Butterflies Are Free
Mon, 19 June 2000, 10:12 amWalter Plinge21 posts in thread
Butterflies Are Free
Mon, 19 June 2000, 10:12 amOK, no-ones been doing any reviewing lately, which is a bit frustrating/disappointing, so I'm going to jump right in and give the usual 2 cents worth!
"Butterflies are free" is, thankfully, a short play, focusing on a day in the life of blind teenager (we assume, his age is never given) Donny. The play opens quite slowly, and the first 15-20 minutes left me wondering if it was worth staying for the rest. The pace drags becuase we have to "learn" the Don is blind by watching him navigate his apartment a couple of times, which I felt was a bit unnecessary. Playing a blind role is obviously a challenge for a "seeing" actor, but I think Tom Milton pulled it off with a reasonable amount of conviction and believablilty - with a requisite amount of overplaying the disability to highlight it for the audience (and a lot of fortuitious props placing). The play starts to falter, however, on the entrance of "Mrs Benson", Colette Winchester's character - a been-there-done-that free love girl. Her accent unfortunately has serious problems, being only occasionly recognisable as American and often slipping into rather "occer" (spelling?) Australian which jars completely. Indeed, Colette seems miscast in the role, failing to relate any kind of "free spirit" the character calls for- A disappointing performace. The final two characters, Don's Mother and supposed "Rival" (an off-broadway director) played thier thin characters well. Don's mother brought a touching third dimension to the traditional domineering mother figure, precipiating a pleasingly emotional scene towards the end of the play, while Shenandoah's character ("Ralph" I think it was) was merely a plot device and thus difficult to portray with any real depth. His off-hand manner worked well though, although again, the accent could do with some work. Set was detailed and appropriate with un-obtrusive lighting. Overall, "Butterflies" is a mediocre play, done to the best of the cast's abilities. A trite, sentimental comedy which belongs in the period it is set.
anyway - don't take offense anyone - I just want to get other people reviewing things and hearing the "truth" about their performances - not just what their friends and family compliment them with!
Bye =D
SS
"Butterflies are free" is, thankfully, a short play, focusing on a day in the life of blind teenager (we assume, his age is never given) Donny. The play opens quite slowly, and the first 15-20 minutes left me wondering if it was worth staying for the rest. The pace drags becuase we have to "learn" the Don is blind by watching him navigate his apartment a couple of times, which I felt was a bit unnecessary. Playing a blind role is obviously a challenge for a "seeing" actor, but I think Tom Milton pulled it off with a reasonable amount of conviction and believablilty - with a requisite amount of overplaying the disability to highlight it for the audience (and a lot of fortuitious props placing). The play starts to falter, however, on the entrance of "Mrs Benson", Colette Winchester's character - a been-there-done-that free love girl. Her accent unfortunately has serious problems, being only occasionly recognisable as American and often slipping into rather "occer" (spelling?) Australian which jars completely. Indeed, Colette seems miscast in the role, failing to relate any kind of "free spirit" the character calls for- A disappointing performace. The final two characters, Don's Mother and supposed "Rival" (an off-broadway director) played thier thin characters well. Don's mother brought a touching third dimension to the traditional domineering mother figure, precipiating a pleasingly emotional scene towards the end of the play, while Shenandoah's character ("Ralph" I think it was) was merely a plot device and thus difficult to portray with any real depth. His off-hand manner worked well though, although again, the accent could do with some work. Set was detailed and appropriate with un-obtrusive lighting. Overall, "Butterflies" is a mediocre play, done to the best of the cast's abilities. A trite, sentimental comedy which belongs in the period it is set.
anyway - don't take offense anyone - I just want to get other people reviewing things and hearing the "truth" about their performances - not just what their friends and family compliment them with!
Bye =D
SS
Walter PlingeMon, 19 June 2000, 10:12 am
OK, no-ones been doing any reviewing lately, which is a bit frustrating/disappointing, so I'm going to jump right in and give the usual 2 cents worth!
