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
crgwllmsFri, 31 Aug 2001, 03:26 pm
There 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
melanieFri, 31 Aug 2001, 08:07 pm
Re: views
Oh - to be a critic of a critic!! Sentiments exactly! When it boils down to it - "all publicity is good publicity!"
Walter PlingeTue, 4 Sept 2001, 06:37 pm
Re: views
Hi Crg ( we know who you are)
I agree that this site is great for those in the industry, but to give Ron his due: A reviewer in the only daily paper in a fairly small town has a lot of power to influence the masses. By this I mean those who don't often have opinions of their own & believe that reviewers must be good/ right cos they are published... Those in theatre will go to a small 'independent' production despite (and often in spite of) a mainstream review... because they know someone in it (or the entire cast, this being Perth) or they think they can learn from seeing the show. 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. If they see a bad review the slim chance that they would have bought tickets becomes no chance at all.
When Ron does like something he is effusive, and has done amazing things to ticket sales... My guess is that Wolf Lullaby didn't work for him but he didn't want to harm the season - the house was hardly full the night he came, after all. While as a performer this ambivalence is frustrating, but from a management/ pr/ marketing point of view he did you a favour.
Just a thought. Perhaps the moral is not to take mainstream reviews as seriously as those published in places like this site?!
I agree that this site is great for those in the industry, but to give Ron his due: A reviewer in the only daily paper in a fairly small town has a lot of power to influence the masses. By this I mean those who don't often have opinions of their own & believe that reviewers must be good/ right cos they are published... Those in theatre will go to a small 'independent' production despite (and often in spite of) a mainstream review... because they know someone in it (or the entire cast, this being Perth) or they think they can learn from seeing the show. 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. If they see a bad review the slim chance that they would have bought tickets becomes no chance at all.
When Ron does like something he is effusive, and has done amazing things to ticket sales... My guess is that Wolf Lullaby didn't work for him but he didn't want to harm the season - the house was hardly full the night he came, after all. While as a performer this ambivalence is frustrating, but from a management/ pr/ marketing point of view he did you a favour.
Just a thought. Perhaps the moral is not to take mainstream reviews as seriously as those published in places like this site?!
Grant MalcolmTue, 4 Sept 2001, 10:52 pm
Re: views
Hi 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
Walter PlingeWed, 5 Sept 2001, 07:27 pm
Re: views
;)
Hi Grant - yes, I agree. The role Ron plays isn't ideal... and even when we had more dailies you didn't read them for the arts reviews! I have lived o'er east where the reviews/ papers were many, but the mainstream rags still guided the masses... Still, it was easier to get a few opinions before making a ticket-buying decision.
Yes, I think we should get this site some more publicity. Even lots of people allegedly in/ studying the industry don't know about it. Perhaps every production that uses this site to publicise details could credit it in programmes? Just a line saying 'for future productions check www.theatre.asn.au' could make the world of difference...
I guess all I really just wanted to point out to Crg was that Ron doesn't abuse this position, and that his criticised critique could be seen from another angle. It's easy to slam the powerful mainstream reviewer - how much less respect would we have for him if he blithely praised all and sundry? And if the poor man had savaged Wolf Lullaby wouldn't we have all been out for blood (non intentional pseudo pun there) and blamed him exclusively for poor ticket sales?
Hmmm of course what we need is an arts friendly billionaire to set up a rival newspaper or three... any ideas? Bags being arts editor:)
Sorcha
Hi Grant - yes, I agree. The role Ron plays isn't ideal... and even when we had more dailies you didn't read them for the arts reviews! I have lived o'er east where the reviews/ papers were many, but the mainstream rags still guided the masses... Still, it was easier to get a few opinions before making a ticket-buying decision.
Yes, I think we should get this site some more publicity. Even lots of people allegedly in/ studying the industry don't know about it. Perhaps every production that uses this site to publicise details could credit it in programmes? Just a line saying 'for future productions check www.theatre.asn.au' could make the world of difference...
I guess all I really just wanted to point out to Crg was that Ron doesn't abuse this position, and that his criticised critique could be seen from another angle. It's easy to slam the powerful mainstream reviewer - how much less respect would we have for him if he blithely praised all and sundry? And if the poor man had savaged Wolf Lullaby wouldn't we have all been out for blood (non intentional pseudo pun there) and blamed him exclusively for poor ticket sales?
Hmmm of course what we need is an arts friendly billionaire to set up a rival newspaper or three... any ideas? Bags being arts editor:)
Sorcha
crgwllmsFri, 7 Sept 2001, 07:21 pm
Re: views
Hi 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>-/=======/-----------