – what did you think really?
any rubriksättare had desired to Bengt Jahnsson – DN:s herostratiskt renowned critics would tone it down when he went hard to the Swedish theatre’s sacred cows in the 60’s, vital kulturklimat, omprövningarnas time.
Read more: Is it so strange if teaterkritiken be seen as a part of promotional activity? wonder Johan Hilton
In a fun post on the Swedish newspaper Expressen kultursida writes Hanna Nordenhök if the difference between the litteraturkritiska and it teaterkritiska mission (20/3). As a newcomer in the latter area, she has felt ”easy paranoid” in the actual work situation: ”Rancid faces after a critical article has sometimes made me a tad förskrämd when it was time to sit in the audience at the next mission. It is a childish and unfair uppförstoring, I know. But maybe touch it where the paranoia a kind of precondition for the business, an abyss between the places from which we speak.”
Welcome. Per Erik Wahlund – one of the best we have had – used to say that the theatre critic is the mongrel. For a had who wants to be loved is a special place reserved in hell’s lowest circle.
Nordenhök writes that litteraturkritiken live in a different world and perceived as a more organic part of the literature. The author is often a literary critic and writes in each case, in part, from the same position, that is to say, from the inside. Theatre critic, however, is someone who almost invariably speak in terms of.
Read more: Risk the love of theater to make us critics of the cowards? wonder Pia Huss
I become more and more unsure of what Nordenhök refers to when she claims to have ”been surprised by the cool, descriptive, but more rarely passionately insistent teaterkritik which often are written in Swedish kultursidor”. I of course understand the idea but want to defend and valorise the descriptive element of the teaterkritiken. It comes before both the analysis and the valuation. The art to analyze the you can get in books and at seminars, the last decades teoriboom is free. Art to value is innate.
the theatre is useless if it does not grow out of a description of what happens on the stage. I want to say that it is the hardest thing that exists, it is therefore teaterkritiken inundated by cliches and lifeless metaphors. The actors are the worst hit. It helps, probably not, as Nordenhök write, to put ”something of yourself at stake in the reading of the play”.
Turn on the perspective – to see the actor!
I’d rather put sanningssökandet first, in the absurd hope that manages to capture life on the stage, it never goes to stop in the middle of the flow, so strange like life off the stage. To write teaterkritik is to always fail.