"Butterflies are free" is, thankfully, a short play, focusing on a day in the life of blind teenager (we assume, his age is never given) Donny. The play opens quite slowly, and the first 15-20 minutes left me wondering if it was worth staying for the rest. The pace drags becuase we have to "learn" the Don is blind by watching him navigate his apartment a couple of times, which I felt was a bit unnecessary. Playing a blind role is obviously a challenge for a "seeing" actor, but I think Tom Milton pulled it off with a reasonable amount of conviction and believablilty - with a requisite amount of overplaying the disability to highlight it for the audience (and a lot of fortuitious props placing). The play starts to falter, however, on the entrance of "Mrs Benson", Colette Winchester's character - a been-there-done-that free love girl. Her accent unfortunately has serious problems, being only occasionly recognisable as American and often slipping into rather "occer" (spelling?) Australian which jars completely. Indeed, Colette seems miscast in the role, failing to relate any kind of "free spirit" the character calls for- A disappointing performace. The final two characters, Don's Mother and supposed "Rival" (an off-broadway director) played thier thin characters well. Don's mother brought a touching third dimension to the traditional domineering mother figure, precipiating a pleasingly emotional scene towards the end of the play, while Shenandoah's character ("Ralph" I think it was) was merely a plot device and thus difficult to portray with any real depth. His off-hand manner worked well though, although again, the accent could do with some work. Set was detailed and appropriate with un-obtrusive lighting. Overall, "Butterflies" is a mediocre play, done to the best of the cast's abilities. A trite, sentimental comedy which belongs in the period it is set.
anyway - don't take offense anyone - I just want to get other people reviewing things and hearing the "truth" about their performances - not just what their friends and family compliment them with!
Bye =D
SS
"Butterflies are free" is, thankfully, a short play, focusing on a day in the life of blind teenager (we assume, his age is never given) Donny. The play opens quite slowly, and the first 15-20 minutes left me wondering if it was worth staying for the rest. The pace drags becuase we have to "learn" the Don is blind by watching him navigate his apartment a couple of times, which I felt was a bit unnecessary. Playing a blind role is obviously a challenge for a "seeing" actor, but I think Tom Milton pulled it off with a reasonable amount of conviction and believablilty - with a requisite amount of overplaying the disability to highlight it for the audience (and a lot of fortuitious props placing). The play starts to falter, however, on the entrance of "Mrs Benson", Colette Winchester's character - a been-there-done-that free love girl. Her accent unfortunately has serious problems, being only occasionly recognisable as American and often slipping into rather "occer" (spelling?) Australian which jars completely. Indeed, Colette seems miscast in the role, failing to relate any kind of "free spirit" the character calls for- A disappointing performace. The final two characters, Don's Mother and supposed "Rival" (an off-broadway director) played thier thin characters well. Don's mother brought a touching third dimension to the traditional domineering mother figure, precipiating a pleasingly emotional scene towards the end of the play, while Shenandoah's character ("Ralph" I think it was) was merely a plot device and thus difficult to portray with any real depth. His off-hand manner worked well though, although again, the accent could do with some work. Set was detailed and appropriate with un-obtrusive lighting. Overall, "Butterflies" is a mediocre play, done to the best of the cast's abilities. A trite, sentimental comedy which belongs in the period it is set.
anyway - don't take offense anyone - I just want to get other people reviewing things and hearing the "truth" about their performances - not just what their friends and family compliment them with!
Bye =D
SS
Leah MaherMon, 19 June 2000, 10:54 am
RE: Butterflies Are Free
Isn't it amazing that two people can see the same play yet see such utterly different things.
I went and saw "Butterflies are Free" on the opening night and I really enjoyed it. I thought it was, for a change a nice story with likable characters, in a world which seems to value darkness and angst.
The actors aquitted themselves beautifully. While Colettes accent was at times a problem, I thought her portrayal of Mrs Bensen had exactly the right mix of innocence and worldliness and just when you were willing to write her off as an airhead, she suddenly proved to be more shrewd then all of them, without losing the youthful playfulness she brought to the character. The play really fired though with the arrival of the mother, an actor whos name I did not catch but who really ought to be congrtulated for her studied and in depth portrayal of a character who could so easily have been a stereotype. Shenan was, as usual slightly bemused and a beautiful contrast to Tom, who really shone in his role of the blind young man. (I don't think he was a teenager, I got the impression he was early twenties).
