Re: views
Fri, 31 Aug 2001, 03:26 pmcrgwllms6 posts in thread
Re: views
Fri, 31 Aug 2001, 03:26 pmThere was a thread a short while ago about the merit of reviews, what degree of criticism is appropriate, and whether being reviewed brutally/honestly by your peers is desirable.
I have to say I found it most refreshing to discover this website an avenue to hear firsthand critique from "Josephine Public". The opportunity to learn what a stranger felt strongly enough to put into words, rather than the cautious compliments from friends at the bar after the show, is extremely valuable feedback.
The issue for me is not whether they are savagely scathing or sickeningly saccharine; whether they are writing to encourage, to sneer, to say "good effort", or "I would have done it like this", or "I've seen better"; or whether the writer is eloquent or even qualified to comment.
The important thing is that they EXPRESS their OPINION.
The reason I feel so strongly about this is that I have just read yet another Ron Banks review in The West (The Wolf At The Heart Of Innocence 31/8/01) that showed he was probably very good at English comprehension at school - he can analyse a plot, find metaphors in the content, draw parallels to current events, and quote from program notes - but in a 500 word review there is NOT ONE SINGLE VALUE JUDGEMENT OR OPINION! He doesn't say whether he liked it or hated it, whether it worked or not, whether you should see the show or save your money...he hasn't had the courage to express any opinion whatsoever about the acting, direction, lighting, production values or audience response, and there's nothing that he couldn't have figured out by just reading the script and looking at the press release photo. Why bother to even come to see the play? What's the point of writing such a review in the first place? Who cares? He obviously doesn't.
Whether I agree with them or not, I respect anyone who CARES enough to put forward their opinion, with the courage of their convictions.
Even a misguided review often has SOME fragment of merit. The only bad review is the one that expresses no opinion at all.
<8>-/====-----------
Craig
I have to say I found it most refreshing to discover this website an avenue to hear firsthand critique from "Josephine Public". The opportunity to learn what a stranger felt strongly enough to put into words, rather than the cautious compliments from friends at the bar after the show, is extremely valuable feedback.
The issue for me is not whether they are savagely scathing or sickeningly saccharine; whether they are writing to encourage, to sneer, to say "good effort", or "I would have done it like this", or "I've seen better"; or whether the writer is eloquent or even qualified to comment.
The important thing is that they EXPRESS their OPINION.
The reason I feel so strongly about this is that I have just read yet another Ron Banks review in The West (The Wolf At The Heart Of Innocence 31/8/01) that showed he was probably very good at English comprehension at school - he can analyse a plot, find metaphors in the content, draw parallels to current events, and quote from program notes - but in a 500 word review there is NOT ONE SINGLE VALUE JUDGEMENT OR OPINION! He doesn't say whether he liked it or hated it, whether it worked or not, whether you should see the show or save your money...he hasn't had the courage to express any opinion whatsoever about the acting, direction, lighting, production values or audience response, and there's nothing that he couldn't have figured out by just reading the script and looking at the press release photo. Why bother to even come to see the play? What's the point of writing such a review in the first place? Who cares? He obviously doesn't.
Whether I agree with them or not, I respect anyone who CARES enough to put forward their opinion, with the courage of their convictions.
Even a misguided review often has SOME fragment of merit. The only bad review is the one that expresses no opinion at all.
<8>-/====-----------
Craig
Re: views
Tue, 4 Sept 2001, 10:52 pmHi sorcha
> I agree that this site is great for those in the industry
mmmm... only those in the industry?
how difficult would it be to break the west's virtual monopoly on arts criticism if we spent a little time pointing people here to discover the theatrical arts in all their variety?
how much longer will the man on the street rely solely on the daily rag for a very singular opinion about a trifling sample of what is available when they can access a mulitplicity of views on a far wider range of productions for free?
> The 'man on the street' (who after all can afford theatre tickets
> far more easily than the rest of us) relies on people like Ron to
> tell them what is worthwhile.
i wonder how long it will be before the past tense applies?
does anyone else remember the days when the West didn't have a monopoly as the daily rag?
anyone else care to relate their experiences of other cities where a single paper doesn't dominate in quite the same way the West does in Perth?
whatever the current status quo, i can't think anyone would argue that it's healthy for our arts community to find criticism of its work dominated by a single voice.
It hasn't always been so and it won't be in future. I expect the views of Ron and Co at the West will become increasingly irrelevant as people discover other sources of better informed comment
> Perhaps the moral is not to take mainstream reviews as
> seriously as those published in places like this site?!
:-)
Perhaps this will increasingly be the case?
Cheers
Grant
> I agree that this site is great for those in the industry
mmmm... only those in the industry?
how difficult would it be to break the west's virtual monopoly on arts criticism if we spent a little time pointing people here to discover the theatrical arts in all their variety?
how much longer will the man on the street rely solely on the daily rag for a very singular opinion about a trifling sample of what is available when they can access a mulitplicity of views on a far wider range of productions for free?
> The 'man on the street' (who after all can afford theatre tickets
> far more easily than the rest of us) relies on people like Ron to
> tell them what is worthwhile.
i wonder how long it will be before the past tense applies?
does anyone else remember the days when the West didn't have a monopoly as the daily rag?
anyone else care to relate their experiences of other cities where a single paper doesn't dominate in quite the same way the West does in Perth?
whatever the current status quo, i can't think anyone would argue that it's healthy for our arts community to find criticism of its work dominated by a single voice.
It hasn't always been so and it won't be in future. I expect the views of Ron and Co at the West will become increasingly irrelevant as people discover other sources of better informed comment
> Perhaps the moral is not to take mainstream reviews as
> seriously as those published in places like this site?!
:-)
Perhaps this will increasingly be the case?
Cheers
Grant