Bumpy Angels
Sun, 2 July 2000, 12:07 pmWalter Plinge27 posts in thread
Bumpy Angels
Sun, 2 July 2000, 12:07 pmHello everyone! Well, lets see if we can cause some more controversy!(not that that's what i set out to do)
Bumpy Angels is a strange mish-mash of song, personal revelation (and even) game show. Unfortunately I was put off from the beginning with the intolerably long procession of "brides" which had no relevance to any later scenes - merely some sort of masque to get us in the mood (and failing). Firstly the backstage crew were laughable - taking ages just to move a cupboard and later making mistakes (coming in and off in half light) and then very audiblely chastising/discussing backstage - to was so bad the audience couldn't help but giggle. Mind you, we were already in a bemused state after being subjected to various snatches of song which are incredibly cheesy and I think lent nothing to the play - they could all be cut and play would lose nothing (might even gain a bit of dramatic credibility). By the interval I was pleased with the dramatic tension set up between characters and the audience was certainly emotionally involved - some of us rather uncomfortably so! But then it just kept coming! Coral and Felicity-Elizabeth's monologues were quite touching and well performed - but then everybody had to get in on the act, confessing every dark secret and troubled soul. Destroying most of the poignancy and subtlety of the play we were sledgehammered with emotion until the unsatisfying conclusion. High praise must goto the Mother Superior, who showed excellent charactisation and crystal clear vocal technique. Singing numbers were a little ragged and out of time and of course not all of us can be singers (Angela and Amy's song certainly made us long for a chorus number) but Your CHeatin' Heart was an absolute delight. All in all an emotion packed and interesting show, which cheapens itself through lack of any subtlety and its silly songs.
Bumpy Angels is a strange mish-mash of song, personal revelation (and even) game show. Unfortunately I was put off from the beginning with the intolerably long procession of "brides" which had no relevance to any later scenes - merely some sort of masque to get us in the mood (and failing). Firstly the backstage crew were laughable - taking ages just to move a cupboard and later making mistakes (coming in and off in half light) and then very audiblely chastising/discussing backstage - to was so bad the audience couldn't help but giggle. Mind you, we were already in a bemused state after being subjected to various snatches of song which are incredibly cheesy and I think lent nothing to the play - they could all be cut and play would lose nothing (might even gain a bit of dramatic credibility). By the interval I was pleased with the dramatic tension set up between characters and the audience was certainly emotionally involved - some of us rather uncomfortably so! But then it just kept coming! Coral and Felicity-Elizabeth's monologues were quite touching and well performed - but then everybody had to get in on the act, confessing every dark secret and troubled soul. Destroying most of the poignancy and subtlety of the play we were sledgehammered with emotion until the unsatisfying conclusion. High praise must goto the Mother Superior, who showed excellent charactisation and crystal clear vocal technique. Singing numbers were a little ragged and out of time and of course not all of us can be singers (Angela and Amy's song certainly made us long for a chorus number) but Your CHeatin' Heart was an absolute delight. All in all an emotion packed and interesting show, which cheapens itself through lack of any subtlety and its silly songs.
Walter PlingeSun, 2 July 2000, 12:07 pm
Hello everyone! Well, lets see if we can cause some more controversy!(not that that's what i set out to do)
Bumpy Angels is a strange mish-mash of song, personal revelation (and even) game show. Unfortunately I was put off from the beginning with the intolerably long procession of "brides" which had no relevance to any later scenes - merely some sort of masque to get us in the mood (and failing). Firstly the backstage crew were laughable - taking ages just to move a cupboard and later making mistakes (coming in and off in half light) and then very audiblely chastising/discussing backstage - to was so bad the audience couldn't help but giggle. Mind you, we were already in a bemused state after being subjected to various snatches of song which are incredibly cheesy and I think lent nothing to the play - they could all be cut and play would lose nothing (might even gain a bit of dramatic credibility). By the interval I was pleased with the dramatic tension set up between characters and the audience was certainly emotionally involved - some of us rather uncomfortably so! But then it just kept coming! Coral and Felicity-Elizabeth's monologues were quite touching and well performed - but then everybody had to get in on the act, confessing every dark secret and troubled soul. Destroying most of the poignancy and subtlety of the play we were sledgehammered with emotion until the unsatisfying conclusion. High praise must goto the Mother Superior, who showed excellent charactisation and crystal clear vocal technique. Singing numbers were a little ragged and out of time and of course not all of us can be singers (Angela and Amy's song certainly made us long for a chorus number) but Your CHeatin' Heart was an absolute delight. All in all an emotion packed and interesting show, which cheapens itself through lack of any subtlety and its silly songs.
Bumpy Angels is a strange mish-mash of song, personal revelation (and even) game show. Unfortunately I was put off from the beginning with the intolerably long procession of "brides" which had no relevance to any later scenes - merely some sort of masque to get us in the mood (and failing). Firstly the backstage crew were laughable - taking ages just to move a cupboard and later making mistakes (coming in and off in half light) and then very audiblely chastising/discussing backstage - to was so bad the audience couldn't help but giggle. Mind you, we were already in a bemused state after being subjected to various snatches of song which are incredibly cheesy and I think lent nothing to the play - they could all be cut and play would lose nothing (might even gain a bit of dramatic credibility). By the interval I was pleased with the dramatic tension set up between characters and the audience was certainly emotionally involved - some of us rather uncomfortably so! But then it just kept coming! Coral and Felicity-Elizabeth's monologues were quite touching and well performed - but then everybody had to get in on the act, confessing every dark secret and troubled soul. Destroying most of the poignancy and subtlety of the play we were sledgehammered with emotion until the unsatisfying conclusion. High praise must goto the Mother Superior, who showed excellent charactisation and crystal clear vocal technique. Singing numbers were a little ragged and out of time and of course not all of us can be singers (Angela and Amy's song certainly made us long for a chorus number) but Your CHeatin' Heart was an absolute delight. All in all an emotion packed and interesting show, which cheapens itself through lack of any subtlety and its silly songs.
