Millett Gets Last Word on 'Filch'

With Perth Fringe 2003 in full swing, it is now almost a year since the debate over 'Filch' - it won a major Fringe award last year, and everyone seemed to love it. Except Naomi Millett who wrote a scathing review of it in the West. Fringe participants gleefully burned this review in a public execution at the final party last year, and thought that was the end of it.

Not so.

Last night I received my February/March edition of Dance Australia, Australia's biggest, glossiest and most widely read national dance publication, which contained the annual Critic's Choice Survey, where all dance critics from around Australia submit their comments on the best and worst in dance for the past year.

This was Naomi Millett's entry under 'Most Maddening Event':
'Filch - fringe dance by Angus Cerini: unfocused calisthenics-based, expletive-ridden dance/theatre 'experiement' aiming (but failing) to highlight the struggles of the weak and preyed upon in society.'

This in a year when overriding (and I believe far more 'maddening') dance news included Ross Stretton's sacking from the Royal Ballet, and the Australian Ballet dragging out their tired and dated production of Spartacus in their anniversary year.

Who do we congratulate? Angus for clearly having such an overwhelming affect on one reviewer, or Naomi for her unaddressed, deep seated bitterness?

[%sig%]

I agree, I find the still-smouldering scathefulness rather surprising. In a whole year, that was the MOST maddening? She's a reviewer; doesn't she get out?


HOWEVER... I seem to recall that the controversial review, paired with the opposing word of mouth I'd heard from respected peers, made sure that I saw the production to decide for myself. (A "prove me wrong" reviewer's challenge).

I can think of at least two examples of controversial opinions published on this site that turned into heated debates and probably helped generate bums on seats.


I'm almost wishing that the production I'm in at the moment had been reviewed more radically, to generate some fiery controversy. Pier Leach's review in the West was pleasant, predictable and pedestrian. (75% just retelling the story). Despite some rather surprising detail errors, it's a "good" review. She says our show was done well and was entertaining.

But it's nowhere near as interesting or opinionated a review as Millet's, so I feel like we've missed out on a good opportunity to stir up some interest.


I was much happier with your review here of 'The Stones', Amanda, which didn't need to go into much depth but you had something quite concrete that you liked, and didn't like, and why. We've had a healthy discussion since that put some things in perspective, and I found that all much more interesting than getting a 'safe' review.



I know I'm argumentative; sometimes maddeningly so. I certainly spoke out with strong opinions about the Millet review last year. But although I often disagree or dispute, I always prefer to see a strong OPINION.
I can appreciate that aspect in Millet's review, and realising how rare it is to see that revealed in the Print media, I definitely congratulate Angus on causing such affect as an effect.


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Any news on what happened to Angus this year?

i thought as part of winning he got main festival slot?

[%sig%]