No More Secrets?

Maybe it's because I've managed to personally avoid the wrath of the bewhiskered one, but i've not been entirely unappreciative of the commentaries posted under the pseudonym "Secret Squirrel".

I'm not sure whether i find his/her nasty remarks any more or less pleasing, illuminating or fulfilling than some of the occasionally fatuous "the show was fantastic. i loved it" comments that pepper this message board.

Certainly the first couple of commentaries on Butterflies Are Free and Bumpy Angels appeared to be at least partly considered and thought out. The most recent message really seemed to be plumbing the depths of bile though.

I'd like to encourage Squirrel to keep writing critiques - under your real name. You don't need to own up to who you are, that's not my point. I just can't help feeling that if you posted under your own name, you would take a little bit more time rephrasing some of the hasty, nastier things you have said. Not that you should cut out the critical comments, but that you might give them at least a light dusting of icing sugar to help them go down. It would be much harder for people to dismiss you out of hand if you weren't so dismissive yourself. People would still hear your criticisms, but would take them on board more readily if they sense that you have made an effort to understand their difficulties and you share their passion.

Finally, if you really can't find anything positive to say, perhaps it's better to say nothing at all?

Cheers
Grant

I agree Grant, hiding behind a secret name, "Secret Squirrel" is childish, he obviously has no nuts!

(Playing the 'ol devils advocate)

I am paralysed by being able to see both sides of this thing. I personally would never post a reveiw without putting my name on it. I veiw it as a cowardly act.

However, I do not impose these standards on other people. If they feel the only way to get their message across is through anonimity, then so be it. A little critismism is a healthy thing (as long as it isn't directed at me), people should have thick enough skins to take the good with the bad. And more importantly, people not involved with the show should be able to access all the opinions available, not just the good ones.

And may I point out something that a pretty little birdy said to me, no-one has vilifies "Stinger" for not using their real name. No-one has accusd them of cowardice. Maybe we just can't take the heat, anonimous or otherwise. Perhaps the real issue here is bruised egos.

And one more thing Grant, isn't it a fine line between telling people to be responsible for what they think and telling people what TO think?

LEAH

I'm quite fond of pretty little birdies. I prefer them to nutmunchers anyway.
By the way, "Stinger" is not a secret name, it is my stage name!

With regard to this whole `anonymity' issue, it would have been a lot less inflammatory for SS to simply have used a more realistic psuedonym. If he had called himself `John Brown' he would have maintained his cloak of secrecy and also held on to some credibility!
What is to stop anyone using a realistic, but altogether FAKE name?


Cheers
Signed (the very real)
Kate Lee

What you say is fair enough Grant, but surely in the small, sometimes claustrophibic theatre community that we have all chosen to be a part of, we should expect peer reviews.
If you don't know who somebody who reviews a show is, then you have idea how seriously to take it.
For example the rodents last review commented upon a song in a production being mostly spoken instead of sung. A later poster pointed out that the speech was deliberate and intentional, so the SS comment was in fact, poorly informed. In order to sensibly review something or comment upon it, one must actually know something about it.
If you want give your impressions then fine, however a critique must be based upon more objective criteria than simply opinion, otherwise the ITA would collar people off the street and turn them into judges instead of using experienced theatre people.
Posters like SS and his/her ilk should be discouraged, why cause dissent with uninformed negative critisicm, when you can cause as much fuss without the rancour with fair and honest reviews(which presupposes some theatrical knowledge).
SS has always pretended to be treading the high moral ground in this issue. The school of "everything is crap, and I am the only one with the courage to say something honestly about it" is where he/she purports to come from. In fact SS has consistently shown a meanness of spirit, ignorance and a spirited desire to trash other peoples work that contradicts the so called honesty of the reviews.
If SS was a known animal then its own body of work would be available for critical review and the criteria for its judgements could be understood, then the posts could be understood in the context of its own accomplishments.
Whats wrong with theatre people having thin skins anyhow? We put enough time/effort/love/money/time/time/time into our work, so we dont want somebody trashing it. Constructive criticism is only useful if we are convinced that the person who delivers it to us knows more than we do or has a different approach that we can possibly benefit from.
Anyway rave over for the moment, I enjoy what I have done in theatre and when I have received bad reviews, I have mostly deserved them, but I would have been incensed and extremely angry if someone had said that my performances were "Crappy beyond belief" instead of "Gary has done better" or "Dissapointing performance from Gary" or "Some of the cast could do with some polishing".
There are many ways to damn something without causing personal offence.
That is really the issue with SS, why should he/she be allowed to slander us and ours without repercussion. If this was the real world, people would be a little more cautious than they are in this forum.
Best Regards to everyone
Gary Barnes

Gary Barnes wrote:
-------------------------------
In order to sensibly review something or comment upon it, one must actually know something about it.
If you want give your impressions then fine, however a critique must be based upon more objective criteria than simply opinion, otherwise the ITA would collar people off the street and turn them into judges instead of using experienced theatre people.


What test do I have to sit, Gary, to earn the right to write a review? Who must consider me informed? How many productions do I have to do, awards do I have to win, people do I have to impress (and which ones?), before I can give my opinion?

LEAH

What test do I have to sit, Gary, to earn the right to write a review?

A bit picky of you, but a little experience is nice, are you implying that everyone is equally capable of reviewing theatre?
Besides in all fairness how can you fairly review something unless you know something of the subject?

Who must consider me informed?

The people who you review of course. Theatre is a Science as well as an Art. It is not all touchie feelie.

