Theatre Australia

your portal for australian theatre

To Review, Or Not To Review

Tue, 5 Aug 2008, 06:00 pm
Greg Ross20 posts in thread

The comments on reviews have been interesting. I find myself in total agreement with Stinger, in that there is NO place for an anonymous review – if you can’t put your name to what you’ve written, it ain’t worth the screen it appears on.

I believe anonymous reviews should be banned from the Theatre Australia website – if it’s good enough for writers, directors and actors to put themselves out in the public arena for comment (good or bad), then the same MUST apply to any critics, or there is no credibility.

A point made a few days back, was the question of reviews being necessary. Absolutely, a critique of one’s work, whatever field of endeavour one pursues, can be a major and instructive force in the learning curve. Of course, it can also be destructive, if one has trouble accepting criticism (personal attacks are another thing altogether).

It is important for theatre companies and directors to consider the now substantial cost of a night out at any of our community theatres. Admittedly one doesn’t have to order a meal at a nearby café or pub, however many of us do and a number of community theatres recommend establishments, indeed often they have arrangements with the restaurants / hotels. Consequently, I am finding that a night out at community theatre costs around $115.00, made up as follows:

Tickets x 2: $40.00

Fuel: $5.00

Café meal x 2: $60.00

Drinks at theatre: $5.00

Raffle Tickets” $5.00

Total cost: $115.00

Once you start talking those sorts of figures, amateur theatre is in competition with all sorts of entertainment, it’s therefore vital for the long term survival of any theatre group to ensure they put on as good a production as possible.

All Good Things

Greg Ross

Pseudonyms..

Fri, 8 Aug 2008, 03:38 am
I agree with Jeff. An opinion is made worthy by the argument that supports it, and it makes absolutely no difference whether it is signed or anonymous. Actually, Daniel Kershaw's argument above makes a good case that you can probably trust anonymous postings more than you can ones that can be identified...if it means a person is more likely to give a truly honest opinion. I know of more than one person, whose opinions I respect, who occasionally posts here but for political reasons don't wish to put their names to their posts. It doesn't diminish the value of what they say, but it does save some real-life awkwardness. If they were forced to be named, either they would water down their comments, or more likely, their comments would cease in their present form. Which would be a shame, because they are never slanderous or unwarranted, simply honest. There's nothing necessarily 'more honest' or 'braver' about posting under your own name. It's simply convenient; and for those who enjoy the fame, notoriety, kudos or controversy, there may be a healthy dose of ego involved. And like Jeff said, registering a name to your post doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot either. You can be as creative as you like, as so many Waltese Plungers have demonstrated. Personally, I'm happy to be identified, as I'm willing to be held accountable for anything I've written here, right or wrong. I've spent most of my life creating this alias I go under, so I might as well be consistent. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Thread (20 posts)

← Back to Billboard Bulletins