Critical Analysis of A View from the Bridge Design Note

In this essay I will analyse A View from the Bridge Design Note (Rowe 2019), which is a critical analysis of a work of theatrical lighting design by Michael Rowe for a production of A View From the Bridge (Miller 2019). Rowe reflects on his work, highlighting its successful attributes and its shortcomings. I will focus on the use of audience in the piece and demonstrate that the writing suffers from lack of a clear sense of who it is written for. To consider audience is to have a clear conception of who the reader is, and the expectations they might have of the piece of writing (Roemhild 2020). Rowe’s article talks about design ideas and concepts in a way that might be interesting to directors and viewers of the play, then dives immediately into technical details about how the lighting was achieved—something that is only of interest to other lighting designers. There is no definition of the terms used nor an attempt to explain how they have been employed to greater or lesser effect in the final lighting design.

Zinsser (2001, p. 26) talks about the importance of simultaneously holding your intended audience in mind and ignoring them completely. By the latter, he is warning against the tendency for a writer to lose their own voice in an attempt to please everybody. But in this piece Rowe fails to achieve the basic goal of holding our attention (Zinsser 2001, p. 9). There are too many technical terms left unexplained, leaving the non-expert reader wondering why he is claiming such great success with “Lee 201 (daylight CC)” and “Ovation E-910 LED profiles” (Rowe 2019). What is daylight CC and how does it combine with yellow to create “a feeling of a small, cosy apartment” (Rowe 2019)? In another section, we are left to ponder how ColorBand HEX9 LED strips are used to create certain visual effects. By leaving out an explanation of those terms, and how they contributed to the successful realisation of his design idea, Rowe abandons his reader and leaves them casting about for some meaning to attach to the claim.

In fact it is difficult to know what Rowe expects us to learn from the piece. It was perhaps clear to him what he means by the use of “two banks of [..] LED strips to produce a wide variety of images” (Rowe 2019), but an understanding of who he is writing for—a curious lay person, or prospective clients—would allow him to decide what needs explaining and what does not. By “writing out loud”, as though “saying something to someone” (Tredinnick 2006, pp. 22, 29), Rowe would be able to give his audience enough context to understand his message. This doesn’t need to be brutally explicit—there is no need, for example, to explain the technical details of Lee colour correction filters. By including some clues for the reader, but leaving out things he knows as Hemmingway urged, he would be left with “a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them.” (McPhee 2017, p. 182). Lacking any thought of his audience at all, though, there is no cohesive feeling left. Rowe’s knowledge of the practical aspects of lighting design never manages to shine through in the high level conceptual descriptions, while the raw technical details just appear to be written for other designers—or perhaps for Rowe himself.

The piece reads very much like a personal reflection, closing with the statement “I actually realised what a [sic] should have done [..] watching the show on opening night” (Rowe 2019). If we assume that Rowe is talking to himself, it is harder to criticise the use of audience—of course he understands the technical terms, and what he means by their relationship to the design. But this is unsatisfying for a piece of writing published on the Internet. If Rowe’s primary audience was directors and producers—after all, the piece appears on a portfolio website and is clearly intended to promote his work—then in many ways it is successful. It talks about the intent of the play, and demonstrates an understanding of the themes of Miller’s original work. Overstatement and over explaining does nothing to enhance the clarity of the writing and can lead to the reader questioning the author’s judgement (Strunk 2000, p. 73). If “eighty per cent of what we’re looking for from a piece of writing is the same” (Tredinnick 2006, p. 207) no matter who the audience is, Rowe is right not to invest too much effort in tailoring his message to every conceivable reader.

There are many reasons people write, and many possible ways to approach the question of audience. Rowe could be writing to demonstrate his grasp of theatrical lighting design, and make a case for future design work. Or perhaps he is trying to share his knowledge with other designers and honestly lay before us what he has learnt. No matter the motivations and goals, writing is ultimately an act of communication. To be effective, a writer must have a clear conception of who they are communicating with. Rowe’s article has the basis of a very good reflection on his work, but his lack of a sense of audience lets him down. As readers, no matter who we might be, we are left with the feeling that he is talking to someone else.

References

Miller, A 2019, A View from the Bridge, Chris McLean. dir. Heidelberg Theatre: Heidelberg Theatre Company, Rosanna, VIC. First performance: 3 May 2019.

McPhee, J 2017, Draft No. 4: On the Writing Process, Text Publishing.

Roemhild, J 2020, ‘Week: 5. Topic: Essay Writing’, powerpoint slides, CRA1PWR, La Trobe University, viewed 22 August 2020.

Rowe, M 2019, A View from the Bridge Design Note, Michael Rowe - Lighting Design, <https://rowe.lighting/design-notes/a-view-from-the-bridge/>, viewed 12 September 2020.

Strunk, W 2000, The elements of style, 4th edn, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

Tredinnick, M 2006, The little red writing book, UNSW Press, Sydney, NSW.

Zinsser, W 2001, On writing well: the classic guide to writing nonfiction, 6th edn, A HarperResource book, Quill, New York.