Got anything to say about the review or the production? Click the button above and let us know.

Let me begin by saying first and foremost that I did not see Global Soul, I’m out of the country, nor am I in Berlin, and I am a fan of TheatreWorks’ work under Ong Keng Sen. Black turtle necks in Singaporean heat are afterall most fetching…However, this does not change my opinion that this is a very badly written review.

One of the constant threads of discussion on this site is how to evaluate work by non-professional companies. The conclusion that seems to have been reached by the writers and the editors of the site is that a review is a review and nothing should really be treated as a charity case. If only the same standards could be applied to reviewers…

Let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start. Factual inaccuracies. As far as I am aware, “The Flying Circus Project” did not feature 3 Shakespearean tragedies, it featured a series of workshops and encounters between artists from different cultures. A number of works resulted from this project among them 3 works that were deconstructions of Shakespearean tragedies.

Secondly, the issue of The Global Soul’s coming together as a play. I’m unsure if it was a play. I do not remember reading any material that suggested as much. Maybe I am out of touch, but I’m just wondering.

Third, the programme notes to “Desdemona” were in fact detailed, indeed most thought it was ridiculously, overtly, and insultingly so. “this is an anamorphic image…” and “a big white ‘O’ …..” or something like that.

Fourth, again, I am unsure if the performance was ever touted as “Buddhist”. Blurbs that I have read all refer to “Buddha” as one of the ideas in the piece, but that does not make a piece “Buddhist” anymore than “Jesus Christ Superstar” a “Christian” musical, and Jesus appears a lot more in that one.

Moving along to the structure of the writing and argument. It serves absolutely no purpose and wins one even less credibility to start a review by name-calling. “brand of avant-gardism”, “intercultural hobby horse”, “hazy citation”, “distasteful experience of Desdemona”…

The use of superfluous language is itself problematic, to then run off and fuck it up is even more so. Being problematic, I might add is perfectly post-modern. To go into this point by point is difficult and tedious to say the least, try a dictionary, or maybe grammar check in any given word processor. Seriously though, I wonder about what is really being expressed in statements like the one about post-modernism discarding metanarratives and the like. So it does discard such concepts and this does make it difficult to understand, so what? Again, this is not in defence of a work I did not see, this is a question about the writing of the review. Speaking of work I did not see, how was the weather in Denmark?

This being said, does postmodernism not give rise to multiplicity and a discarding of binaries? What else happens in the play? How did they add or subtract from what you experienced? I’m wondering because the photos attached to the review suggest more things going on than was written about. Or could you only concentrate on the performances? What was the performance anyway? A whole? Fragments? What?

Perhaps the problem here really is a writer who is unsure of the processes by which the work he is reviewing came about. It might be said that neither does any other audience member so what difference should it make? It does when the process is referenced erroneously, and this reference is then used as some kind of basis by which the work is critiqued. Also, simpler English never hurt anyone.

Does anyone who actually saw the show have anything to say? I’m seriously wondering what the show was like.

Well, Eugene, you do have the right and ability to treat our reviews the same way we treat work by non-professional companies, as you have proved by the act of criticising us. The same standards do apply; we do not expect to be treated as charity cases. That is what these blue bits are for.

I did not see the production and find it strange that the title was not further interrogated by the reviewer. Globalbabble may be highly fashionable in a self-professed 'global city' that dances to whatever tune global capitalism is playing but surely it deserves to be unpacked?

From the review above and others elsewhere, I get the impression that performers trooped on stage and belted out their national/cultural speciality in isolation. Any attempt at interfacing or hybridity was duly served with the functionary duet. Pray tell, exactly how does a multicultural variety show reflect a sense of 'global-ness'? Did the different gigs and the tension between (if any) evoke cosmopolitan politics, the dialectics of relativism, 'collective consciousness'? Or was the title just another highly fashionable stab at a current fad?

If I have an accurate reading of the production through the reviews I've read then there was absolutely nothing 'global' about 'Global Soul'. Like many globalbabblists the word 'global' is often abused by TheatreWorks when a more apt term would be 'international'. For certainly, that the Korean and Chinese singers karaoked Korean and Chinese numbers only serves to reaffirm cultural and national categories, doing absolutely nothing to deterritorialise the divisions of space, culture, ethnicity or politics. So what was so global about that?

