Recently I received an email from a free theater group in Stockholm. The email was written in a reproachfully tone, and questioned why not the DN had sent a reviewer to their last performance. Nothing strange with it, the market for independent groups is very tough. A positive review in a major daily newspaper can be all the difference for a financially struggling group, a teaterredaktör get countless e-mails of this kind every week.
The thing that got me to respond was the actual tone. Mejlförfattaren had taken careful note of what the reviewers we sent the last few times and had comments on it. He mentioned, in particular, two of our critics, who – in addition to myself – should come for a visit a little more often.
I said, hard. DN carries, of course, not criticism on the basis of a kind of wish list, it is we who determine who we send. Point. The only group can be completely sure of is that we in the foreseeable future will not be able to send any of just the named writers.
worked as an editor at first, Expressen, and then DN I dare to say that this kind of question and pressure is more common today than they were in 2009. Now, I am struck increasingly by the suspicion that a fundamental confusion has arisen in the relationship between the performing arts and the media. Where we not too long ago was seen as critical, we seem now to a greater extent be regarded as an extended arm of the marketing department.
For a while, then tried, for example, a pr man on a institutionsteater sell an article to the DN. He suggested that an employee at the own pressavdelningen – ”a great writer and rhetorician” – would interview the theater's artistic director, an article that is then we proposed pressing.
as late as this past winter heard another contact, another great institutionsteater, by himself, because he ”would gladly faktakolla” an interview we made to this year's edition of the annex Scenvår. In short: preview something that he had to do.
It is hardly an exaggeration to say that scenkritiken over the last few decades become increasingly artigare, all the more careful
particularly surprised when Turteatern recently took revenge on Aftonbladet had Cecilia Djurberg for a critical review by publishing her private cell phone number for the audience. It was, so to speak, in the tangent direction – Djurberg had not delivered some fläskiga säljcitat that could be used in marketing, and was considered well earn been elected as chairman specifically.
the division of roles between media and pr departments are perceived as increasingly obscure have reasonably myriads of explanations – how, for example, knowledge of how the media work out on marknadsförarutbildningarna? And what has åsiktsbrytningen on social media, meant to critique the location of the large?
One aspect I will return a little more often than others. The tube teaterkritikens any responsibility. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that scenkritiken over the last few decades become increasingly artigare, ever more careful, ever more inclined to see itself as a part of a höviskt call rather than as a valuing party.
if this was made by the Swedish newspaper Expressen's director of cultural affairs Karin Olsson this year ( 30/10 2016). Then I was one of the critics as a bit of a knee-jerk hit it away from me – it was simply generalizing to dismiss the criticism as ”forgiving and warm”.
Now I discover that I think more and more on Olsson's article. In particular, I myself started to feel a resistance before to read some reviewers in other magazines – I already know in advance that they will rarely trap a critical word about anything they see. On the contrary, the approach is often so sensitive and cautious that it is not so strange that the criticism be seen as part of the promotional activities.
In the meantime, a couple of lines in an ordinary literary review lead to a jättedebatt about the contemporary poetry which rages for weeks. It has not happened teaterkritiken in ages. Is it so inconceivable that it has with the us critics to do?
Here you can read more texts by Johan Hilton, for example, about how ”Beverly Hills 90210” never had managed without Luke Perry as Dylan.