My only critisism was that the climax of the play was a bit drawn out and overly dramatic, but this is the fault of the script not the production. I really liked the play and, more importantly I liked and cared about the characters. They managed to be dynamic in a fairly static play and I thought that was quite an acheivement.
Oh and Collette, you brave thing. The world is never going to see my undies if I can help it, expecially not in a very chilly hall in the middle of winter. But you got quite a reaction from a certain ITA President who was sitting next to me!
I went and saw "Butterflies are Free" on the opening night and I really enjoyed it. I thought it was, for a change a nice story with likable characters, in a world which seems to value darkness and angst.
The actors aquitted themselves beautifully. While Colettes accent was at times a problem, I thought her portrayal of Mrs Bensen had exactly the right mix of innocence and worldliness and just when you were willing to write her off as an airhead, she suddenly proved to be more shrewd then all of them, without losing the youthful playfulness she brought to the character. The play really fired though with the arrival of the mother, an actor whos name I did not catch but who really ought to be congrtulated for her studied and in depth portrayal of a character who could so easily have been a stereotype. Shenan was, as usual slightly bemused and a beautiful contrast to Tom, who really shone in his role of the blind young man. (I don't think he was a teenager, I got the impression he was early twenties).
My only critisism was that the climax of the play was a bit drawn out and overly dramatic, but this is the fault of the script not the production. I really liked the play and, more importantly I liked and cared about the characters. They managed to be dynamic in a fairly static play and I thought that was quite an acheivement.
Oh and Collette, you brave thing. The world is never going to see my undies if I can help it, expecially not in a very chilly hall in the middle of winter. But you got quite a reaction from a certain ITA President who was sitting next to me!
Walter PlingeTue, 20 June 2000, 09:05 am
RE: Butterflies Are Free
YEAH!
It had an attractive woman running around in her underwear.
What's not to like?
JB
It had an attractive woman running around in her underwear.
What's not to like?
JB
Walter PlingeTue, 20 June 2000, 05:49 pm
RE: Butterflies Are Free
Well okay, thatÂ’s what you were expecting me to say, right?
Actually, I did enjoy "Butterflies Are Free" for other reasons, but Leah has pretty much beaten me to the punch. I will add that I thought the set was wonderful. Viewing things from a technical point of view (since I know nothing about acting), I was extremely impressed with aspects such as running water on stage, the sturdy bunk bed and the very effective skylight - how often do we see a set with a ceiling (or part thereof)? I imagine the production also has a substantial crockery budgetÂ…
I had no problems with the acting and particularly enjoyed ShenandoahÂ’s scene-stealing role as Ralph "IÂ’ve just woken up and I donÂ’t know where I am" Austin. If youÂ’re looking for a light eveningÂ’s entertainment with plenty of belly laughs and a finishing time before 10 PM, then please check out the show.
Incidentally, I think itÂ’s great that people are actually posting reviews again, but IÂ’m disinclined to pay any attention to someone who can slam a play without having the decency to put their name behind the review. And thatÂ’s just my two centsÂ’ worthÂ…
JB
Actually, I did enjoy "Butterflies Are Free" for other reasons, but Leah has pretty much beaten me to the punch. I will add that I thought the set was wonderful. Viewing things from a technical point of view (since I know nothing about acting), I was extremely impressed with aspects such as running water on stage, the sturdy bunk bed and the very effective skylight - how often do we see a set with a ceiling (or part thereof)? I imagine the production also has a substantial crockery budgetÂ…
I had no problems with the acting and particularly enjoyed ShenandoahÂ’s scene-stealing role as Ralph "IÂ’ve just woken up and I donÂ’t know where I am" Austin. If youÂ’re looking for a light eveningÂ’s entertainment with plenty of belly laughs and a finishing time before 10 PM, then please check out the show.