Walter PlingeSun, 2 July 2000, 02:12 pm
RE: Bumpy Angels
Well thank you for the few positive comments, Secret. And I have to say that yes, the technical hitches were embarrassing (cast AND crew were to blame for this) so I can but apologise. Most of what you said is fair enough, but I'm afraid you've missed the boat on a few things.
We don't pretend to be experts in the style but has anyone out there heard of Brecht?
Bumpy Angels is DELIBERATLEY a mish-mash. The whole point of 'throwing in' seemingly 'pointless' songs is to keep the audience on their toes, to maintain a distance - what Brecht referred to as "Alienation". Really, the audience isn't expected to get 'sucked into' the emotion of the play, but to take a step back, to examine the indivdual and eventually the united stories of the characters. Hence the somewhat 'jarring' dream-sequences.
I've just spent two weeks teaching year 11's and 12's about Brecht and his Epic Theatre so I won't go into it all now. Obviously its a style that's a little hard to swallow and not to everyone's taste, but perhaps that was Brecht's intention?
Having said that, Bumpy is not purely Brechtian in style. The author has chosen to combine techniques and styles to convey the story. Strange as it may be, this play was commissioned for and performed successfully at Q.U.T and also performed by W.A.A.P.A. If anyone has any problem with strange songs or long monologues I suggest you take that up with Sue Rider, the author, a prominant Australian playwrite and director.
Sour grapes? Maybe. Can't handle criticism? Perhaps. But I would suggest that reviewers tread carefully and perhaps learn more about alternative styles before they review something they don't understand.
However, thank you for taking the time to share your comments about our show. I do not expect everyone to like the play, but do enter into the experience with an open mind.
Cheers ~ Martha (not due until the end of July).
We don't pretend to be experts in the style but has anyone out there heard of Brecht?
Bumpy Angels is DELIBERATLEY a mish-mash. The whole point of 'throwing in' seemingly 'pointless' songs is to keep the audience on their toes, to maintain a distance - what Brecht referred to as "Alienation". Really, the audience isn't expected to get 'sucked into' the emotion of the play, but to take a step back, to examine the indivdual and eventually the united stories of the characters. Hence the somewhat 'jarring' dream-sequences.
I've just spent two weeks teaching year 11's and 12's about Brecht and his Epic Theatre so I won't go into it all now. Obviously its a style that's a little hard to swallow and not to everyone's taste, but perhaps that was Brecht's intention?
Having said that, Bumpy is not purely Brechtian in style. The author has chosen to combine techniques and styles to convey the story. Strange as it may be, this play was commissioned for and performed successfully at Q.U.T and also performed by W.A.A.P.A. If anyone has any problem with strange songs or long monologues I suggest you take that up with Sue Rider, the author, a prominant Australian playwrite and director.
Sour grapes? Maybe. Can't handle criticism? Perhaps. But I would suggest that reviewers tread carefully and perhaps learn more about alternative styles before they review something they don't understand.
However, thank you for taking the time to share your comments about our show. I do not expect everyone to like the play, but do enter into the experience with an open mind.
Cheers ~ Martha (not due until the end of July).
Walter PlingeSun, 2 July 2000, 04:09 pm
RE: Bumpy Angels
Hi everyone, Its been a while since I commented on anything on this board recently. So here I go, this thread opened on Bumpy Angels and I happened to see it last night (1st of July).
I enjoyed it even though some of the play was quite confronting. My companion was deeply touched and shocked by the ending and thoroughly enjoyed the production.
I haven't seen Bumpy Angels before in spite of it popularity with the local theatre companies, and it certainly wasnt what I expected. I found the directors touches to be subtle (in most cases) and clever in most cases, and I thought that the cast were individually competent and in some cases outstanding. Cheers Amy for a wonderful performance, and to everybody else.
One gets used to potboilers after a while, and this was not one of those. There were a few backsate gaffs that didn't detract from the performance.
Anyone who knows me also knows that I tend to be scathing if a production doesnt measure up, and I have seen a few stinkers in the past year. Bumpy Angels is not one of them and I would recommend that you have a look at it while you can.
Re - Secret Squirrel - did you choose this name because you like playing with nuts ?
I enjoyed it even though some of the play was quite confronting. My companion was deeply touched and shocked by the ending and thoroughly enjoyed the production.
I haven't seen Bumpy Angels before in spite of it popularity with the local theatre companies, and it certainly wasnt what I expected. I found the directors touches to be subtle (in most cases) and clever in most cases, and I thought that the cast were individually competent and in some cases outstanding. Cheers Amy for a wonderful performance, and to everybody else.
One gets used to potboilers after a while, and this was not one of those. There were a few backsate gaffs that didn't detract from the performance.
Anyone who knows me also knows that I tend to be scathing if a production doesnt measure up, and I have seen a few stinkers in the past year. Bumpy Angels is not one of them and I would recommend that you have a look at it while you can.
Re - Secret Squirrel - did you choose this name because you like playing with nuts ?
Walter PlingeSun, 2 July 2000, 04:34 pm
RE: Bumpy Angels
It seems to me from the way you write your "reviews" Secret Squirrel that you have no idea about the real reasons we all do Community Theatre. It is an arena for us all to show off our talents, improve what we know, have a go at something new and above all meet new people and have a bit of FUN. This is not to say we shouldn't strive for as good as we can be in our performances, direction etc, but please give people a break, we all still have an everyday life too. If we are getting paid $700 a week and rehearsing 7 hours a day, five days a week, then yes we would expect something amazing.
