custom; tradition; protocol

 

John F. Kennedy; Queen Elizabeth; Jacqueline Kennedy; Prince Philip

1961

        I read a review of Diana: The Musical, in The Guardian, written by Peter Bradshaw.

        It is one of those reviews that reminds us of the fact that complaining unrelentingly about a show and that it exists is not the same thing as reviewing a show.

The review employed the same tactic I observed once in a review of Bob Dylan's book, Chronicles:

Just stating that the book said this,

and the book said that.

Mr. Bradshaw's review included that same exercise --

lyrics of one song said this;

in another song the lyrics said that....

Simply repeating something from the work -- the play, or the book -- doesn't make a point, really, it just fills up some space.

Maybe that's what reviewers are doing, sometimes--just filling space.  (Like the Netflix problem -- take a minute's worth of action-situation-dialogue and wanting people to make an hour-long episode out of it.)

Editor:  "Here, review this show."

Writer:  "OK, they sang and danced and told a story.  

It is very bad.  

According to me.

The End."

_________________________

______________________________

Watching Diana: The Musical and The Crown --

Enlightening, because they tell some of the same stories, and each telling reveals things in a slightly different way, and puzzle pieces can sometimes be fitted together.  Impressions can be compared.

The Crown is so interesting, because you really get a granular sense of royalty and tradition and England's relationship to its own history, literature, and drama.  How tradition works -- 'we do things in the settled way, the way we've always done them, because that is the tradition, that is our custom.'

        'It is what protocol requires.'

And custom, tradition, and protocol steer everything, except for when they don't -- when "CHANGE" occurs.  When Prince Philip says, "Let's televise the Queen's Christmas speech," for example....

-30-