Incidentally, I think itÂ’s great that people are actually posting reviews again, but IÂ’m disinclined to pay any attention to someone who can slam a play without having the decency to put their name behind the review. And thatÂ’s just my two centsÂ’ worthÂ…
JB
Walter PlingeTue, 20 June 2000, 05:52 pm
RE: Not a review but....
Reviewing and not naming yourself is very cowardly Secret Squirrel! While on the subject of underwear and the cold - come and check out Playlovers musical "Cabaret" which opens this Friday! Many gorgeous girls and handsome men in their undies in one of the coldest halls in town. Bring your warmest coat.
Stuart RichesWed, 21 June 2000, 10:53 am
RE: Butterflies Are Free
Those who know me will know I am never biased, especially where MTC is concerned!!! However, I am moved to make the comment that the anonymous review at the head of this section bears no relation to the play which I have seen. Also, not having the courage to put one's name to such nonsense is the height of bad manners.
cya
Stuart
cya
Stuart
Walter PlingeWed, 21 June 2000, 03:49 pm
RE: Butterflies Are Free
I acknowledge that we are all entitled to our opinion. However to be so scathing (and then to add "no offence") without having the courage of your convictions to add your name to what you refer to as a "review" I find both cowardly and inexcusable.
Walter PlingeWed, 21 June 2000, 05:24 pm
RE: Not a review but....
I don't think of it as cowardly - just that people tend to need to attach an opinion to a person so instead of disagreeing with the opinion they take offense at the person. Plus people judge a review based on the reviewers experience, age, theatre background etc.
SS =)
SS =)
Walter PlingeWed, 21 June 2000, 05:30 pm
RE: Butterflies Are Free
Point in case - without any of you knowing who I am I have been labelled not worthy of attention, my review "cowardly and inexcusable" and the "height of bad manners". It is an opinion, therefore you are inclined to agree or disagree - not slander the person. I'm rather ashamed of you all and can certainly understand how Kim must of felt (although of course this is an entriely different matter - I have not been discourteous or arrogant, merely honest).
Why do people find anonyminity so threatening?
till next time
SS =)
Why do people find anonyminity so threatening?
till next time
SS =)
Grant MalcolmWed, 21 June 2000, 06:19 pm
RE: Butterflies Are Free
Dear Secret
Or do you prefer Squirrel?
I can understand you being concerned that people might dismiss your opinions if they knew who you were. It happens and it's possibly more of a reflection on the people prepared to dismiss an opinion than the person prepared to state one. I guess the best you can hope for is that your opinions will stand on their own merits.
Choosing a pseudonym however, didn't even give your opinions a chance. It's had the opposite effect to the one you claim to have intended. It's done nothing to improve either your standing or the credibility of what you have written.
Which is a shame. You had a number of very positive things to say about the production. They will be discounted along with the few harsh comments simply because you chose not to sign your name.
I think you probably had at least some notion that your use of a pseudonym would have this effect. I wonder if there wasn't just a hint of mischief or desire to avoid some form of retribution?
Cheers
Grant
Or do you prefer Squirrel?
I can understand you being concerned that people might dismiss your opinions if they knew who you were. It happens and it's possibly more of a reflection on the people prepared to dismiss an opinion than the person prepared to state one. I guess the best you can hope for is that your opinions will stand on their own merits.
Choosing a pseudonym however, didn't even give your opinions a chance. It's had the opposite effect to the one you claim to have intended. It's done nothing to improve either your standing or the credibility of what you have written.
Which is a shame. You had a number of very positive things to say about the production. They will be discounted along with the few harsh comments simply because you chose not to sign your name.
I think you probably had at least some notion that your use of a pseudonym would have this effect. I wonder if there wasn't just a hint of mischief or desire to avoid some form of retribution?
Cheers
Grant
Walter PlingeThu, 22 June 2000, 08:22 am
RE: Butterflies Are Free
I have no idea who the "Kim" is who you refer to - nor what you refer to - and therefore how they can be linked - and particularly to my or my husband's opinions. No doubt it means something to you. I did not say you could not have an opinion. I acknowledged it, but refuted it. May I point out to you also that my husband and I are not the same person. We do have our own opinions. Sometimes we agree.