You say in your opening line "let's see if we can cause some controversy again (though it's not what you set out to do) - WRONG! - if you hadn't that thought in mind then you wouldn't have opened with it. I mean these pages should be a forum for suggestion, congratulation, support, encouragement, informed criticism and yes if something really deserves it -praise.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't voice your thoughts on a show, but there is a way of doing it without it or yourself sounding so 'Holier than thou'. I mean calling the backstage crew 'laughable'. Come on. We don't know what happened that night. There actually could have been a very good reason for why things went wrong for them that evening.
This next piece of advice is a little old hat and cliched but it is true. A review is supposed to be constructive...not destructive. And by the way I agree with a lot of the other people on this web page. If you are going to be negative about something at least have the decency and maturity to do it openly.
(And if you are wondering, this is from someone who is not even remotely connected with 'Bumpy Angels')
You say in your opening line "let's see if we can cause some controversy again (though it's not what you set out to do) - WRONG! - if you hadn't that thought in mind then you wouldn't have opened with it. I mean these pages should be a forum for suggestion, congratulation, support, encouragement, informed criticism and yes if something really deserves it -praise.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't voice your thoughts on a show, but there is a way of doing it without it or yourself sounding so 'Holier than thou'. I mean calling the backstage crew 'laughable'. Come on. We don't know what happened that night. There actually could have been a very good reason for why things went wrong for them that evening.
This next piece of advice is a little old hat and cliched but it is true. A review is supposed to be constructive...not destructive. And by the way I agree with a lot of the other people on this web page. If you are going to be negative about something at least have the decency and maturity to do it openly.
(And if you are wondering, this is from someone who is not even remotely connected with 'Bumpy Angels')
Walter PlingeSun, 2 July 2000, 09:29 pm
RE: Bumpy Angels
Hi there Squirrel, I am the SM [or was] for Bumpy Angels. I hasten to explain that the technical glitch was entirely my fault What happened, Squirrel [you don't mind me calling you Squirrel do you ?], was, that one of those sandbag things,I don't know the technical name for it, but they are used to raise and lower the curtain,somehow or other fell on my head, just as the scene change came up. There I was, wandering all over the stage, not having a clue as to what was going on. The cast was rolling around the stage laughing. The rest of the backstage crew were also laughing, in fact the whole place was, as you know, in fits of laughter. Except for me. Mind you, I can laugh about it now, but it's a bit late is it not Squirrel ?
[ Sorry Squirrel but I don't know your real name]
What was the other thing I wanted to say ? Oh now I remember, [bump on the head Squirrel] cupboard changes too slow. Gee, I wish you could be there to show me how it should be done. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have read the script again and have decided that we won't change anything on the stage at all, except for the cupboard . This should reduce the time considerably. Thanks Squirrel !
About that procession of brides, I'm with you Squirrel. I loath that deep and meaningful stuff, where the playwright tries to ram this stuff into our brain cavity. I dislike trying to understand the meaning of it all. But what I really hate, is when somebody explains it to me, and I still don't understand it . You know, what I mean don't you Squirrel ?
I hope you don't take offence at any of this Squirrel, as I want to keep in your good books. In short I don't want to upset you. Could you imagine the consequences if you and I fell out, with you being anonymous ? Let's think about that, for a second or two. For example, in the unlikely situation where I might be cast in a play, you could castigate me, not because my acting was poor, but simply because you and I didn't get along. Who would suffer, not only me, but the whole Company.
Sorry Squirrel, I just got carried away a tad.
Squirrel is an honorable person, just ask anyone.
Ross Hutcheon
[ Sorry Squirrel but I don't know your real name]
What was the other thing I wanted to say ? Oh now I remember, [bump on the head Squirrel] cupboard changes too slow. Gee, I wish you could be there to show me how it should be done. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have read the script again and have decided that we won't change anything on the stage at all, except for the cupboard . This should reduce the time considerably. Thanks Squirrel !
About that procession of brides, I'm with you Squirrel. I loath that deep and meaningful stuff, where the playwright tries to ram this stuff into our brain cavity. I dislike trying to understand the meaning of it all. But what I really hate, is when somebody explains it to me, and I still don't understand it . You know, what I mean don't you Squirrel ?
I hope you don't take offence at any of this Squirrel, as I want to keep in your good books. In short I don't want to upset you. Could you imagine the consequences if you and I fell out, with you being anonymous ? Let's think about that, for a second or two. For example, in the unlikely situation where I might be cast in a play, you could castigate me, not because my acting was poor, but simply because you and I didn't get along. Who would suffer, not only me, but the whole Company.
Sorry Squirrel, I just got carried away a tad.
Squirrel is an honorable person, just ask anyone.
Ross Hutcheon
Walter PlingeMon, 3 July 2000, 12:16 am
RE: Bumpy Angels
Need it be said that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit? =)
SS
SS
Ben SorgiovanniMon, 3 July 2000, 02:15 am
RE: Secret Squirrel
Hello everybody
I have for some time been following with anticpation the 'exploits' of he/she who call themselves 'secret squirrel'. I am reluctant to admit that I find the controversy generated from his/her comments to be quite exhilarating and interesting. While I respect, and to some extent even admire, what you, secret squirrel, hope to achieve through anonymity, I feel there are certain problems associated with it.
For example, you claim that your approach is designed to confront people with the 'truth' of their performances (Butterflies are free review). Let me disregard for the moment the problems associated with defining the 'truth' of any performance through the eyes of one person and instead turn to other issues.
It would be great if we lived in a world in which people were mechanical beings who could be confronted with the 'truth' of their performances and feel nothing (neither good or bad). We are however, only human, and whats more humans in amateur theatre. One of the failings (or benefits) of being human beings is that we have feelings and emotions. I always thought that the aim of a good review was not just to try and ascertain the 'truth' or essence of a performance but to present this 'truth' to actors and crew ,imperfect beings, in a way that encourages and offers suggestion for improvement. I have found no trace of suggestion in your reviews, even though you are constantly citing problems. Reviewing is an art form reliant on tact. And tact, as the saying goes, is the ability to tell someone where to go so that they anticipate the journey.
