April Editorial

I found the recent editorial interesting. Reviews are an useful thing. The editors concern seems to be about incompetent reviews. Examples are given both referring to shows I have not seen. But, with respect, for the editor to illustate the point using criticism of one of his own clubs shows demonstrates the problem of independance which i'll mention below. My comment is that a club member extolling the virtues of his club's show ( and i'm not pointing the finger at David here) is no more useful than someone else complaining about maps.The great, bad, dangerous thing about the internet is that it's really not capable of control. ITA have created the website and Grant administers it but with something such as a gossip page people can be as naughty as they want. The only real "control" is the ability of ones peers to criticise the naughty people or expose their ideas to ridicule. The website is a far more appropriate place for reviews to appear but I agree that the ITA should not be seen to endorse any reviews. It's job, amongst others, is to get more people to see local shows. Criticism of a play i.e. "It's a Stinker!" straight after an opening night may stop people from going to see an otherwise worthy show - I suppose it also may save someone from wasting $10. Ultimately, it depends on the quality of the criticism.For my own part I believe that criticism is healthy and can actually improve the skills of a director, actor etc. I myself am disappointed that in the shows I have done not many people have come up to me with a criticism. I am determined that if I do another I will open up a discussion on the website inviting criticism. Many will remember the Dramatick Theatre Review which was useful as an aide de memoir only as the shows had well finished by the time the magazine came out. The immediacy of the net makes discussion relevant.After all that discussion about the positive benefit of criticism comes the reality check. The real problem with reviews posted in whatever form is that the local theatre scene is small and parochial. Negative comments are frequently whispered or communicated by knowing looks after the show. The club system is such that no criticism can be levelled at any particular club's production without being viewed as having an axe to grind. In many ways supporting your club is like barracking for a football team without the club colours. "You want the truth - You can't handle the truth"> Grant,> Herewith, as directed by you and yes, twice, to your question.>> INTERNET IMAGES> All manner of developments are taking place on the web site with> no apparent end to the flow of rich ideas. Clubs have been publishing> the results of auditions; theres been a number of surveys; all sorts> of administrative propositions have been discussed. Its all very> positive and stimulating.> Contributors are increasingly giving themselves descriptive middle> names, so heres old David worry-guts Crewes> In a recent E-mail Grant invited us to showcase past productions> on the website and linked to a spectacular example of one of his triumphs> Pitchfork Disney. The page is presented complete with flyer, logos,> photos, the lot. If budding archivists from all the clubs could follow> this example it would make a fascinating resource. Incidentally, Kimberley> Shaw mentioned at the last Committee meeting that she was willing> to enter information, provided by clubs. I think she was particularly> referring to print but the ITA office has a scanner so graphics and> photos are a possibility.> I can't avoid coming back to the problem of copyright and the> danger I mentioned last month of the easy capability of publishing> defamatory or unauthorized material world wide. Weve all seen examples> of posters and flyers where the design looks very similar to the one> used to advertise the film of the play say. I mean VERY similar. To> send out a hundred or so of them in the post to local residents is> probably a breach of copyright and the owner might, if he learnt of> it, consider legal action to safeguard his intellectual property.> Now, if some enthusiastic web archivist scanned the said poster onto> their showcase, it would be made available to millions of surfers> all over the world, and the owner of the original might have a very> different reaction. Just a note of caution.> One suggestion, from some web readers, was that reviews of productions> would be an interesting addition to the site and a few have appeared> already. I was reminded of my reaction, at the first ITA Committee> meeting I attended, to the suggestion that the link should carry reviews.> I said over my dead body, its not the function of the ITA to be> criticizing the clubs, were here to support them not make their life> harder. I guess the web is a different proposition but I still worry> about the potential adverse affect for negative criticism. One type> of review has been widely condemned by people who have talked to me.> Its what we might call the Lolita syndrome where the critic voices> a negative view without having seen the show. It goes something like> this: Someone told me the actors were inaudible. Not helpful! I> hope we can all try to be positive. For example instead of observing> that the map, which formed the backdrop for the recent, beautifully> staged production of Lawrence of Arabia, was inaccurate, one could> marvel at the genius of Lawrence for managing to get to Akaba at all> with such a cartographical inexactitude.