Walter PlingeThu, 22 June 2000, 09:16 am
RE: Butterflies Are Free
I'm afraid I haven't seen the play reviewed,therefore this is not a comment on it, however having read the review and the ensuing comments I can fully understand why a reviewer might want to remain annonymous. There are so many fragile egos in the theatre world that putting forward an honest opinion can at times be quite daunting. And what we must bear in mind is that this person is merely offering their own insights into the show(be they annonymous or not). The mere fact that he/she has taken the time to put these thoughts up for discussion is what I thought this Forum was all about. I have on occasion been asked to give my opinion on shows and due to past experience have sometimes been loathe to do so due to the way my comments can be taken on board. I'm suse if SS's comments had been of a more favourable nature they would not have generated the same response about their being annonymous. Maybe it's time to shed the thin skins and just get on with what we do best and remember why we do it.
Salut'e...Joe
Salut'e...Joe
Walter PlingeThu, 22 June 2000, 11:03 am
RE: Not a review but....
A few valid points SS. I don't feel that we need to know who you are to be able to agree, disagree or learn from your comments.
Walter PlingeThu, 22 June 2000, 12:42 pm
Don't take negative reviews so well do we !!
An interesting issue .... no ?
The responses seem to hint that those of us are more closely linked to the production find it harder to accept/absorb criticism, while others that are not involved and haven't seen the show are less critical of our anonymous reviewer. Hey ... we're all emotionally driven creatures!
Hopefully, we would all agree that any reviewer is entitled to their opinion.
We do not always share a reviewers opinions, as is clearly the case here, yet we seem less able 'hear' these anonymous opinions, BUT THEY ARE NO LESS VALID.
I feel that the reivewer themselves hit the nail on the head with their earlier comments. In a case like this, the upset readers only have the opinion itself to 'take offense' at, not a person. Their regular coping/defense mechanisims of dismissing this opinion because the reviewer is young or inexperienced, or because we know they 'don't get on with that company/director etc' are not available.
An anonymous review leaves us with only one alternative .... Read the opinion, and agree or disagree WITH THE OPINION.
Very few of the angered respondees to our anonymous reviewer gave examples or justified their offense to her/his opinion with intelligent response, but rather, with outright dismissal and accusations of cowardice.
It all boils down to our ability to take criticism. Our reviewer believed what they were saying, took the time to see the show, and had the courage to review honestly. If they feel they had to make an anonyous review to avoid the type of retributive response we have seen, then thats up to them, and only reflects how difficult it is, both to give an honset negative review and receive one.
If this Reviews forum is to be healthly and survive, we all have to grow thicker skins and be prepared to 'hear' others opinions, positive and negative and anonymous. As Leah said :
"Isn't it amazing that two people can see the same play yet see such utterly different things. "
Cheers,
David
The responses seem to hint that those of us are more closely linked to the production find it harder to accept/absorb criticism, while others that are not involved and haven't seen the show are less critical of our anonymous reviewer. Hey ... we're all emotionally driven creatures!
Hopefully, we would all agree that any reviewer is entitled to their opinion.
We do not always share a reviewers opinions, as is clearly the case here, yet we seem less able 'hear' these anonymous opinions, BUT THEY ARE NO LESS VALID.
I feel that the reivewer themselves hit the nail on the head with their earlier comments. In a case like this, the upset readers only have the opinion itself to 'take offense' at, not a person. Their regular coping/defense mechanisims of dismissing this opinion because the reviewer is young or inexperienced, or because we know they 'don't get on with that company/director etc' are not available.
An anonymous review leaves us with only one alternative .... Read the opinion, and agree or disagree WITH THE OPINION.
Very few of the angered respondees to our anonymous reviewer gave examples or justified their offense to her/his opinion with intelligent response, but rather, with outright dismissal and accusations of cowardice.