Your anonymity grants you the ability to create a faceless entity who is capable of saying anything about anything without leaving the reader with any idea about how experienced you are and thus how valid your claims are (please refer to 'Brecht' issue). Its a nice thought that in this post-modern world everyone's opinions are equally valid, however, it would be totally ridiculous to assume that the opinion of a person of twenty, unexperienced in amateur theatre, is given the same credibility as say an experienced director of fifty. So when you claim that keeping yourself anonymous will lead to more honest reviews, you forget that people need some idea of who is writing the review in order to judge the review. And judge they must. Just as you judge actors on the basis of their experience and talent.
Anyhow, I dont want to take up anymore space talking about something which is in no way connnected directly to any play I have seen. Although I am a newcomer to the theatre scene, I have been involved in a few wonderful plays and have had a great time doing them with people who have a love for theatre as both a hobby and as something more. But no matter who they are, no-one can withstand being presented with the cold hard truth, or what someone who wont even reveal their name believes to be the cold hard truth, without acknowledging human frailty.
I would love to discuss these issues with you in more detail if I only knew who you were.
PS. I find sarcasm to be an entertaining and clever form of humour usually resented by those who cannot think of anything sarcastic to say.
I have for some time been following with anticpation the 'exploits' of he/she who call themselves 'secret squirrel'. I am reluctant to admit that I find the controversy generated from his/her comments to be quite exhilarating and interesting. While I respect, and to some extent even admire, what you, secret squirrel, hope to achieve through anonymity, I feel there are certain problems associated with it.
For example, you claim that your approach is designed to confront people with the 'truth' of their performances (Butterflies are free review). Let me disregard for the moment the problems associated with defining the 'truth' of any performance through the eyes of one person and instead turn to other issues.
It would be great if we lived in a world in which people were mechanical beings who could be confronted with the 'truth' of their performances and feel nothing (neither good or bad). We are however, only human, and whats more humans in amateur theatre. One of the failings (or benefits) of being human beings is that we have feelings and emotions. I always thought that the aim of a good review was not just to try and ascertain the 'truth' or essence of a performance but to present this 'truth' to actors and crew ,imperfect beings, in a way that encourages and offers suggestion for improvement. I have found no trace of suggestion in your reviews, even though you are constantly citing problems. Reviewing is an art form reliant on tact. And tact, as the saying goes, is the ability to tell someone where to go so that they anticipate the journey.
Your anonymity grants you the ability to create a faceless entity who is capable of saying anything about anything without leaving the reader with any idea about how experienced you are and thus how valid your claims are (please refer to 'Brecht' issue). Its a nice thought that in this post-modern world everyone's opinions are equally valid, however, it would be totally ridiculous to assume that the opinion of a person of twenty, unexperienced in amateur theatre, is given the same credibility as say an experienced director of fifty. So when you claim that keeping yourself anonymous will lead to more honest reviews, you forget that people need some idea of who is writing the review in order to judge the review. And judge they must. Just as you judge actors on the basis of their experience and talent.
Anyhow, I dont want to take up anymore space talking about something which is in no way connnected directly to any play I have seen. Although I am a newcomer to the theatre scene, I have been involved in a few wonderful plays and have had a great time doing them with people who have a love for theatre as both a hobby and as something more. But no matter who they are, no-one can withstand being presented with the cold hard truth, or what someone who wont even reveal their name believes to be the cold hard truth, without acknowledging human frailty.
I would love to discuss these issues with you in more detail if I only knew who you were.
PS. I find sarcasm to be an entertaining and clever form of humour usually resented by those who cannot think of anything sarcastic to say.
Ben SorgiovanniMon, 3 July 2000, 02:26 am
RE: Secret Squirrel
Furthermore,
People don't feel nearly as bad about being scathing towards the opinions of an imaginery reviewing squirrel as they do to someone who puts their name. Is it possible your approach has backfired?
People don't feel nearly as bad about being scathing towards the opinions of an imaginery reviewing squirrel as they do to someone who puts their name. Is it possible your approach has backfired?
Walter PlingeMon, 3 July 2000, 02:17 pm
RE: Bumpy Angels
Well, I guess I should have expected that.
A brief retrospective: Secret Squirrel recently posted a scathing review of Melville's "Butterflies Are Free". I promptly criticized him/her for not having the courage to post their real name. Now Secret Squirrel has petulantly attacked my group's current production.
Sure, we had a few problems on the first night at the venue, but just because one person didn't understand the interchange between the plot and the dream sequences, it doesn't negate the opinions of dozens of others who emerged saying they loved the show.
Sorry you didn't like the songs or the confessions or the mood-settings, but that's THE SCRIPT. Hope you enjoyed your complimentary champagne and thanks for your cash!
JB
A brief retrospective: Secret Squirrel recently posted a scathing review of Melville's "Butterflies Are Free". I promptly criticized him/her for not having the courage to post their real name. Now Secret Squirrel has petulantly attacked my group's current production.
Sure, we had a few problems on the first night at the venue, but just because one person didn't understand the interchange between the plot and the dream sequences, it doesn't negate the opinions of dozens of others who emerged saying they loved the show.
Sorry you didn't like the songs or the confessions or the mood-settings, but that's THE SCRIPT. Hope you enjoyed your complimentary champagne and thanks for your cash!
