Lockdown Arts Tally

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Singapore went into lockdown—or what the government calls a “Circuit Breaker” period—from 7 April 2020. On 3 June 2020, we went into the first phase of easing of the restrictions. However, it was so minor that it was no different from a lockdown. On 19 June, we transitioned to Phase Two which meant that most activities can resume with minor conditions attached to them.

As such, I thought it would be interesting just to do an arts tally to highlight how the arts played a part to get us through the lockdown. The tally details the arts that I have consumed from 7 April to 18 June 2020.

Theatre

One Man, Two Guvnors (2011) by National Theatre

An Enemy of the People <人民公敌> (2014) by Nine Years Theatre

Jane Eyre (2015) by National Theatre & Bristol Old Vic

Treasure Island (2015) by National Theatre

Emily of Emerald Hill (2019) by W!ld Rice

Rosnah (2016) by The Necessary Stage

Supervision (2019) by W!ld Rice

To Whom It May Concern (2011) by The Finger Players

Coronalogues: Silver Linings (2020) by Singapore Repertory Theatre

Harap (Hope) (2017) by Teater Ekamatra

Television

Titoudao (2020) by Oak3 Films & Goh Boon Teck

Books

The Field of Drama (2000) by Martin Esslin

How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching (2010) by Susan A. Ambrose, Michael W. Bridges, Michele DiPietro

Song of the Outcast: An Introduction to Flamenco (2003) by Robin Totton

Arts Reviewing: A Practical Guide (2017) by Andy Plaice

Films

Schindler’s List (1993) by Steven Spielberg


In total, I have watched ten screenings of past theatre productions, one television series, one film, and read four books. 

This is a rather modest tally, but it would not surprise me if over a thousand people had a significant part to play for these works to  come to fruition. It would have been a very different experience had these things and people not exist. 

They are there not merely as a means to kill boredom, but I have derived instruction, conversation, and provocation from these works. 

Flawed Review Yields Unexpected Insights

I am pleasantly surprised that my review of Peter Brook’s Battlefield, an adaptation of the Mahabharata, is cited in an essay contained in The Methuen Drama Handbook of Interculturalism and Performance (2020).

Initially, I was slightly confused as to why my review was cited, especially when I was a novice back then, and have provided links to reviews written by reviewers from mainstream publications. While I did not have access to the full essay, I was amused to find out that Dr Tan is a Singaporean theatre academic, and his concerns in the essay is about sound design. That is certainly not my forte and my review did not cover sound design at all.

Upon closer reading of the excerpt and my review, I realised that my review detailed four reactions by different audience members, and it served as an indication of the audience members’ reactions to the performance. Hence, it allowed Dr Tan to cite that as anecdotal evidence that the audience was “uninspired and bored”.

At the time of writing, I knew that the review would ruffle many feathers had it gained a wider readership. It was a special review to me because I uncharacteristically privileged reportage over anything else.

Personally, I am not in favour of providing too much reportage. It spoils the show for those who are about to watch it, and it takes the space away from wider analysis, which differentiates one critic from another. Reportage should be in the form of examples to substantiate a wider point.

In that review, I made such a deliberate but uncharacteristic choice in response to the widespread adoration of the show, which seemed to be earned due to Brook’s reputation rather than the direction or performance itself.

I wanted to show that the drama in the stalls is much more interesting that what was happening on stage. And I have used this technique several times since.

That said, if I were to receive that review now, I would still stand by the writer’s decision, but advise him to add a little more context and details of the show.

At that time, I was quite a stickler for keeping to the word count as I believed that most people would not read beyond 500 words. While I am still of that opinion to a large extent, a clear and exciting review would put the readers in a forgiving mood.