April Editorial

Grant,Herewith, as directed by you and yes, twice, to your question.INTERNET IMAGESAll 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 CrewesIn 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.

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.

Alright, owning up time. I was one of the berks that thought reviews might be a useful thing to see on the web, so I'll attempt to put forward my case using Trevor's excellent response.> I found the recent editorial interesting. Reviews are an useful> thing. The editors concern seems to be about incompetent reviews.I would also imagine the editor is worried about thin-skinned offense being taken at less-than-flattering comments. I'll elaborate in a minute.>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.There is, is there not, a disclaimer on the main page stating something to the effect that "the views expressed herein do not necessarily...".>Ultimately, it depends on the quality of the criticism.Very good point. With reference to the Dramatick Theatre Review (which Trevor will mention in a second) that particular publication suffered from writers with a narrow field of expertise (one paragraph on plot and who's in the show, seven on costumes or sound), a lack of impartial criticism (club members blatantly plugging their own club's shows, or tearing other clubs' efforts to shreds, will never constitue decent critisism) and the tyranny of chronological distance. See below>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.I don't wish to denigrate the bold step "Dramtick" took; it was an excellent idea and I use to love reading it for the very same reasons I've outlined above. But that's my point. I wasn't reading it for the criticism, but the bitchiness. Which is why I would support the medium being utilised in this manner. It would also provide an opportunity for more than a select band of peers regarded as "knowledgeable", "experienced", or "expert in their field" to have thier opinions broadcast.We can handle the truth, but we need to hear it from more than a handful of people.Eliot McCann

EMAILNOTICES>no> I would also imagine the editor is worried about thin-skinned> offense being taken at less-than-flattering comments.Human vanity is a strange thing. We are so very critical of ourselves fora start. I don't know of too many people who are (for example) very happywith their own appearance, and even harder with their own stageperformances. They find it difficult to accept compliments and try totone them down.So many don't think highly of themselves yet when they are confrontedwith negative comments, they become so incredibly defensive. To me,this has never really made any sense, but that's just me. Yet this is theproblem isn't it. Nowadays you do have to be so careful about treadingon anothers toes.On the other hand, sometimes the comments are simply filled with nastyintent. It's really 6 of one, half-a dozen of the other. Their will always bepeople on either side of the fence - too soft or too harsh.I personally welcome the oppertunity to exchange opinions and reviews,but we always have to be careful. Maybe when reviewing, there shouldbe a disclaimer at the begining ;'The following review is in no way, shape or form a reflection on thepersonal character(s) of those involved. It is simply a personal opinionon a personal experience. No ill-intention is ment.'or some such.Whoops! Stream of conscious writing can get a bit long winded.I'll stop right here.Jeff Watkins (Bluebottle wanna be)"Hello evwybody! Pauses for audience applause, not a sausage."

> It's really 6 of one, half-a dozen of the other. Their> will always be> people on either side of the fence - too soft or too harsh.> I personally welcome the oppertunity to exchange opinions and> reviews,> but we always have to be careful.Well, bugger it, let's put it to the vote. That "Showline" poll has been up for ages now, so how about a proposition regarding this subject: to review, or not to review- that's the dilemma.

> Well, bugger it, let's put it to the vote. That "Showline"> poll has been up for ages now, so how about a proposition regarding> this subject: to review, or not to review- that's the dilemma.hehe the Showline has been up for ages while i try and figure out a bug in the polling system (isn't there always one somewhere?)so, in the hope that things are fixed...a new poll is up on this precise topicCheersGrant