JB
Walter PlingeMon, 3 July 2000, 03:35 pm
RE: Secret Squirrel
My original impetus for "reviewing" (cf. issues of "truth" etc.) anonymously was merely to protect myself from retribution and ill-thoughts by those who disagree with my opinion. On the one hand it is nice to see some debate about the ideas behind the practise of reviewing, as well as highlighting the subjectiveness of such practises and responses therein. On the other, though, the quite vehement denials of both the vailidity and value of such comments is disheartening. Obviously, no-one wants to hear bad things about themselves, their perfomance, their theatre company, their friends etc. but in my personal experience of the world of theatre, most people will compliment you wether they mean it or not, just to be polite. This does nothing (is not constrcutive) for me personally as an actor (oops revealed my gender!) as I would much rather hear peers' honest opinions to help me evaluate my own performance and maybe develop it in ways I/the director had not thought of. This is not to say that I wish to be insulted or I think that other people need to be, indeed my reviews are carefully considered and somewhat less harsh than they could be. In "reviewing" or commenting on a production I am humbly offering my thoughts so people gain a balanced view of how a production is recieved, not merely praise from friends and family. on a different thought it is quite strange to see how defensive community theatres are as they close ranks to defend oneanother.
Anyway - I hope to see more intelligent and passionate debate about these and other matters in the future.
luv SS =D (I'm really quite a sweet squirrel - honest!)
Anyway - I hope to see more intelligent and passionate debate about these and other matters in the future.
luv SS =D (I'm really quite a sweet squirrel - honest!)
JoeMcTue, 4 July 2000, 12:00 am
RE: Bumpy Angels
Very well said Ross and I enjoyed your high form of wit - and to all those other than SS.
As I was just a tourist in the bio-box on opening nigh I should not comment - but life being what it is I must add mine GST worth.
What I seen during the 1st act was great - although I heard very little as there was a problem with the 'show speaker' (this was rectified during interval) but the 2nd act was good and will be even better when I get to hear the 1st act next friday night.
We in the box asumed that the 'warm props' in their enthusiasm jumped the cue, as I was to believe that the cupboard was to be set prior to their enterance after which the visual lighting cue for that scenes state was to be executed - however as the cue did GO the state was left at the start level and paused untill the set piece was set.
So thanks Ross - now I know what happened - how's the head now? and the name for that sand bag thing is a stage weight - which caused a light wait. But is not this that gives that little bit extra, that added factor of being live and bringing about value for money.
But I find it amazing when the warm props can fluff and jump whole pages of script forward and backwards, then carry on and nought is mentioned, after you consider the amount of rehearsal they have had as compared to the crew - and yet the crew is always nailed because they stuffed up (usally by accident and beyond their control of course) then some yo-yo who hangs out their shingle as a crit or reviewer - screw them to wall, because in their view they should get it right first every time - even though it is doubtful they had time for a tech run or a cue to cue rehearsal.
May I let you in on a secret - IT happens in pro shows as well.
One thing you may have missed - which got up my nose - was after the house was opened and the punters let in, the cast and tech crew entered the house thru the house rag to take their places. I questioned this - but because it was raining and the builders of the arts centre did not plan for it - there is no way to get to the foyer or control room without entering the FOH. That's a design fault that happens when these City's build a community hall cum modifed Theatre venue. Possibly the designer was once given a comp to see a show and instantly became an expert.
But there again I am only a little black duck and have not had SS's extensive education in the arts - after all he is a self confessed actor as well - so keep on doing it - as your postings are as exciting as watching fruit ripen on the ground to most backstagers I know.
Joe McCabe
As I was just a tourist in the bio-box on opening nigh I should not comment - but life being what it is I must add mine GST worth.
What I seen during the 1st act was great - although I heard very little as there was a problem with the 'show speaker' (this was rectified during interval) but the 2nd act was good and will be even better when I get to hear the 1st act next friday night.
We in the box asumed that the 'warm props' in their enthusiasm jumped the cue, as I was to believe that the cupboard was to be set prior to their enterance after which the visual lighting cue for that scenes state was to be executed - however as the cue did GO the state was left at the start level and paused untill the set piece was set.
So thanks Ross - now I know what happened - how's the head now? and the name for that sand bag thing is a stage weight - which caused a light wait. But is not this that gives that little bit extra, that added factor of being live and bringing about value for money.
But I find it amazing when the warm props can fluff and jump whole pages of script forward and backwards, then carry on and nought is mentioned, after you consider the amount of rehearsal they have had as compared to the crew - and yet the crew is always nailed because they stuffed up (usally by accident and beyond their control of course) then some yo-yo who hangs out their shingle as a crit or reviewer - screw them to wall, because in their view they should get it right first every time - even though it is doubtful they had time for a tech run or a cue to cue rehearsal.
May I let you in on a secret - IT happens in pro shows as well.
One thing you may have missed - which got up my nose - was after the house was opened and the punters let in, the cast and tech crew entered the house thru the house rag to take their places. I questioned this - but because it was raining and the builders of the arts centre did not plan for it - there is no way to get to the foyer or control room without entering the FOH. That's a design fault that happens when these City's build a community hall cum modifed Theatre venue. Possibly the designer was once given a comp to see a show and instantly became an expert.
But there again I am only a little black duck and have not had SS's extensive education in the arts - after all he is a self confessed actor as well - so keep on doing it - as your postings are as exciting as watching fruit ripen on the ground to most backstagers I know.
Joe McCabe
Walter PlingeTue, 4 July 2000, 11:19 am
RE: Secret Squirrel
Dear Squirrel
If that is in fact your real name!
It is a pity that your responses dont even make it to barely adequate so we await your next gem with no interest whatso ever.
By the way Sarcasm was good enough for Shakespeare, so it should be good enough for anyone else in a theatrical context.
Also in the Post Modern era (ie now) I seem to remember that all people who act on stage are actors so whatever your gender is, it is still indeterminate by definition.
