LETTERS In praise of Tinker
Sir: Milton Shulman deserves congratula- tions for his sensitivity in allowing a full seven weeks to elapse after Jack Tinker's death before denigrating the reputation of the Daily Mail's theatre critic (Arts, 7 December). 1 doubt if his characterisation of Tinker as frivolous, empty-headed and attention-seeking, with a reputation found- ed upon the brightness of his personality will be recognised by people who knew the man or his reviews. The portrayal is a trav- esty, in the sense of a grotesque and distort- ed impression of the original.
Tinker's appealing personality was famil- iar to relatively few. His notices — pub- lished daily for a quarter of the century in the Daily Mail — were the single source of his popularity. They made theatre accessible and interesting to a mass readership. They were notable for astuteness, intelligence, clarity and — particularly — wit. And Tin- ker never lost his capacity to be surprised or delighted by the newest theatrical wave.
Mr Shulman bases his claim that Tinker was more a 'frustrated actor than committed critic' on the assertion that he wore flamboy- ant or lurid clothes on first nights to draw attention to himself, and relished the social occasion as much as the play. What piffle. Only luck-laden starlets achieve brief repu- tations by virtue of the sensational clothes they wear in public. Tinker sometimes dressed in high, bright fashion, no more than that. Just because he often talked on radio and television, or liked performing on stage to help Aids charities does not mean he secretly hankered to become another Ian McKellen or a born-again Maggie Smith.
Mr Shulman must have eyes wilfully closed to the main event if he believes Tin- ker lacked commitment to the theatre. He was a most dedicated reviewer, annually attending dozens of fringe plays which it was not strictly necessary for him to see. His attention was unflagging and he never dozed in the stalls.
Shulman's belittling critique of Tinker is apparently spurred by eagerness to make use of this recently dead reviewer's career as fresh evidence that no critic writing instant reviews for the next day's papers will be taken seriously by posterity. The task of making sense of obscure plays like Waiting for Godot or The Birthday Party in the few minutes available resulted in judgments that were non-committal or bizarre,' he claims. Is, then, my former colleague Milton Shul- man, who ceased to be theatre critic of the Evening Standard five years ago after writing reviews on the night for almost all his 38- year career as a theatre reviewer, implicitly repudiating his own notices of these plays by Beckett and Pinter? Is he saying that his reviews of much modern drama were wrong because they were written at speed and against the clock? I think we should be told.
Shulman wishes to change the future, with all critics attending a play's last preview, and all reviews published the day after the first night. Some hope. Theatre critics (even entirely retired ones like Mr Shulman) may propose but editors dispose. Nowadays most broadsheet newspapers only review major musicals and a few significant first nights the next morning, publishing other theatres' notices a further 24 hours later. It's some- times several days, or occasionally even a week, before a theatre review is published in the Guardian or the Independent. So it's surely doubtful whether the Daily Mail or the Evening Standard, now alone in habitual- ly publishing first-night reviews the next day, would surrender this advantage over the broadsheets. After all, some newspapers still believe there's commercial value in getting all the news (even theatre reviews) first. Jack Tinker was dramatic proof of what one rare theatre critic achieved by being perceptive, enthusiastic, funny and sharp on the night. It's a valuable legacy and it will take more than a little supercilious back-biting from Mr Shulman to damage it.
Nicholas de fongh
Evening Standard,
2 Deny Street, London W8
Previous page
