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

Thread (20 posts)

Threaded Flat

Greg RossTue, 5 Aug 2008, 06:00 pm

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

All Good Things

Greg Ross

Daniel KershawTue, 5 Aug 2008, 08:23 pm

That Old Chestnut

As it has been stated numerous times before Greg, anonymous comments make up a large portion of this website's traffic. To ban people commenting on or posting reviews is somewhat against the spirit of the website as being a site of public access, free without restrictions, to all who wish to use it. I think you find that most theatre goers would not spend that much on a night out. I also think your figures are somewhat exaggerated and are irrelevant to the argument you are trying to construct. If your point is anonymously posted review should be banned, then why do you mention production values and entertainment costs? I suggest you reconsider what proposition before airing them in a public sphere. I have written several reviews under a pseudonym, not because I to avoid accountability, but because I feel people will judge the review on the content, not any preconceived notions they have about me. The times where I have not written a glowing review about a show, someone has complained that I have been unfair. This may discourage other people from posting reviews. So, if the only way they feel confident in posting a review is an anonymously, well then, so be it.

Don AllenWed, 6 Aug 2008, 08:39 am

DanielYou do not have

Daniel You do not have stats or reports to back up your comments, whereas Greg has provided data. I am concerned by people misinterpreting opinions as statements and using those misinterpretations to plan seasons and marketing on. I went to to see Wicked, tickets about $240, travel about $1200 and I am not the only person from Perth that has been to see Wicked. I agree with Greg's point that shows put on in the public arena, and he made no distinction between professional, (I have seen some low quality ones), and amateur, I have seen some very good ones, need to offer value for money. Most amateur theatre groups strive for excellence, and reviews, not slanging matches, are an important tool for improving their productions. With such a wide range of shows and the need to budget for attending them, reviews are usefull for informing prospective patrons what shows might be worthwhile seeing. I was influenced into seeing Into The Woods because of the positive comments. othertimes I will ignore the critics and still go and see a show because I know the critics don't always get it right. Theatre is a large patchwork of things such as marketing, front of house, parking, ticket prices, programmes which assist the actors in their craft.

Don CallisonWed, 6 Aug 2008, 08:49 am

Good Value

Greg, I enjoyed your review of The Venetian Twins and appreciate you taking the time to write it. howeverI do disagree with you about amateur theatre being expensive When so many people give so much of there time for no monetory reward to produce quality theatre for such a low admission,it is a little unfair to say it is expensive. What else theatregoers may choose to spend on the night is irrelevant But who can argue that two to three Hours entertainment with a cup of coffee and a couple of sherries thrown in for twenty dollars, fifteen concession, isnt good value.Plus the friendly service provided by volunteer front of house and the general ambience of these small theatres is generally superior to most commercial enteprises. I too thoroughly enjoyed The Venetian Twins,so much so that I am going again.I find that the admission and the price of a shared pizza at the pub is excellent value for a great night out.

LabrugWed, 6 Aug 2008, 08:53 am

My thoughts

Actually,I thought Stinger was more addressing Personal Attacks rather than Anonymous postings. I have absolutely no issue with the identity of a poster, if the posting is critically useful - ie constructive, functional, informative. Additionally, who is to say that a registered person on this site has registered honestly anyway? I could, if I felt so disposed, register several accounts under various pseudonyms and make my posting look legit in that regard. Doesn't stop the anonymity.

I measure postings (as already stated) by their individual merit. Postings which are simply slanderous, vulgar and insulting provide nothing useful, constructive nor informative other than to point out the ineptitude of the poster to adequately form a logical and sound argument. These posting deserve little of my time and none of my attention. Such comments I would tend to moderate down.

The sad fact is that in order to promote a free-posting forum such as this, permitting such posts is a reality. Treat it like the junk mail we all get from time to time, both on paper and electronically, scan through it then choose to ignore it if you find it unhelpful, or simply throw it all in the bin. Junk posts are sadly here to stay, I have chosen to work 'with' them rather than against them.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

Finding an Agent - ITA

LogosWed, 6 Aug 2008, 11:42 am

One of the issues is that a

One of the issues is that a large number of people respond to negative reviews, even well reasoned ones, as attacks on them personally. I think it may have affected the willingness of some people to post reviews at all leaving only the "Trolls" to launch personal attacks. Three recent cases come to mind, "Ghosts", "Errol Flynn" and the "Winter Warmers". In all three cases negative reviews were published. Mostly these reviews made some attempt at critical analysis and all were attacked by people involved with the productions. It would make you feel, "what's the point" and not bother again. I read pretty much all the reviews posted here even though I can never go to any of the productions. It helps me learn about plays that I may not have read or seen and it keeps me posted on theatre in a different state. I'm sorry that no one seems to review Adelaide Theatre here. OK I don't either, but I actually don't see much that I'm not involved in. edit: I have had it pointed out that I was wrong about the Errol Flynn thread and I would like to apologise. No member of the production attacked the reviewer. My memory was faulty. I still however suggest that the reviewer did make some attempt to make a supported critical analysis of the show. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Garry DWed, 6 Aug 2008, 12:25 pm

what about the other side of the coin

Anonymous personal attacks disguising themselves as reviews are terribly destructive. (However, note that the negative reviews for Errol Flynn and Winter Warmers were not anonymous...) I have just as much concern about the potential for highly positive anonymous reviews to be written by someone directly involved with the production (or a family member in the case of Jake's Women a couple of months ago). By way of comparison, one of the sad facts about bushfires is that many of them are lit by volunteer firefighters because they crave the adrenaline rush of being a public hero...in my experience theatre people feel a similar emotion when they're in a production, and I'm sure that many are tempted to 'light' their own reviews... I find it hard to take an anonymous posting seriously, regardless of what it says - they really diminish my enjoyment of this site. That's one of the reasons that I've made a conscious decision to put my name and face to all my postings. If I can't say something in public, it shouldn't be written on the net.