So in closing and I am sooo tired of this, if you cant conform to the established (although informally) rules and etiquette of this board the take your grubby, self serving, weasly, pretentious and thoroughly boring (read ho hum ^ 5) so called opinions and insert them where the sun doesn't shine.
By the way this is called a "Flame" and is usually sent by people who are annoyed by another poster. You see you should be aware of newsgroup etiquette and follow some of the mores that have been established.
Psuedonyms are a really convenient way of hurting peoples feeling without having to argue back. I was actually teasing you above (Squirrel that is). I mean just think how the opinion of an uneducated person, like yourself in the ways of theatre (although you own a dictionary) is regarded. Stop wasting our time moron, unless you can contribute to this groups discussion without stooping to personal abuse (oops - I may be guilty of this myself {Jarrod please revoke my membership in the theatrical community immediately})
Tada - I have spake and thus am prepard to wear the consequences. Some of you know me, so tell me off if you want (Because you can - you see my name and email address are at the top of the mail).
Maybe you could follow the dictates of your nom de plume and actually keep your opinions SECRET, I mean we dont really care.
Isnt theatre great - I mean I dont even have to be consistent (unless I am reviewing something - oops straying back to the subject matter again - my apologies)
Best Regards to all and sundry
Gary Barnes - (You can sometimes find me at KADS)
If that is in fact your real name!
It is a pity that your responses dont even make it to barely adequate so we await your next gem with no interest whatso ever.
By the way Sarcasm was good enough for Shakespeare, so it should be good enough for anyone else in a theatrical context.
Also in the Post Modern era (ie now) I seem to remember that all people who act on stage are actors so whatever your gender is, it is still indeterminate by definition.
So in closing and I am sooo tired of this, if you cant conform to the established (although informally) rules and etiquette of this board the take your grubby, self serving, weasly, pretentious and thoroughly boring (read ho hum ^ 5) so called opinions and insert them where the sun doesn't shine.
By the way this is called a "Flame" and is usually sent by people who are annoyed by another poster. You see you should be aware of newsgroup etiquette and follow some of the mores that have been established.
Psuedonyms are a really convenient way of hurting peoples feeling without having to argue back. I was actually teasing you above (Squirrel that is). I mean just think how the opinion of an uneducated person, like yourself in the ways of theatre (although you own a dictionary) is regarded. Stop wasting our time moron, unless you can contribute to this groups discussion without stooping to personal abuse (oops - I may be guilty of this myself {Jarrod please revoke my membership in the theatrical community immediately})
Tada - I have spake and thus am prepard to wear the consequences. Some of you know me, so tell me off if you want (Because you can - you see my name and email address are at the top of the mail).
Maybe you could follow the dictates of your nom de plume and actually keep your opinions SECRET, I mean we dont really care.
Isnt theatre great - I mean I dont even have to be consistent (unless I am reviewing something - oops straying back to the subject matter again - my apologies)
Best Regards to all and sundry
Gary Barnes - (You can sometimes find me at KADS)
Walter PlingeTue, 4 July 2000, 01:43 pm
RE: Secret Squirrel
You don't get it do you?
I am more than happy to hear THE TRUTH about my performance. But then, if it is in fact THE TRUTH, I'll usually know it already. I am not so much of an egomaniac that I can't tell when my work was sloppy and sub-standard so telling me how BAD I and my show was is of absolutely NO USE WHATSOEVER.
If one wants to be CONSTRUCTIVE in their criticisms one must offer advice on how to IMPROVE, not merely trash it. You don't have to insult people to do this. How stupid must you think we are if you assume we weren't aware of our own stuff-ups (cast and crew alike)? That does not make our crew 'laughable' or our actors incompetent; it makes us HUMAN. It also does not mean this will happen EVERY night. Welcome to the world of live theatre.
Although I think the whole issue of your pseudonym is a little trivial, I will say this: If I knew who you were and I had little regard for your opinion either because you had no knowledge or experience in theatre, I would more than likely disregard your opinion without bothering to respond.
However, if I knew who you were and if I had great respect for you because of your proven knowledge and experience I would thank you for your ADVICE and ACT on it, thus improving my future perfomances (as you seem to feel this is the function of a review, and I agree with you on that point).
BUT because I do not know who you are and because you stooped to MERELY INSULTING our performance, Butterflies Are Free and the other subscribers to this site (who DO know what they are talking about) I'm afraid I cannot summon up any respect for you at all. I instead feel that I must let you and certain other visitors to this site know that you are annoying, you contradict yourselves and if you do have any knowledge of the theatre at all, it is swallowed up by your egotistic attacks at other people and their work. (We - and I do include myself - are fools for bothering to respond to you). No one will listen to what you say if you attack them, no matter how valid your statements are. Try some TACT. It's just common courtesy, not merely a matter of tip-toeing around performers and their fragile egos.
I'm fed up with people who feel they have the right to attack others just to make themselves feel good. I see it all the time, even amongst my own friends. Yes, everyone has the right to an opinion and while no one's opinion counts for absolutely nothing, at least educate yourselves before you dare insult people on their own turf (and I do not and never will claim to be an expert myself but I do have an education and about 10 years of experience). Sure, put your two cents worth in, have your say, but don't be so bloody rude and arrogant. If you respect your peers and learn from them you will improve your own knowledge base and eventually people WILL respect YOUR opinion and you won't need to hide your identity.
I am more than happy to hear THE TRUTH about my performance. But then, if it is in fact THE TRUTH, I'll usually know it already. I am not so much of an egomaniac that I can't tell when my work was sloppy and sub-standard so telling me how BAD I and my show was is of absolutely NO USE WHATSOEVER.
If one wants to be CONSTRUCTIVE in their criticisms one must offer advice on how to IMPROVE, not merely trash it. You don't have to insult people to do this. How stupid must you think we are if you assume we weren't aware of our own stuff-ups (cast and crew alike)? That does not make our crew 'laughable' or our actors incompetent; it makes us HUMAN. It also does not mean this will happen EVERY night. Welcome to the world of live theatre.
