Strident Women Commentators: Not Necessarily Advancing Genuine Equality

It’s not certain whether the American theatre critic, Walter Kerr, had actually seen the Broadway play by John Van Druten “I Am a Camera”, before the title inspired him to think of what turned out to be arguably the world’s shortest theatrical review. In the New York Herald Tribune of December 31, 1951 he wrote, “I Am a Camera – me no Leica”. The reason to suspect that Kerr might have been hopelessly seduced by his own catchy but dismissive review was because subsequently “I Am a Camera” won awards. It was also adapted as a film and even more famously as the celebrated musical and musical film, “Cabaret”.

But Walter Kerr was merely continuing the tradition of the critic’s review being as much a form of entertainment as whatever was being reviewed. With the platform and power to make or break productions by influencing audiences, some critics were able to reach a level of celebrity comparable even to the artistes under review. Walter Kerr himself has a theatre named after him.

Kerr probably realised that glibness, rather than considered ambivalence, would likely make for a much more entertaining review, even at the cost of sometimes failing to spot – or recommend – the genesis of a timeless classic. An amusing – even if cruel – strapline was probably the main priority in capturing the attention of theatregoers even if they didn’t read any further. So Walter Kerr’s review of “I Am a Camera” could almost serve as a critic’s template in extracting something from within a production to use as a sort of punch-line to glibly dismiss or possibly recommend it.

Happily such approaches are somewhat self-limiting as overuse can quickly seem rather trite. And these days the professional old school critics themselves are under more scrutiny. The internet allows everyone to comment and extract every obvious pun and punch-line before the critics. And if, for example, the majority of these online opinions turn out to be more in line with the fate of the production than a professional critic’s view, then questions would be asked of the latter’s judgement. This would likely force critics to be more balanced and less glib, but that would anyway be more appropriate to the current high levels of professionalism in the performing arts, where it would be very unusual for a production to fail at every level. It also has to be remembered – lest we get too carried away with absolutes – that critics are only dealing with opinions and personal taste.

So when a classic Kerr-esque critique appears these days, it’s rather unusual, so perhaps worthy of further investigation. The London Evening Standard review by Fiona Mountford of “Close to You: Bacharach Reimagined” seemed to have the Kerr template carefully fitted over the page with the headline comprising the title followed with “Just walk on by…”  There was a later reference to another Bacharach song used in the same damning way “What’s it all about? Well might one ask”.  It clearly wasn’t as clever as the Kerr critique because there were probably fewer well-known camera manufacturers in 1951 than there are Burt Bacharach songs in 2015, so Ms Mountford had a greater choice for her punch lines. However, theatregoers are probably sated, if not bored, with the almost industrial production line of jukebox musicals using highly contrived plots linking a selection of wholly disparate compositions by Queen or Abba or Chinn and Chapman or Madness or Rod Stewart or… So the sight and sound of beautifully nuanced and reverential interpretations of Burt Bacharach songs, cleverly interwoven musically and exquisitely performed, makes for an entertaining and moving evening.  So why does Fiona Mountford feel she can use such dismissive criticism, aided by a crude device from the bad old days of uncaringly-delivered judgmentalism?

Some have recognised that there’s now a clever way to easily go beyond whatever bounds currently constrain criticism and comment in the media. The strategy is to allow these more extreme areas of controversy to be explored by members of an erstwhile suppressed group striving for equality, whose views were traditionally ignored. These days no one wants to be seen as continuing the prejudice towards this group, therefore virtually anything and everything said or written by its members is defended to the hilt. In this case the group is, of course, women. However, to be fair, members of any previously ignored or persecuted group would probably be allowed the same benefits resulting from this form of positive discrimination.

Fiona Mountford’s strident critique may not be regarded as particularly significant in the overall scheme of things. However, Katie Hopkins, the ex-Apprentice contestant, has managed to make a much bigger impact and benefit more fully from the opportunities available to women operating within this niche environment. She’s made her name by taking a rather perverse view of particular events and attacking those who were previously thought off limits to the kind of scathing criticism meted out by Katie. So the overweight, refugees, breast-feeding mothers in public, ginger babies, working women and feminists have all received a proverbial kicking from Katie. Where Katie goes with such assured footsteps, men fear to tread. But whether she always believes her stated views is perhaps open to debate, considering the coincidence of her seemingly always taking a contrary and controversial view on whatever she comments. But does it even matter? It seems that just as Walter Kerr would likely sacrifice the odd theatrical production for an entertaining strapline, maybe Katie wouldn’t be over-encumbered by personal feelings if a more controversial and less-travelled viewpoint were available.

Superficially it would appear that Katie Hopkins has proven that women do not just have  an equal platform to men for the airing of views, but something rather superior. Does this mean that women are any nearer to achieving the genuine equality that feminists have been striving for?  Paradoxically the answer in all probability is no. In fact it may even represent a step backwards for real equality. After all, Katie Hopkins and indeed Fiona Mountford didn’t elevate themselves to their current positions of polemicists operating on the edge of accepted taste in the mainstream media. Someone had noted that as women they’re allowed to be more edgy and strident with their seemingly unfettered opinions than men. Giving such women full rein in a world of cluttered media outlets allows the organisations employing them to spice up their content and make it more appealing. It could be nothing more than a marketing exercise. That most of those interested in using women in this way are probably men suggests, ironically, a form of exploitation rather than equality.