New Poll - To crit or not to crit
Mon, 21 July 2003, 03:37 pmcrgwllms18 posts in thread
New Poll - To crit or not to crit
Mon, 21 July 2003, 03:37 pmI don't know whether this suggestion was prompted by a recent production...?
"You see a show;you have friends in it. You think it was crap. Do you congratulate everyone and publish nothing? Yes/No. "
There are probably other options not catered for in this poll, but which may bear discussion here.
The Poll-tergeist
[%sig%]
"You see a show;you have friends in it. You think it was crap. Do you congratulate everyone and publish nothing? Yes/No. "
There are probably other options not catered for in this poll, but which may bear discussion here.
The Poll-tergeist
[%sig%]
Re: viewing those crit'ers
Tue, 22 July 2003, 06:53 pmI like the discussion you're having about 'critiquing'....just wanted to add that it's often different to 'reviewing'.
Newspaper editors want articles that fill their columns, and that entertain & inform the public. (roughly in that order?).
For this reason there is a big difference between what a good critic may write about a show and what a published reviewer may write. (The two may be one and the same; but he/she will be forced to 'wear different hats').
Think about the kind of feedback you might get from a drama teacher; the kind you might get from a professional director or casting agent; or even from an impartial (?) audience member...as opposed to the kind of feedback that someone writes for a readership that has nothing to do with the play apart from being a potential audience. There's no point in the reviewer giving the detailed critique that an actor probably wants and deserves to hear; the reader really just wants to hear if it is worth going to see. Good reviewers include an element of critique which the readers DO appreciate, but it's not the same as feedback given to the cast & crew. Also, published reviewers are probably a bit wary of the fact that their words are put down in posterity, so they probably tend to talk about 'safe' aspects...or prepare to endure the wrath of all who "know better".
In reality, if you talked to the authors of the reviews, they'd probably have a fair bit of criticism (some which you wish was printed, some which you're glad they didn't!) which just wasn't appropriate to print in a restricted word-count of a newspaper.
(That's not to say I don't think the standard of newspaper reviewing needs to generally lift its game; just that there are other agendas than giving a good critique).
And speaking of which...I'm behind on at least three shows, all concluded, which I fully intended to write about and haven't gotten around to it yet; reason being I would rather have put some thought behind it or write nothing at all...rather than be intimidated by a deadline to publish crap. (Guess I've just failed Journalism).
At least I'm still a few ahead of 'The Review Master'.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
Newspaper editors want articles that fill their columns, and that entertain & inform the public. (roughly in that order?).
For this reason there is a big difference between what a good critic may write about a show and what a published reviewer may write. (The two may be one and the same; but he/she will be forced to 'wear different hats').
Think about the kind of feedback you might get from a drama teacher; the kind you might get from a professional director or casting agent; or even from an impartial (?) audience member...as opposed to the kind of feedback that someone writes for a readership that has nothing to do with the play apart from being a potential audience. There's no point in the reviewer giving the detailed critique that an actor probably wants and deserves to hear; the reader really just wants to hear if it is worth going to see. Good reviewers include an element of critique which the readers DO appreciate, but it's not the same as feedback given to the cast & crew. Also, published reviewers are probably a bit wary of the fact that their words are put down in posterity, so they probably tend to talk about 'safe' aspects...or prepare to endure the wrath of all who "know better".
In reality, if you talked to the authors of the reviews, they'd probably have a fair bit of criticism (some which you wish was printed, some which you're glad they didn't!) which just wasn't appropriate to print in a restricted word-count of a newspaper.
(That's not to say I don't think the standard of newspaper reviewing needs to generally lift its game; just that there are other agendas than giving a good critique).
And speaking of which...I'm behind on at least three shows, all concluded, which I fully intended to write about and haven't gotten around to it yet; reason being I would rather have put some thought behind it or write nothing at all...rather than be intimidated by a deadline to publish crap. (Guess I've just failed Journalism).
At least I'm still a few ahead of 'The Review Master'.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···