Although I think the whole issue of your pseudonym is a little trivial, I will say this: If I knew who you were and I had little regard for your opinion either because you had no knowledge or experience in theatre, I would more than likely disregard your opinion without bothering to respond.
However, if I knew who you were and if I had great respect for you because of your proven knowledge and experience I would thank you for your ADVICE and ACT on it, thus improving my future perfomances (as you seem to feel this is the function of a review, and I agree with you on that point).
BUT because I do not know who you are and because you stooped to MERELY INSULTING our performance, Butterflies Are Free and the other subscribers to this site (who DO know what they are talking about) I'm afraid I cannot summon up any respect for you at all. I instead feel that I must let you and certain other visitors to this site know that you are annoying, you contradict yourselves and if you do have any knowledge of the theatre at all, it is swallowed up by your egotistic attacks at other people and their work. (We - and I do include myself - are fools for bothering to respond to you). No one will listen to what you say if you attack them, no matter how valid your statements are. Try some TACT. It's just common courtesy, not merely a matter of tip-toeing around performers and their fragile egos.
I'm fed up with people who feel they have the right to attack others just to make themselves feel good. I see it all the time, even amongst my own friends. Yes, everyone has the right to an opinion and while no one's opinion counts for absolutely nothing, at least educate yourselves before you dare insult people on their own turf (and I do not and never will claim to be an expert myself but I do have an education and about 10 years of experience). Sure, put your two cents worth in, have your say, but don't be so bloody rude and arrogant. If you respect your peers and learn from them you will improve your own knowledge base and eventually people WILL respect YOUR opinion and you won't need to hide your identity.
Walter PlingeTue, 4 July 2000, 05:54 pm
RE: Secret Squirrel
Hi Tracey (and everyone else),
Just thought I might add a few new points. Firstly I do not agree that the identity of the reviewer is important at all, as after all art is "purely subjective" and one does not need years of training to know what one likes.
If a particular piece requires years of training to enjoy then its creator has totally missed the point. Alienating your audience
(i.e. the general public) will do little good as in reality a great part of success in any art is to be able to be both passionate and commercially successful. We all do it for love but wouldn't it be great to be able to do it all the time and for money!!!!
We all beg for bums on seats yet some of the past posts suggest an elitist attitude where we are happy to take the publicÂ’s money and would be equally happy to disregard their opinion as they're not educated. Perhaps if we listened to their views we could work out why amateur theatre has such a bad rep in the wider community
AND, more importantly, work out how to make them come!!
Hang in there SS, I'm interested (but maybe try to be a little bit nicer).
Just thought I might add a few new points. Firstly I do not agree that the identity of the reviewer is important at all, as after all art is "purely subjective" and one does not need years of training to know what one likes.
If a particular piece requires years of training to enjoy then its creator has totally missed the point. Alienating your audience
(i.e. the general public) will do little good as in reality a great part of success in any art is to be able to be both passionate and commercially successful. We all do it for love but wouldn't it be great to be able to do it all the time and for money!!!!
We all beg for bums on seats yet some of the past posts suggest an elitist attitude where we are happy to take the publicÂ’s money and would be equally happy to disregard their opinion as they're not educated. Perhaps if we listened to their views we could work out why amateur theatre has such a bad rep in the wider community
AND, more importantly, work out how to make them come!!
Hang in there SS, I'm interested (but maybe try to be a little bit nicer).
Walter PlingeTue, 4 July 2000, 06:13 pm
RE: Secret Squirrel
Amateur theatre has a bad rep because it is believed that amateur = bad. The wider community won't see amateur shows for that very reason. That's it. We can tell them how good our stuff is till we're blue in the face but they still won't come. And even if they did they probably wouldn't appreciate what we do. They won't overlook the homemade sets and costumes, the halls instead of theatres and the varying levels of talent, simply because they haven't experienced it themselves. Trust me, many times I have invited non-theatre people to shows and no matter how good it is for an amateur company they still expect every actor to have trained at NIDA and each company to have a professional budget. Amateur theatre has a bad rep due to ignorance from the community and lack of finances.
I did not say that SS has no right to dislike the show. If you read my earlier posts you will see that. Anyone is welcome to like or dislike any work they choose. AND they certianly don't require an education to buy a ticket and enjoy a piece of theatre they don't grasp on an intellectual level.
However, I believe that no one has the right to trash any show simply because they don't like it.
If you want to review it at least have the knowledge to back up what you say.
I'm not interested in a reviewer who simply says, "It was great" or "It was crap". Tell my why it was great or why it was crap but offer educated advice if you think something should be improved. And for God's sake, don't be rude about it and don't try to tell people how to do something you know nothing about.
I did not say that SS has no right to dislike the show. If you read my earlier posts you will see that. Anyone is welcome to like or dislike any work they choose. AND they certianly don't require an education to buy a ticket and enjoy a piece of theatre they don't grasp on an intellectual level.
However, I believe that no one has the right to trash any show simply because they don't like it.
If you want to review it at least have the knowledge to back up what you say.
I'm not interested in a reviewer who simply says, "It was great" or "It was crap". Tell my why it was great or why it was crap but offer educated advice if you think something should be improved. And for God's sake, don't be rude about it and don't try to tell people how to do something you know nothing about.