Maybe you guys wanna see my art piece? I am ordering dishes of fish and chips, char kuay tiao and spaghetti on my dinner table. I'm going to call it 'Global Existentialism: The Culinary Project'.

Dear Eugene

Many thanks for your comments. As Matthew has pointed out, we should certainly not be treated as charity cases. Let me address your overwhelming concerns of the production.

1. It is certainly true that "The Flying Circus" was concerned with process-theatre and had a series of workshops but it culminated in 3 major productions as I have pointed out. They were not '3 works' among many but were the premiere 3 that toured parts of the world, capturing the attention of international theatre audiences and critics. Failing to mention the other smaller collaborative workshops does not impact on my argument in any way. I have no allegiance to Theatreworks, and it would serve no purpose, to describe the project in full. I will agree it is 'insufficient' to describe the project fully but it is certainly not inaccurate. You might want to, in the future, bear in mind that not all reviewers are incompetent (or out of touch as you constantly gesture) with the theatrical scene, local and global, and especially Theatreworks.

2. You are uncertain if it was a play; so am I. The uncertainty belies the production itself but does not negate an audience's expectation of it as a play. We tread on the field of reception aesthetics here but I'm sure we both want to stay off that ground. Maybe you should keep wondering because for the simplest of reasons, among several others, Theatreworks' is known for its theatrical productions; the production was marketed as a play about contemporary travellers, cutting-edge as it may be.

3. Despite the programme notes of Desdemona being ridiculously and insultingly 'detailed,' as you've pointed out, don't you think it's odd that the performance insulted one further?

4. The review did not mention that the performance was "touted as 'Buddhist'". It did however try to stage Buddhistic philosophy as was mentioned in the review. You might want to have a view of the performance and a read of the programme before attempting to refute this point. A production that has been thoroughly promoted with an ethnically diverse character sitting on a lotus flower on the covers of publicity material and programme, as well as quotes such as "perhaps he (Buddha) was the first global soul" might just change your mind.

5. I fail to see how terms such as "brand of avant-gardism" or others that you have cited are considered 'name-calling'. If by that we term name-calling, I begin to wonder how reviewers should position their arguments with voice. I'm sure you're meta-critique is impartial and objective and does not resort to 'name-calling'. I do apologise however if my superfluous language aggravates readers, and that they find it 'problematic'. But as you've noted ... "so what?"

6. Incidentally, the weather in Denmark was fine, this from an extremely reliable first hand account. The performance of Search Hamlet was well received with intelligent use of light and shadow play on Kronberg castle. Is there anything else you would like to know of "Search Hamlet," which I wonder too if it was another performance you "did not see?"

7. The photos suggest more things going on than was written about - but the performance didn't. I hope you do realise that the reception of a performance is always already singular and individual. If you want a comprehensive account and explanation of the performance, why not write to Theatreworks? A review would be the wrong place to go then.

8. It seems that your 'understanding' of the play and its contextual placement as a 'postmodern' performance contradicts your very question of "Or could you only concentrate on the performances?" To answer, yes, that was all I could concentrate on. There is no whole. And I have accurately and sufficiently described the performances by the individual performers and the overall lack of coherence and unity.

9. With regards to the certainty of processes, would you, if you were not the director or performer, come to fully comprehend the processes? Is an audience's task to comprehend the performance's processes or does s/he construct sense from the 'product' that which remains what is played on stage? How so then is the process erroneous? For one who has not seen the play, erroneous seems to be a misnomer that can implicate oneself as well. The performance has been critiqued as a work of art received in that space and time, with all it's incomprehensibility and stylisation.

10. If you want to know the production, in the way that you wish to know, Theatreworks is certainly the best source to satisfy your curiosity.

Once again, thank you for your comments.

Hey Marcus,

First off, I did not really think I would respond to a response to my response, but apparently I have been misunderstood.

