A Time to Critique?

You 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

Well Leah, Here goes.....probably in the wrong place but heck..SOMEONE SHOOT ME...*HEHEHE*
Went to 'The Last Supper' last night...and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Well done on your debut....and sorry to hear you were sick, your cast and crew did you proud (but you knew they would)
What are your plans for 2001??? directing again??
Again...Well Done....

Hi Terri,
I was hoping to meet you last night and talk web sites but I had to run out in a hurry :) Email me @
retro@iinet.net.au for any inquiries...
Cheers
Jeff Asselin
(Aka Zack from "The Last Supper", grrr)

Well, what the heck? Go to the Reviews section for my take on "The Last Supper". Saw it at the gala opening last night and had to write a review. Hope you're feeling better soon, Leah.

Glad you enjoyed the show Teri. Sorry I missed you. We'll catch up some other time.
~Tracey, Iowa City Campus Sheriff (and Yentl hunter).

I think that the main reason that the reviews section is not used, is because Perth Independent theatre is too incestuous.
People think that if, for example they say Kimberley's direction of a play is dreadful, then they might blow their chances of getting a role in my next show. Conversely they might be seen as "sucking up" if a review is glowing. Similarly how would it feel playing Juliet opposite a Romeo you have accused of being wooden in his leading role in West Side Story ?
I think I 'get away with it' doing Stage Whispers because it is vaguely removed and because people know I need to turn in a certain number of reviews each month. As far as I've noticed there are only two people not talking to me (there may be more I haven't noticed :) )
Anyway.....What about a GO SEE section with a set format where you give three good reasons to go see a show that you have enjoyed. The format would make it easier, because by its nature it is brief....the more people that post, the greater perspective you get.

OR.... what if we review each other's plays ANONYMOUSLY?
That way we can be perfectly honest (and by that I mean balanced in our comments, not bitchy). We can share CONSTRUCTIVE criticism with our peers. And who better to tell us truthfully how we're doing than our peers?
If the reviews are anonymous, nobody gets hurt or advantaged/disadvantaged in any way. Romeo need never know that his Juliet was the one who wrote that he was wooden (AND SUGGESTED HOW HE IMPROVE) in West Side Story.
In principle I believe reviews SHOULD BE constructive, that is what they are for. We're the ones that keep community theatre alive and if we all help each other to improve perhaps our companies will develop wider reputations and we'll all get bigger audiences!!

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. How dare someone, especially a total stranger, suggest that simply because they did not appreciate a production, I will not. Like or dislike of anything artistic is purely subjective and everyoine should make up their own minds via first hand experience.
Never a reviewer,
Philip.

Hi 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

Hear! Hear!
Use the reviews section as a forum for honest discussion. As you say, Grant, we are in the position to be able to do that. As I said in my reply to Jason's review, reviewer's need not claim to be all-knowing experts, they merely put forth an opinion. Surely we are all able to hold our own individual opinions regardless of what someone else thinks.