Don't Miss Ed - Opens Tonight

> Reviews by their very nature will always be subjective. If Cooke> had drooled about the play and how absolutely fabulous it was without> going into the details you mentioned, I'm sure no one would have batted> an eyelid.I was not suggesting a drool-fest any more than overt, relentless negativity. Of course reviews are going to be opinionative. However, that is no excuse for a shallow & poorly structured piece of journalism, even though many a 'Joe Public' might be satisfied with such mediocrity. Read an informed theatre review in an international newspaper, or even some newspapers in the Eastern States and compare the depth and clarity. Of course, this is only my opinion...> Any paying customer will only see the production once and the> majority of Joe Public wants to be entertained - that's the bottom> line - they're not really interested in references to theatrical technique> or design and whether it's worth shelling out their cash.Are you implying that a review should entertain, rather than inform 'Joe Public' about a production? I think you underestimate the theatre going public. I think that they ARE interested in the process of theatre, given the opportunity. Why do we have to assume that theatre-goers are shallow and stupid? It doesn't have to be a highly complex diatribe of theatre jargon, just intelligent, informed commentary.Also consider> the reviewer is probably told you have X amount of space to write> the review in. Hard to get a good balance if there's only 10 paragraphs> available. Then consider a sub-editor may chop it, take out the balancing> argument or even change words along the way.> (And it would the sub-editor, not the reviewer, who got the caption> on the pic wrong. And it should been picked up by either the check> sub-editor or someone reading the page proofs.)I did take into consideration the erratic nature of the editing process of the newspaper. However, I believe a good reviewer can still write a decent review (that is not overtly subjective & negative) to a word count. I think it's a question of intent and technique.> And why *not* mention the fact the acoustics were terrible? If> it's a fact, why should the general public not be made aware of it?I agree, if the acoustics in a venue are unsatisfactory then the public should be informed, but I am not convinced that a theatrical review (that has already savaged the show) is the most appropriate place for it - especially as it formed the final parting comment in this case. I reiterate that it was "mean-spirited".>> This site constantly harps on about community theatre getting> a break but when finally it gets a chance to go up there and play> with the big boys, it seems no one here can take the heat. Does "playing with the big boys" and "take the heat" refer to the kind of environment into which you think community theatre enters once it becomes funded, performance work? To which "big boys" are you referring? I believe that, if you review the efforts of community theatre practitioners to develop and produce their work for the theatre maintsream (or for "the heat", as you call it)here in Perth that most are more than capable of being successful and taking "the heat". In fact most of them are keeping the Perth theatre scene alive...Sometimes they are even supported by well-informed, well-structured newspaper reviews and other associated media...> [And how do you necessarily know you'll get the same the reviewer> for your production? If everyone is so beefed, why not call Cooke> or the editor of the section Ron Banks? Why not write a letter? Banks> often allows for a right of reply what some people consider a bad> review]I don't. I was being facetious...And I think that there is a big difference between a 'critical' review and a 'bad' review. A critical review "judges the qualities or merits" with appropriate language and terminology. A 'bad' review suggests unecessary severity for its own sake with little substantiating, supporting detail.> The bottom line is: a review is merely an opinion. That's all> it ever can be. You can have 20 people see the same show and all walk> away with different views. So the best thing to do is ignore reviews> and wait for word of mouth. If I keep hearing something's good from> several people, then I'll know it might be worth a look.Let's just hope that the people you talk to don't read too many 'bad' reviews...And I would strongly advise that you do read some 'critical'reviews, but try and find publications that know how to write them.>