Directors

It has been my misfortune to find a certain Director has branched out into writing criticism of her fellow actors in a certain newsletter to do witha certain group.Suffice it to say that if I read any more reviews by this person in thenewsletter I will get rather annoyed.I hear that she can actually act although what Anton would have thought I cant tell.Suffice it to say that this person may be able to act but she cannot directtoo over the top. Absolutely no sense of style.Publish and be damnedThe Phantom.

> It has been my misfortune to find a certain Director has branched> out into writing criticism of her fellow actors in a certain newsletter> to do with> a certain group.Cool.> Suffice it to say that if I read any more reviews by this person> in the> newsletter I will get rather annoyed.That's cool, too.> I hear that she can actually act although what Anton would have> thought I cant tell.Ouch...> Suffice it to say that this person may be able to act but she> cannot direct> too over the top. Absolutely no sense of style.> Publish and be damned> The Phantom.What I find about interesting about this is a) the director's gender is specified, and b) The Phantom is sufficiently vexed to scrawl its disagreement for the world to see.Publish and be damned perhaps, but if you want the whole Day Trip to Hades, go the whole hog- that's why this Gossip page exists, surely... :-oMr Walker. (think about it...)

A critical 'FalK' on the 'Lee' side can be 'Shepherd' into a 'Frew' publication - so why can't anyone who have an opinion and state it, even if they are a Director/Actor.I agree with you El...-sorry... Mr Walker.At least the Director in question obviusly had the guts to put their name on it. Unlike the "Ghost who squawks" aka the PHANTOM?I wonder if the posting would have arose if it was a complimentry kissy-kissy-darling shmooze????.......could it have been an honest crit - write on Phantom, show it to us!Joe 'skulling'McCabe> Cool.> That's cool, too.> Ouch...> What I find about interesting about this is a) the director's> gender is specified, and b) The Phantom is sufficiently vexed to scrawl> its disagreement for the world to see.> Publish and be damned perhaps, but if you want the whole Day> Trip to Hades, go the whole hog- that's why this Gossip page exists,> surely... :-o> Mr Walker. (think about it...)

> I agree with you El...-sorry... Mr Walker.Hey! Enough o' dat!! People will talk, and the wrong thinking element will post all manner of lies about me!:-)> I wonder if the posting would have arose if it was a complimentry> kissy-kissy-darling shmooze????.......could it have been an honest> crit - write on Phantom, show it to us!Yeah! Publish and be defended!El

EMAILNOTICES>noIt's just an opinion. Not everyone will agree with it. Nothing is gospel. An audience can walk away from a show and they can all have wildly differing views. Best thing to do with reviews is ignore them, good or bad.

It's getting very crowded on Eliot's side of the boat. I'm going to agree that constructive criticism should be encouraged and make the boat lean a little more in that direction.However, i can't help recollecting some comments a while ago from David Crewes (probably in an ITA editorial relating to reviews published on the website) suggesting that - and i hope i have this right - whilst he considered critical discussion a great idea, David felt that a newsletter was not necessarily the best forum.In the case outlined by the Phantom i have little sympathy for the complaint about someone daring to criticise their fellow actors. Particularly as the critic in question apparently had the courage to put their name to their comments, when the Phantom doesn't. But, i wonder if it was really in the club's best interests to publish the original critical comments?CheersGrant

> It's getting very crowded on Eliot's side of the boat.But, of course. My friends stand behind, on top of, and in front of me, and my foes wanna see me drown! :-)> In the case outlined by the Phantom i have little sympathy for> the complaint about someone daring to criticise their fellow actors.> Particularly as the critic in question apparently had the courage> to put their name to their comments, when the Phantom doesn't. But,> i wonder if it was really in the club's best interests to publish> the original critical comments?Therein lies a dilemma. On the tiny scale at which I have been occasionally asked to review a club's productions for their newsletter, I have practiced the Manly Art of Self-Censorship a) to get the damn thing in print, and b) to fall into an unspoken editorial policy of showing the club in good light.As anyone in this game of Community Theatre knows, it's hard enough for clubs to get patronage without some hellfire meat-sickened Dorothy-Parker-esque death-gimp with a computer writing reviews (however honest) slamming the group in their own newsletter. This is not so much criticism as reportage, as you're forced (by yourself usually) in to saying how wonderful the production was, regardless of the reviewer's own feelings.So is it ever in a group's interest to publish reviews in their own newsletters. Remember "DRAMATIK" magazine? Blood was shed over certain scribblings in that little organ, my friends... Learn ye your lessons well.El

Where is the True Phantom, I expected to see him/her charging 5th on Hero with the Devil in tow!Come out of the cave and en lighten us, you don't have to set a light to your self, just gives us the facts and nothing but ....Hey, stay behind your mask - in some regards it might be wiser.Give us the Brass ring then, even that will do, keep the silver for best.Joe "still at the transum - skulling" McCabe

EMAILNOTICES>no> Where is the True Phantom, I expected to see him/her charging> 5th on Hero with the Devil in tow!Phantom's absence is very like the intrusion of a previous poster who went by the Names Joe Isaia and Walter, who dropped in, advertised some auditions, insulted a majority of the other users with some quite nasty comments and had an E-mail link that went no-where so you couldn't reply to him at all.Could this person have realised that you don't have to post an E-mail address at all? Could the Phantom have already visited our humble abode as someone else?What are you saying Jeff, of course he has visited our site before, he's just not brave enough to reveal himself.I never trust someone in a mask.Jeff.