A Time to Critique?
Thu, 24 Feb 2000, 04:12 pmLeah Maher10 posts in thread
A Time to Critique?
Thu, 24 Feb 2000, 04:12 pmYou know what I think is a real pity? Well I'll tell you;
I think the "reviews" section of this site could be the most important one of all, but it never seems to be used! As community organisations without huge budgets we rely on word of mouth to get people to our plays, surely we can do each other the service of letting the world know if we've seen something really good!
Of course we would need to have an honor system whereby we save the promotion of our own play for pages like this one (GO SEE THE LAST SUPPER AT BLAKYAK< DON RUSSELL CENTER< MURDOCH RD THORNLIE!!) Ahem, excuse me. But it's about time we started acknowledging each others acheivements.
If you loved it let us know. If you hated it, well bear in mind that creative people can often be incredibley thin skinned and choose your words carefully.
Viva la review!!
LEAH
I think the "reviews" section of this site could be the most important one of all, but it never seems to be used! As community organisations without huge budgets we rely on word of mouth to get people to our plays, surely we can do each other the service of letting the world know if we've seen something really good!
Of course we would need to have an honor system whereby we save the promotion of our own play for pages like this one (GO SEE THE LAST SUPPER AT BLAKYAK< DON RUSSELL CENTER< MURDOCH RD THORNLIE!!) Ahem, excuse me. But it's about time we started acknowledging each others acheivements.
If you loved it let us know. If you hated it, well bear in mind that creative people can often be incredibley thin skinned and choose your words carefully.
Viva la review!!
LEAH
RE: A Time to Critique?
Sun, 5 Mar 2000, 06:46 pmHi Philip
Philip wrote:
-------------------------------
> I must say I tend to dissagree with Leah's request for
> reviews. Theatre reviewers are conceited and
> arogant people who feel that their personal opinion is
> worthy of swaying other people's decisions in
> reguards to the "to see or not to see" question.
Are people that feel that their personal opinion is worthy of swaying other people's decisions in regard to the reviewer question necessarily conceited and arrogant? I doubt it. No more does publishing a personal opinion or review necessarily make someone conceited and arrogant.
I'll happily concede that I consider some reviewers not just conceited and arrogant but clueless and ignorant as well - i wonder if JH reads these messages? - but i'm not prepared to discard reviews entirely on the basis of a few poor reviewers.
> How dare someone, especially a total stranger,
> suggest that simply because they did not appreciate
> a production, I will not.
If informing people of whether or not a show is worth seeing were the entire business of reviewing then we could dispense with several pages of text and debate and substitute a system of star ratings.
Surely a review worth reading amounts to so much more than that? I thoroughly enjoyed reading the two responses to The Last Supper from Jason and Siobahn. Siobahn spoke from the heart about what spoke to her without blinding herself to some minor weaknesses in the production. Jason clearly spent a great deal of time organising his thoughts about the show and enthusiastically presenting some constructive ideas from a director's standpoint.
> Like or dislike of anything
> artistic is purely subjective and
Like and dislike might be purely subjective, but i think art has an intrinsic quality that goes beyond the subjective.
A quibble, but i think it's important to distinguish between the two. I can't argue with someone that just plain says "i did/didn't like it", but there is room to debate if someone says "it was good/bad theatre".
> everyoine should
> make up their own minds via first hand experience.
Hear, hear!
> Never a reviewer,
> Philip.
What a shame! You've apparently got some strong feelings on this subject that you have articulated very well. Why should you be prevented from similarly sharing your responses on shows you've seen?
There is a huge difference between printing a review in a newspaper or newsletter and sharing an opinion on these message boards. Other mediums are like soapboxes, only one one privileged person at a time can take the stand and say their piece. Their voice is always heard above everyone else's because of the power they wield.
On this website, where we all create the content, we share that soapbox equally. No one person's voice is louder than anyone else's.
If you post a review of a show here that someone disagrees with, they have same right of response that i have just exercised to your post.
Again, i do hope you will reconsider on the subject of posting reviews.
Cheers
Grant
Philip wrote:
-------------------------------
> I must say I tend to dissagree with Leah's request for
> reviews. Theatre reviewers are conceited and
> arogant people who feel that their personal opinion is
> worthy of swaying other people's decisions in
> reguards to the "to see or not to see" question.
Are people that feel that their personal opinion is worthy of swaying other people's decisions in regard to the reviewer question necessarily conceited and arrogant? I doubt it. No more does publishing a personal opinion or review necessarily make someone conceited and arrogant.
I'll happily concede that I consider some reviewers not just conceited and arrogant but clueless and ignorant as well - i wonder if JH reads these messages? - but i'm not prepared to discard reviews entirely on the basis of a few poor reviewers.
> How dare someone, especially a total stranger,
> suggest that simply because they did not appreciate
> a production, I will not.
If informing people of whether or not a show is worth seeing were the entire business of reviewing then we could dispense with several pages of text and debate and substitute a system of star ratings.
Surely a review worth reading amounts to so much more than that? I thoroughly enjoyed reading the two responses to The Last Supper from Jason and Siobahn. Siobahn spoke from the heart about what spoke to her without blinding herself to some minor weaknesses in the production. Jason clearly spent a great deal of time organising his thoughts about the show and enthusiastically presenting some constructive ideas from a director's standpoint.
> Like or dislike of anything
> artistic is purely subjective and
Like and dislike might be purely subjective, but i think art has an intrinsic quality that goes beyond the subjective.
A quibble, but i think it's important to distinguish between the two. I can't argue with someone that just plain says "i did/didn't like it", but there is room to debate if someone says "it was good/bad theatre".
> everyoine should
> make up their own minds via first hand experience.
Hear, hear!
> Never a reviewer,
> Philip.
What a shame! You've apparently got some strong feelings on this subject that you have articulated very well. Why should you be prevented from similarly sharing your responses on shows you've seen?
There is a huge difference between printing a review in a newspaper or newsletter and sharing an opinion on these message boards. Other mediums are like soapboxes, only one one privileged person at a time can take the stand and say their piece. Their voice is always heard above everyone else's because of the power they wield.
On this website, where we all create the content, we share that soapbox equally. No one person's voice is louder than anyone else's.
If you post a review of a show here that someone disagrees with, they have same right of response that i have just exercised to your post.
Again, i do hope you will reconsider on the subject of posting reviews.
Cheers
Grant