The point about the flying circus and the 3 shakespearean works. It was never my intention to suggest that 3 large touring shows did not come out of the project, although this point is in itself debatable for reasons such as the morphing of the FCP into “In-Transit”, what I do question is the idea that the project “featured” 3 shows. Yes the work was process driven, the 3 shows resulted from that process, seems like a minor point, but it isn’t because it suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of what the project was. Not “process-theatre”, or rehearsals, but rather, a research and development project.

So what was it? A play? Or was it not? Who ascribes that identity? I cannot start to talk about whether what was presented was a play or not. I never saw it. But it does not seem to me that “The Global Soul” was marketed as one. You are entirely correct in pointing out that TheatreWorks is known for it’s theatrical productions, but is a theatrical production a play? What then of SDT? Shits, they don’t speak…..

I didn’t leave feeling insulted. Perhaps you did. But you never said so in your review? You merely called the experience “distasteful” and linked this somehow to programme notes that you suggested lacked detail. Which is what I was responding to.

No the review does not mention that performance was touted as Buddhist. Indeed, I don’t think it the play was touted as Buddhist. Why then were you looking for anything remotely Buddhist in it? I never saw the show, nor did I see the programme notes, but I did read your review, and I have seen the website for the show and the “multi-cultural” Buddha character. Does thismake you expect a “Buddhist”show? Were you seeking enlightenment or atonement from your sins from Like a Prayer?

With regards to name-calling and the issue of voice, you’re doing really quite well in blue.

What is wrong with superfluous language? Accuracy, brevity and clarity are prized in writing for many reasons, mainly, that people know what it is you are trying to say. There is space for the vague, I agree entirely, some might argue that is exactly why work like Global Soul can exist or, dare I say it, is of any value. The problem with vague language is it gives one the sinking feeling that the writer is as clueless as the reader is left. This is merely a response to the question “so what?”.

So why is name-calling in a theatre review a bad thing? How about this, reviews need to be about the work, not the artist, which is why we call it a theatre review, not Miss Congeniality.

No it isn’t a performance I did not see, which is why I did not comment on it. Commentary based on hearsay though does not a review make either.

Again, it was not my point that a review needs to be comprehensive. If only one thing stood out in it, then by all means, write about it. The point that I got from your review was that no one thing really stood out in a clear way, rather it appears that what you got was a sense that there were a large number of disparate elements that happened to be shoved on the same stage. Perhaps so, in which case, photos suggest that there were many more elements at play. This is what I meant.

What were they performing on? What else happened on stage? Surely you are aware that if you are attempting to discuss a work in the context you have set up, then you are in fact reviewing the “event”.

With regards to insight about the process by which work is made, It is not the duty of any audience to figure this one out. The work is the work. Nor do I even start to suggest that either the process or the work was erroneous. No, what I did say though was that your review appears to discuss both the performance/work/show as well as the process through which this work was produced. I merely contend that your understanding of that process appears to be lacking in some respects, and perhaps then to frame your discussion of the work/event/performance as such might in fact be counter-productive.

Hey Eugene,

If you want to comment on someone's work, at least have the decency to not swear while you are at it bitching off. Are you deliberately attacking the reviewer or what??!!

Dear Eugene

Here's my response to your renewed response. While I agree that the focus of "The Flying Circus" project was its process as a research and development project, my point remains - what I had written was not a 'factual inaccuracy' though it does not entirely capture the framework of the project. However, ask anyone who follows Ong's work and what remains highlighted of the project were the performances of the 3 Shakespearean tragedies. It is not a 'factual inaccuracy'. About "The Global Soul" being a play: the simple mechanics of publicity and marketing: having placed the production under the theatre section of the Arts Festival promotional material is an indication of it's status (perhaps an attempt) as a play. Nevertheless, those familiar with Ong's work would know that this production would not be anything ordinary to have it called a 'play' by traditional standards. Nevertheless, the review merely raises this issue to make aware of how "The Global Soul," with its juxtaposing forms and elements, is in any way drama? Was it necessarily a negative comment? Can it not be perceived as a genuine inquiry into the 'nature' of the performance as drama, as play?

