Don't Miss Ed - Opens Tonight

Hi George(apologies for the liberal snips!)> 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 can't fathom your point here. Are you suggesting that because all poor reviewing is not openly criticised, i shouldn't pick on this instance?--8<--snip--8<--> 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.erm... "this site harps on"?now where did Jamie put that anthropomorphic label?;)This is just as much your site as anyone else's, George. Some of us (speaking for myself, of course) just hang out here more than others and need to get a life ;)The implied slur against a production you appear not to have seen for yourself doesn't do you much credit. Why don't you check out for yourself whether or not the "heat" was justified and report back?--8<--snip--8<--> The bottom line is: a review is merely an opinion. That's all> it ever can be.bzzzzzzt! wrong!We all hold opinions. Some of us might even share them with others over coffee or on this website but most people's opinions don't get broadcast (to the exclusion of everyone else's) to a couple of hundred thousand readers of Saturday's West. It may still be an opinion, but the added weight of broadcast to such a large audience as a professional review, removes it entirely from the field of being "merely an opinion" and into the arena of "speaking with authority".With that air of authority comes the weight of responsibility. In this instance, a responsibility to accurately report the dramatic merit of the production involved. The review in question (have you read it?) provides a precis of the plot, a sketch of a character and some unsupported moral judgements on the subject matter of the play.Ironically, all of the adjectives and descriptive phrases that Cook chooses to describe the production apply equally well to his review. Lacking in "depth and theatrical maturity", "tiresome". A "bad-taste", "scatty" review that "lacks ... heart" and "is all a bit mean-spirited and pathetic".As for your suggestion that Banks et. al. be approached and upbraided for allowing such matter to reach print, i can't quite tell if you are being facetious?CheersGrant