JoeMcTue, 4 July 2000, 11:35 pm
RE: Secret Squirrel
Q: How many theatre reviewers and/or critics does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: All of them -
1 to be highly critical of the design elements,
1 to express contempt for the glow of the lamp,
1 to exagerate the temperature co-efficeint of other lightbulds
1 to lambast the interpretation of wattage used,
1 to critique the performance of the bulb itself,
1 to sprout the virtue of being a fluro performance as opposed to just ordinary incandescent shows
1 to review the value of ac and dc
1 to recall superb lightbulbs of past seasons and lament how this one fails to measure up,
Another to question if would not be better push it in rather then screw it
and the t'other who proceeds to screw it anyway,
-AND-
ALL to join in the refrain reflecting on how they could build a better light bulb in their sleep.
Joe McCabe
A: All of them -
1 to be highly critical of the design elements,
1 to express contempt for the glow of the lamp,
1 to exagerate the temperature co-efficeint of other lightbulds
1 to lambast the interpretation of wattage used,
1 to critique the performance of the bulb itself,
1 to sprout the virtue of being a fluro performance as opposed to just ordinary incandescent shows
1 to review the value of ac and dc
1 to recall superb lightbulbs of past seasons and lament how this one fails to measure up,
Another to question if would not be better push it in rather then screw it
and the t'other who proceeds to screw it anyway,
-AND-
ALL to join in the refrain reflecting on how they could build a better light bulb in their sleep.
Joe McCabe
Walter PlingeWed, 5 July 2000, 03:11 pm
RE: Bumpy Angels
thanks secret squirrel or should I say Simon
yes we know who you are
yes we know who you are
Walter PlingeWed, 5 July 2000, 03:17 pm
RE: Secret Squirrel
Well I saw Bumpy Angels and i thought the high light was Amy Leeder. Her performance was marvellous
A little poem for you Amy
Among the stars
a night so clear
I saw your face
and shed a tear
our lips part
then you reached
and stole my heart
From your secret love
.
A little poem for you Amy
Among the stars
a night so clear
I saw your face
and shed a tear
our lips part
then you reached
and stole my heart
From your secret love
.
Walter PlingeWed, 5 July 2000, 03:17 pm
RE: Secret Squirrel
Well I saw Bumpy Angels and i thought the high light was Amy Leeder. Her performance was marvellous
A little poem for you Amy
Among the stars
a night so clear
I saw your face
and shed a tear
our lips part
then you reached
and stole my heart
From your secret love
.
A little poem for you Amy
Among the stars
a night so clear
I saw your face
and shed a tear
our lips part
then you reached
and stole my heart
From your secret love
.
Walter PlingeWed, 5 July 2000, 03:27 pm
RE: Secret Squirrel
Now thats what I like to see ....
An anonymous declaration of l u r v e
An anonymous review is seen as 'gutless' .... but this is very mysterious, and especially if you are the object of the affection, half your luck Amy !
An anonymous declaration of l u r v e
An anonymous review is seen as 'gutless' .... but this is very mysterious, and especially if you are the object of the affection, half your luck Amy !
Walter PlingeWed, 5 July 2000, 04:35 pm
RE: Bumpy Angels
who is this Simon you speak of? Seriously, any accusations as to my real identity will be denied by me obviously....besides, who would want to halt such a promising reviewing career? =D
SS
SS
Sharon MalcolmThu, 6 July 2000, 08:28 am
Secret love (was RE: Secret Squirrel)
um...i hate to burst bubbles and stuff....but "secret love" i believe actually refers in some way to Pearls abusive father...which we find out at the end.
er, which makes this post really WEIRD
but, yeah, we think amy's great too.
:)
Sharon
Secret love wrote:
-------------------------------
Well I saw Bumpy Angels and i thought the high light was Amy Leeder. Her performance was marvellous
A little poem for you Amy
Among the stars
a night so clear
I saw your face
and shed a tear
our lips part
then you reached
and stole my heart
From your secret love
.
Walter PlingeThu, 6 July 2000, 10:15 am
RE: Secret love (was RE: Secret Squirrel)
And for those of you who didn't know the ending to the play relating to Pearl....well now you do!
Sharon MalcolmThu, 6 July 2000, 11:44 am
RE: Secret love (was RE: Secret Squirrel)
well, "angelfish", i don't think it's exactly a state secret. it's not like the whole play rides on finding this out, like the answer to a whodunit or something.
:)
Sharon
Walter PlingeThu, 6 July 2000, 03:57 pm
RE: Secret Squirrel
Hello everyone,
I don't know what to say! No seriously I don't know what to say! To my "secret love" thanks for the poem, but line 5 scares me a little. I haven't kissed a total stranger before so this is extremely weird! But I hope you enjoyed my PERFORMANCE (the operative word being performance)!!! Thanks.
Amy
I don't know what to say! No seriously I don't know what to say! To my "secret love" thanks for the poem, but line 5 scares me a little. I haven't kissed a total stranger before so this is extremely weird! But I hope you enjoyed my PERFORMANCE (the operative word being performance)!!! Thanks.
Amy
Walter PlingeSun, 9 July 2000, 06:51 pm
RE: Bumpy Angels
Dear Squirrel
If you have any critisism about music or song
direct your attack on the person resposable
i.e. the musical director (me) and not on two
defenceless and impressionable teenagers.
If you have any critisism about music or song
direct your attack on the person resposable
i.e. the musical director (me) and not on two
defenceless and impressionable teenagers.
Walter PlingeWed, 16 Nov 2005, 01:32 am
Re: Bumpy Angels
Oh dear, pathetic secret squirrel has managed to see another play and thinks he/she is qualified as a human being to judge the perfomances of actors. What does He/she know about acting or the intricasies of play production anyway? How can this lonely soul enjoy anything with such a pessimistic attitude. I pity his wife or husband. I have to conclude that this poor writer has only one intention in mind and that is to stir the emotions and anger of people who are trying without pay to entertain the masses.
get a life secret squirrel and go read a good book on positive thinking. singed without fear John E Regan (actor)
get a life secret squirrel and go read a good book on positive thinking. singed without fear John E Regan (actor)