Reviews and Plugs

In light of the recent discussion about reviews, i thought some of you may be interested in a discussion taking place on the rec.arts.theatre.plays newsgroup. The following post is reproduced from that discussion and raises a few interesting issues. The post is reproduced without permission.Bedrock Productions wrote in message <01be876e$afedc460$499111c3@default>...Why do we>put up with incompetent reviewers? (There are next to no competent theatre>reviewers in Ireland, and I speak from nine years' bitter experience.)>What are they there for if they can't use their brains?Sorry to hear about the I. Times review - I'll be going to the show onMonday so I can't comment on it. I admire Koltes' work and was toying withthe idea of producing 'Black Battles with Dogs' recently. I was delightedwhen I heard you were doing 'Quay West' - finally someone else is producingsomething worth going to see in Dublin (there's been precious little worthseeing here in the past year).Reviewing in Ireland is left to a handful of people who regularly re-usewhole phrases and sentences from one review to another. It seems almostlike formulaic reviewing from time to time. We have had experience ofgetting a review where the language was so vague that only the reviewerhimself could adequately interpret the comments (what exactly is 'rather dryset design' or a play which 'is unsteady at high speeds'??).There is one reviewer whose judgement of productions were so bizarrelyincongruous with what was actually produced that I can only conclude she washit on the head by a small meteorite last October and is only now gainingback her senses.Most of our country's reviewers focus on retelling the plot of the play andthen trot out a handful of well worn phrases to label the acting, productionvalues and a catch-all concluding sentence which serves more to end thearticle than anything else. This I find is particularly the case with thenational papers.However, I have at times learned a lot from some reviews - particularlywhere the writer expands beyond the limited world of the production they sawand moves into a discussion of related implications for theatre. J. ClarkeI think provides the best insights in this regard, especially when he isimaginatively fired by a production.I have to say, I and most people I know don't really look at the I. Timesreviews. (And never at I. Independent). For a start, the amount of spacegiven to them is so marginal that it will tell you nothing except whether heliked it or not. As you say, you can get that from any audience member.What is the point of calling it a review? It would be more honest to callit what it is - a subjectively comiled guide to what's on. The only reviewswe bother about are ones which give a decent amount of space to the writerin order to let them develop their review into a piece of writing whichinforms us about and offers us insights to the production/play as a whole.In this respect, some of the best reviewing I saw recently came in trademagazines and journals.Anyway, I hope you get better press on Sunday. Look forward to seeing it.Cheers,Peter.