Hi Trevor> I found the recent editorial interesting. Reviews are an useful> thing. The editors concern seems to be about incompetent reviews.And how should you judge?> The great, bad, dangerous thing about the internet is that it's> really not capable of control.i take it that was said with your tongue firmly planted in your cheek?The reason the internet is so wonderful is that there are no apparent controls. This is truly an egalitairian space where everyone has an equal voice.> 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.And it works!Look at the response to what some considered injudicious remarks about a show cancellation earlier this year. The internet is a live thing and it responds very quickly to perceived instances of abuse.> 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.Absolutely, and that quality will be tried and tested by the people who choose to visit the site, read and contribute. That doesn't happen with the same immediacy with a traditional review.There's a conceptual shift here. Publishing a review here on the website is, as i believe you are trying to point out, a very different thing to putting the same thing on to paper and distributing it in the Link magazine. Placing a review here is more like saying the same comments in a room at a party. Some people will agree or disagree. Others may dispute what you say, some will just simply leave the room. But if what you are saying is worth hearing, you will be heard. Discussion ensues, debate occurs. Word will spread and people will stop what they are doing in other rooms at the party and come to listen and participate.Publishing a review in the Link is like standing at a podium in a crowded hall and reading a lecture, no questions, no discussion, no debate. The audience can like it or leave. Of course, in the long term people may learn to stay away from your lectures or they may spread the word so that your audience grows.Thanks for your contributions on this issue, David and Trevor. I'll be coming back for more.CheersGrant

> Hi Trevor> And how should you judge?>> i take it that was said with your tongue firmly planted in your> cheek?> The reason the internet is so wonderful is that there are no> apparent controls. This is truly an egalitairian space where everyone> has an equal voice.> And it works!> Look at the response to what some considered injudicious remarks> about a show cancellation earlier this year. The internet is a live> thing and it responds very quickly to perceived instances of abuse.>> Absolutely, and that quality will be tried and tested by the> people who choose to visit the site, read and contribute. That doesn't> happen with the same immediacy with a traditional review.> There's a conceptual shift here. Publishing a review here on> the website is, as i believe you are trying to point out, a very different> thing to putting the same thing on to paper and distributing it in> the Link magazine. Placing a review here is more like saying the same> comments in a room at a party. Some people will agree or disagree.> Others may dispute what you say, some will just simply leave the room.> But if what you are saying is worth hearing, you will be heard. Discussion> ensues, debate occurs. Word will spread and people will stop what> they are doing in other rooms at the party and come to listen and> participate.> Publishing a review in the Link is like standing at a podium> in a crowded hall and reading a lecture, no questions, no discussion,> no debate. The audience can like it or leave. Of course, in the long> term people may learn to stay away from your lectures or they may> spread the word so that your audience grows.> Thanks for your contributions on this issue, David and Trevor.> I'll be coming back for more.> Cheers> GrantI have forgotten who said it, "all publicity is good publicity" probably P.J.Barnham.I have no idea how many subscribe to this site, but from the comments, I realise nearly all are from the City. I can see how the perception is that bad publicity reduces 'bums on seats'. However, it's my experience that poor crits and the like tend to increase the curiosity and punters numbers go up. There was a case many years ago in a certain Sunday rag, where the crit's banner head line was "sick - sick - SICK" and it apparently it was - a great success and packed house's - the crit was sacked and the injured party enjoyed counting the gate.This, as has been said, is possibly a better place of review, as it is instant and not just one way, as with local media and the like.Having been in the situations where I have had to review many C V's, no where in any of them is it mentioned that "I was in it" but it was "crap" "rubbish" or "completely hopeless" - so therefore we must assume (ass-u & me) it was great, as the chances of gaining the real story is impossible. These are another one way street!!!Sorry - off again! Back to my scrible.What I have seen to date, here and other places, does not warrant or need controls, censorship or a kill switch.Sorry I have not read the 'April Editorial' - so therefore should not comment!All I can say is unfortunetly, to date, I don't think anyone has placed or built any monuments or statues to any individual theatre critics - but I could be wrong.???Joe McCabe

Hi Joe> Sorry I have not read the 'April Editorial' - so therefore should> not comment!It's here for the reading. Check out "Internet Images" amongst the news or follow this link.CheersGrant

> Hi Joe> It's here for the reading. Check out "Internet Images"> amongst the news or follow this link.> Cheers> GrantTHANKSI often fall over the obvious - it's age and prat falls keep me fit?regardsJoe

> hehe the Showline has been up for ages while i try and figure> out a bug in the polling system (isn't there always one somewhere?)> so, in the hope that things are fixed...a new poll is up on this> precise topicYes, and methinks our erstwhile WebMaster is extracting the Michael somewhat.I await with boated brith the fervent demands for reviewers to be beaten to death with copies of Peter Pan (the libretto to the death-metal hip-hop musical extravaganza, of course.);
-0