It all boils down to our ability to take criticism. Our reviewer believed what they were saying, took the time to see the show, and had the courage to review honestly. If they feel they had to make an anonyous review to avoid the type of retributive response we have seen, then thats up to them, and only reflects how difficult it is, both to give an honset negative review and receive one.
If this Reviews forum is to be healthly and survive, we all have to grow thicker skins and be prepared to 'hear' others opinions, positive and negative and anonymous. As Leah said :
"Isn't it amazing that two people can see the same play yet see such utterly different things. "
Cheers,
David
NormaThu, 22 June 2000, 01:26 pm
RE: Don't take negative reviews so well do we !!
I think that SS and possibly others, have not differentiated between constructive and destructive critisism/comment. Remember there's an art in the former but anyone can indulge in the latter, and no I don't think that anonymous critisisms should be taken seriously.
whatever happened to good old fashioned courage of ones convictions?
whatever happened to good old fashioned courage of ones convictions?
Walter PlingeThu, 22 June 2000, 05:02 pm
RE: Don't take negative reviews so well do we !!
Secret Squirrel wrote: "anyway - don't take offense anyone - I just want to get other people reviewing things and hearing the "truth" about their performances - not just what their friends and family compliment them with!
SS,
I am a strong believer in voicing honest opinions (and owning up to them) but that is all they are, our opinions, they are not the"truth".
Gill
SS,
I am a strong believer in voicing honest opinions (and owning up to them) but that is all they are, our opinions, they are not the"truth".
Gill
katleeThu, 22 June 2000, 05:42 pm
RE: Don't take negative reviews so well do we !!
I agree, Gill, that there is a distinct difference between constructive and destructive criticism, but I don't think that is the issue here! I really think we need to look to David's comments.
"I feel that the reivewer themselves hit the nail on the head with their earlier comments. In a case like this, the upset readers only have the opinion itself to 'take offense' at, not a person. Their regular coping/defense mechanisims of dismissing this opinion because the reviewer is young or inexperienced, or because we know they 'don't get on with that company/director etc' are not available.
An anonymous review leaves us with only one alternative .... Read the opinion, and agree or disagree WITH THE OPINION. "
By writing thisreview, SS has tried to take that problem out of the equation. Unfortunately this seems to have created another problem!
Never mind SS!!
"I feel that the reivewer themselves hit the nail on the head with their earlier comments. In a case like this, the upset readers only have the opinion itself to 'take offense' at, not a person. Their regular coping/defense mechanisims of dismissing this opinion because the reviewer is young or inexperienced, or because we know they 'don't get on with that company/director etc' are not available.
An anonymous review leaves us with only one alternative .... Read the opinion, and agree or disagree WITH THE OPINION. "
By writing thisreview, SS has tried to take that problem out of the equation. Unfortunately this seems to have created another problem!
Never mind SS!!
Walter PlingeThu, 22 June 2000, 05:59 pm
RE: Butterflies Are Free
Wow!!!
Having only just read all of the messages concerning "Butterflies Are Free" I have to say that I haven't seen such controversy on this Website for quite a while!
As a long-term member of Melville, I agree that not all of our productions are as good as they might be and I know that not all of our members are as good as they think they are. I agree that "Butterflies" is a mediocre play and for that reason (and that reason alone) I don't intend to see this particular production. I also firmly believe that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.
But, I do think that if one feels strongly about something (and is willing to put that into print for others to see) then one should have the courage not to hide behind a pseudonym.
There, that's my two cents worth.
Having only just read all of the messages concerning "Butterflies Are Free" I have to say that I haven't seen such controversy on this Website for quite a while!
As a long-term member of Melville, I agree that not all of our productions are as good as they might be and I know that not all of our members are as good as they think they are. I agree that "Butterflies" is a mediocre play and for that reason (and that reason alone) I don't intend to see this particular production. I also firmly believe that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.
But, I do think that if one feels strongly about something (and is willing to put that into print for others to see) then one should have the courage not to hide behind a pseudonym.
There, that's my two cents worth.
Walter PlingeThu, 22 June 2000, 06:18 pm
RE: Don't take negative reviews so well do we !!