jeffhansenWed, 6 Aug 2008, 06:23 pm

Winter Warmers

I am the director of A Marriage Proposal, part of the Winter Warmers program at Melville Theatre. As I am involved, I won't comment on reviews, or the merits of the production. However.... to the best of my knowledge, no-one involded in the production has responded on the review thread. I may be mistaken here, and will stand corrected if I am wrong. It was suggested that one of the Walters was involved in the show, but this was someones assumption.

stingerWed, 6 Aug 2008, 11:45 pm

Alf and the leek gobbler

I have asked Tony and Gary privately to correct their assertions that: "all were attacked by people involved with the productions" and "the negative reviews for Errol Flynn and Winter Warmers were not anonymous" respectively. As they have chosen NOT to do so, let me state that those assertions are incorrect and their comments therefore sadly lack credit. Ssstinger>>>

Ian BlackThu, 7 Aug 2008, 12:34 am

As for Gary's quote "the

As for Gary's quote "the negative reviews for Errol Flynn and Winter Warmers were not anonymous" Peter, i think its clear that he meant the First original reviews were not anonymous. You could hardly call that "incorrect and their comments therefore sadly lack credit." As has been said before, a review is only one persons opinion of a show good bad or otherwise. I do agree with your point that Anons will, and have in these reviews, jumped on the band wagon without even seeing the show and inflame these review threads.

Walter PlingeThu, 7 Aug 2008, 12:51 am

Why?

Why is Gary referred to as a Leek Gobbler? Tony is obviously the Alf picture but I don't understand Gary's reference.

Walter PlingeThu, 7 Aug 2008, 12:57 am

Because regardless of what

Because regardless of what the guy is actually doing in the attached photo,it looks like he is gobbling a leek. Did you really require help with that one?

Walter PlingeThu, 7 Aug 2008, 01:00 am

Yes

Yes, I did because I thought he looked like he was playing a flute. That's not very nice.

Walter PlingeThu, 7 Aug 2008, 08:22 am

i think if gregg, stinger,

i think if gregg, stinger, jeff et al, spent less time on here and more time working creatively there wouldnt be an issue. give it up boys and allow people to air their opinion (anonomously or otherwise).

LogosThu, 7 Aug 2008, 08:49 am

Darn

I have to say that I read a couple of the posts on that line to mean that they were written by people either involved or attached to the show. If wrong I am sorry. I think I'll just shut up now and go away. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

LogosThu, 7 Aug 2008, 08:51 am

If you would like to reread

If you would like to reread my original post you will see that I have in fact added a retraction, I did not remove my original comment but retracted the staement and apologised. That was before you made this post. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Garry DThu, 7 Aug 2008, 09:22 am

i'm not happy

I had written and posted a response to this before I had a chance to calm down. I'm removing it because it would only add fuel to the fire. Let me just say that I've reported the offensive nature of the email Stinger sent to me to this website's administrator. I can assure Stinger that it did NOT have me laughing.

jeffhansenFri, 8 Aug 2008, 12:00 am

Don't do that

No Tony, hang around. It's more fun with you here.

crgwllmsFri, 8 Aug 2008, 03:15 am

Interpretaton

Don said Daniel does '..not have stats or reports to back up (his) comments, whereas Greg has provided data'. And he's concerned about misrepresentations..! How representative is Greg's 'data', and aren't you also concerned about people planning seasons and marketing on such a small sample of 'facts'? It would be folly to assume that the majority of your audience budgets for a night out the same way Greg does, regardless of how accurate his stats are. You may be able to afford plane tickets to an expensive show, in which case smaller budgetary outlays might not concern you...or on the other hand, you might have pinched every penny to make that one show, and so smaller budgeting is crucial. My point is that no one can say either way, from the evidence you've given. Your 'data', like Greg's, is essentially meaningless, except to be interpreted here and now in the context of what you're saying. It doesn't prove a point, it doesn't represent the situation, and so I take issue with you using it to refute what Daniel has argued. And then there's also the small detail that your post is a complete non-sequitur to Daniel's point, which was about the value of anonymously posting. You've picked up on his sentence referring to Greg's budgeting, but his point was that it was a red herring and not relevant to this argument. Your continuation of that line of thought therefore becomes increasingly irrelevant. And then I was simply confused by your statement that you were influenced to see a show because of positive comments, but othertimes ignore the critics because you know they're not always right... As these two points of view effectively cancel each other out, what exactly was your point?? Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

crgwllmsFri, 8 Aug 2008, 03:38 am

Pseudonyms..

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>-/====\---------

← Back to Billboard Bulletins