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
Fri, 7 Sept 2001, 07:21 pmHi Sorcha (sorry, I'm not sure who you are yet, but I'm new to this bulletin board) :-)
I do take your point - as I could not be impartial to the review in my example (being involved in the production in question). But I had hoped that that production would have stirred some feelings either way, and so to me the "safe" review seemed rather bored and non-commital, which doesn't spell bums on seats either.
When I consider book reviews or movie reviews (in which capacity I see myself more as a "man on the street") I am not necessarily convinced by a glowing or by a scathing report; but I AM more likely to test it by my patronage if I have been given an opinion to compare mine to. If the review doesn't generate enough interest to express an opinion, then it has probably already lost me, and I won't bother reading much more of the review, let alone checking out the film/book/play.
I find the tendancy to "review" shows by mainly talking about the plot quite disappointing and rather annoying, and I guess this was the point of my tirade against Ron. I've seen him do much better, whether his opinion agreed with mine or not. I understand he may have other agendas, as you pointed out, but it just emphasises the sad inadequacies of our monopolised print media in Perth.
And really, my point was to stress how important I found this website, both for feedback on my own performance, and for informing me as a potential audience member. So yes, wholeheartedly, I agree with your last statement - to not take mainstream published reviews so seriously and to take more notice of the considered opinions expressed here!
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/=======/-----------
I do take your point - as I could not be impartial to the review in my example (being involved in the production in question). But I had hoped that that production would have stirred some feelings either way, and so to me the "safe" review seemed rather bored and non-commital, which doesn't spell bums on seats either.
When I consider book reviews or movie reviews (in which capacity I see myself more as a "man on the street") I am not necessarily convinced by a glowing or by a scathing report; but I AM more likely to test it by my patronage if I have been given an opinion to compare mine to. If the review doesn't generate enough interest to express an opinion, then it has probably already lost me, and I won't bother reading much more of the review, let alone checking out the film/book/play.
I find the tendancy to "review" shows by mainly talking about the plot quite disappointing and rather annoying, and I guess this was the point of my tirade against Ron. I've seen him do much better, whether his opinion agreed with mine or not. I understand he may have other agendas, as you pointed out, but it just emphasises the sad inadequacies of our monopolised print media in Perth.
And really, my point was to stress how important I found this website, both for feedback on my own performance, and for informing me as a potential audience member. So yes, wholeheartedly, I agree with your last statement - to not take mainstream published reviews so seriously and to take more notice of the considered opinions expressed here!
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/=======/-----------