Admittedly, I left Desdemona feeling insulted and disappointed after what the production had promised, and with Lear being a refreshingly innovative and interesting experience. However, why should I say so in the review? Is the review about Desdemona? Why merely state the experience as "distasteful" - did you not mention something about concision and accuracy? That adjective was sufficient to describe how and what I wish to say of Desdemona in relation to this particular production.

Why was I looking for anything remotely Buddhist in the performance? Have a look at the full title of production: "The Global Soul: The Buddha Project." Any sensible spectator would wish to see how the performance enacts/presents a 'Buddha' project. Incidentally, your delineation of the term 'Buddhist' as "seeking enlightenment or atonement from your sins" is narrow and misconceived. The review was speaking of the production's lack of reference to anything Buddhist, as material - philosophy, or otherwise (as was also stated in the the earlier sentences) - not an experience of Buddhism. We speak of misunderstandings? There is an additional point: Let us use your example of Jesus Christ Superstar. An acute spectator, in the act of watching the production, would consciously or otherwise draw an intertextual reference to the life of Christ - there is no experience as blank slate. In the same way, any common spectator would like to see how 'Buddhistic elements' are featured in "The Global Soul" especially since "The dream of Buddha" was expansively printed in the programme.

Name-calling: Well, I certainly am accentuating it in my response to you which incidentally you seem to have achieved so well, explicit or otherwise in your initial comment. Furthermore, you seem to have missed that reflexive irony when I employed your use of "so what" in my response to yours.

The experience of reading is, in some respects, similar to the experience of watching a play. How 'superfluous' it is remains singularised in the reader/viewer's experience and his knowledge or the lack thereof. I most certainly agree that accuracy, brevity and clarity are prized in writing. I do not see how the review has failed to achieve that. It was clear in what it wished to say and if it's a lack of understanding of terminology, then perhaps the issue is no longer one of superfluity. Furthermore, your definition of 'name-calling' seems to encompass any negative adjectival description or reference. Let us examine my use of 'name-calling': How is "brand of avant-gardism" construed as 'name-calling' or negative? We speak of contextualisation. In your readiness to surmise that this review was completely 'against' the production or Ong, you've chosen to ascribe negativity to it. If anything, that phrase was an appraisal of Ong's work. He has a characteristic 'brand' and style that is, to add, undeniably difficult and often possbily incomprehensive. Name-calling? Furthermore, since when has 'hobbyhorse' been accredited with adverse associations? Contextualisation yet again ...

I fully agree that commentary based on 'hearsay' is not a review. Was there any detailed description of any production which I did not see that appeared in the review?

I also fully agree that reviews need to be about the work, not the artist. I am one, for anything, who firmly believes in that. Read the review again - have I insinuated Ong in any way or were the comments based on the production? Ong was made mentioned twice - on his collaboration with these international artists and his conceptualisation of the performance. In the same way, you should extend our shared dictum on your own initial critique/comments. Make comments worthy of an exchange with regards to the performance; you have instead chosen to attack the reviewer and his language and style and further suggested his lack of knowledge and understanding. The review makes no oppugnant comment of Ong's creative abilities or artistic ingenuities: it is about how these ideas are translated onto the stage, as a performance event, and how this event is further communicated (or not communicated) to the audience.

The photos may suggest 'more' than what I have written about but as you've mentioned, I was reviewing the 'event', not a representation of it. There was, as you've correctly quoted, no one thing that stood out in a clear way.

What were they performing on? Perhaps you might want to read the first two to three paragraphs again? The question "what else happened" on stage cannot be answered because that suggests a form of (narrative) progression of which the performance does not have. There were a series of repeated and dissconnected 'moments'.

The review gave credit where it was due and was critical where it should be. It concluded with questions, sincere ones, that I asked myself about such avant-garde, intercultural performances despite having knowledge of theatre and drama. If I had a full understanding of all processes at work, I would not be asking what I asked and I would certainly not be writing a review but publicity materials.

what was important was finding the balance. though there were differences between each performer, it was quite evident the whole concept of 'global soul' bolt down to 2 factions - east & west. the presentation was simple thus open to many interpretations. having the 1st front row seat, the show was truly an international act! a bold attempt by Ong Keng Sen which beared fruit!