You make a good point here, Gill
"The Truth" according to who ???
On anonymity again:
The strength of conviction demonstrated by putting your name to your opinion definitely appeals to the fairness in me ... if your prepared to say it ... then you should be prepared to take the reaction.
But in a small town like Perth we all know how important it is to 'get along' with the movers and shakers if you want to be involved. An honest and constructive, yet harsh review could leave you cut off from the theatre scene or sections thereof. With its, often referred to, generic 'fragile egos' and long memories, the theatre scene in Perth is a minefield.
"The Truth" according to who ???
On anonymity again:
The strength of conviction demonstrated by putting your name to your opinion definitely appeals to the fairness in me ... if your prepared to say it ... then you should be prepared to take the reaction.
But in a small town like Perth we all know how important it is to 'get along' with the movers and shakers if you want to be involved. An honest and constructive, yet harsh review could leave you cut off from the theatre scene or sections thereof. With its, often referred to, generic 'fragile egos' and long memories, the theatre scene in Perth is a minefield.
Walter PlingeThu, 22 June 2000, 11:56 pm
RE: Butterflies Are Free
Whatever your opinion of the play itself(I happen to think it's a tightly written,well constructed piece)come and see it!Obviously I'm biased,as I'm in it-but the people who have come have made very favourable comments-and I don't just mean friends and relations!
As a personal comment about the cast,I'd like to say this:-I'm an 'old hand' and I've done a lot of shows,with a lot of different groups,with actors of every kind;I don't think I've worked with a group who were more focussed on their roles-throughout rehearsal and performance.It was an education to see the characters growing and developing-and the day you stop learning,it's time to quit.
Re the comments of secret squirrel,I agree that there's a difference between destructive and constructive critiscism;the whole point of criticism is to give the subjects of the crit.something to work on,ways to improve,strengths to build on,as well as percieved weaknesses to deal with.Effective criticism is as hard as effective writing,acting or directing.
That's all-excuse spelling/grammatical blunders...it's late,but I just had to reply!
As a personal comment about the cast,I'd like to say this:-I'm an 'old hand' and I've done a lot of shows,with a lot of different groups,with actors of every kind;I don't think I've worked with a group who were more focussed on their roles-throughout rehearsal and performance.It was an education to see the characters growing and developing-and the day you stop learning,it's time to quit.
Re the comments of secret squirrel,I agree that there's a difference between destructive and constructive critiscism;the whole point of criticism is to give the subjects of the crit.something to work on,ways to improve,strengths to build on,as well as percieved weaknesses to deal with.Effective criticism is as hard as effective writing,acting or directing.
That's all-excuse spelling/grammatical blunders...it's late,but I just had to reply!
Walter PlingeSat, 24 June 2000, 12:09 pm
RE: Don't take negative reviews so well do we !!
Kate wrote: "An anonymous review leaves us with only one alternative .... Read the opinion, and agree or disagree WITH THE OPINION. "
Yes, we could not possibly go through our lives agreeing with everything that people say about us but then
David wrote: "Their (ie: those being reviewed) regular coping/defense mechanisims of dismissing this opinion because the reviewer is young or inexperienced, or because we know they 'don't get on with that company/director etc' are not available".
It doesn't matter how old or young or experienced or inexperienced someone is, if we don't respect their opinion we have a right to dismiss it. Just as they had a right to the opinion!
When we need advice or feedback we don't listen to just anyone, we listen to those people we respect.
(Maybe some of us know and respect SS but we don't know who s/he is).
Gill
Yes, we could not possibly go through our lives agreeing with everything that people say about us but then
David wrote: "Their (ie: those being reviewed) regular coping/defense mechanisims of dismissing this opinion because the reviewer is young or inexperienced, or because we know they 'don't get on with that company/director etc' are not available".
It doesn't matter how old or young or experienced or inexperienced someone is, if we don't respect their opinion we have a right to dismiss it. Just as they had a right to the opinion!
When we need advice or feedback we don't listen to just anyone, we listen to those people we respect.
(Maybe some of us know and respect SS but we don't know who s/he is).
Gill