How many productions do I have to do, awards do I have to win, people do I have to impress (and which ones?), before I can give my opinion? - Leah

In your case Leah, your credentials are well established. If you give a bad review most people would probably agree with it because you know what you are talking about.

'No Sex Please We're British' starring.... 'stinger'
Yes, that's got a nice ring to it. Except you should move up to the big leagues and use a capital letter. Then people are bound to take you seriously....

I thoroughly agree with all that you have said, Gary. I believe I wrote something of a similar effect to the Squirrel itself not too long ago and was told I was being an elitist snob. Maybe I am. But at least the 'elite' are capable of informed opinions.

(By the way, there's NO WAY I consider myself to be elite. I am, after all, just an amateur...)

Anyone can write about a show they have seen and call it a review. Anyone is free to post their opinions on the reviews page. But my biggest point is, how can you consider it a review unless you know the reviewer understands the show and knows what they are talking about? To me, an uninformed 'review' is JUST an opinion. I have no problems with people's opinions but when it is just that, they have no right to trash a show so agressively. They simply do not know what they are talking about.

I think what we are getting down to now is the difference between an INFORMED REVIEW and OPINION. I would say, personally, that I found SS's post on our show insulting simply because he obviously didn't understand the style. He also made odd suggestions for cutting out sections that were essential parts of the script itself. At no point did I say he had no right to dislike the show. If somebody with a little experience and knowledge also said they didn't like the show, I would have no problem with that. However, the person with knowledge and experience I would TRUST to make suggestions and offer advice.

As I said before, I don't care if you thought the show was crap or if you thought the show was good. Tell me WHY it was crap or WHY it was good and BACK IT UP. While studying Literature we were always told to back up any statements we make with evidence from the text and our supportable, informed background knowledge.

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste".

~* Tracey.

I'm with Leah on this one Gary ...

All a review ever is, is an individuals personal opinion, whether that opinion is informed or not. If it is informed opinion then we might take more notice of what the reviewer has to say. If it is not informed opinion - as in the case of SS - then we should take less notice of what is said. Even ignore it.

I will admit that I haven't been the subject of one of SS's harsh opinions (in which case I would perhaps find it harder to take my own advice), but it seems to me that many who have been in that unfortunate position, have a lot of trouble ignoring what is, according to you, myself, and many others, overly harsh, if not uninformed opinion.

We have no way to determine whether it is informed opinion or not, except from our judgement of the opinion itself ... but to say that we should attempt to sensor what SS has to say ('discourage' to use your words) simply demonstrates a lack of ability to ignore their comments, and flys in the face of the concept of free speech.

What SS has said are not facts .... but one persons opinion. We definitely DO need thicker skins ...

The opinion is worth little .... so ignore it.

I've been following this entire anonyomity debate. for some time, and am certainly in two minds over certain things.

Firstly, I am fifteen years old. Many people may know this, many may not. I turn sixteen years old in September this year, and I joined the amateur theatre scene in February of 1999, when I was fourteen. I have been involved in a number of shows since, most recently 'Bumpy Angels' as Madonna. However, I have been acting since the age of eight, with various classes and with various tutors. I may have never been awarded with anything, but perhaps this merely comes down to the fact that I have never entered any competitions. I may be young, but I have almost eight years experience under my belt. I am not trying to say I am wonderful and better than anyone, because I will be the first person to admit that I am still learning. However, I believe that 90% of the world is still learning, no matter how old. I do not for a moment believe that I know more than most other people around me, but I do understand theatre. Over the years, I have developed a wide knowledge and respect for different forms of theatre. I try to see as many shows as possible, and have attempted to teach myself to be able to watch a show with an open mind, and give it an educated criticism (either good or bad). For this reason, I think the fact that I am young should not be attributed to my inability to review a show (or give an opinion thereof).

Thus, I understand some needs to hide behind a pseudonym, as an opinion such as mine would quickly be surpassed if not liked. Of course, unlike squirrel, I understand the words 'tact' and 'constructive criticism'. I do not pretend for an instance that I have not got a thousand more things to learn, and those of who who know me know I do not believe this. However, my point is that right now there will be certain people reading this, and thinking that it's not even worth reading past the first few lines, in which my age is mentioned. Some will think I have completely missed the point of this debate, and perhaps I have. In ten years time, I know that I will know so much more than I know at the moment. This post is not in defense of Squirrel, because I do not for a moment condone what they have done (and that has nothing to do with the fact that they trashed my singing {and in response to that, I would like to say that 'Bumpy Angels' is a play with music in it, not a musical, so therefore it is not imperative that we can sing}), it is defense of the few people around like myself, who are a bit timid of sharing an opinion or contributing to a debate, due to fear of their opinion being shunned because they are young. A well thought out, concise and diplomatic review is still a review, regardless of the author. In my opinion (dare it be stated), the entire reason this debate has been sparked up is not due to Squirrel's inexperience or age (although even I know who Brecht is, so there's no excuse for seeing it with such a closed mind. It seems Squirrel doesn't understand the idea of different styles of theatre!!), it's due to their cruelty and harsh attitude. If Squirrel had written a tactful review, people would have seen it through different eyes. Unfortunately, due to Squirrel's blatant lack of thought, many young actors now have the fear of having their ideas not respected due to this one person being a (pardon the language) wanker over something they didn't totally understand.

So in conclusion, although we are young, we still have opinions that deserve to be heard. I just pray that in future, I can see a show and post a review without fear of it being rubbished due to age. Perhaps Squirrel doesn't know what they're talking about, but this debate shouldn't end in everyone agreeing that only this age bracket with this many years experience can review, and nobody else can. I don't mean to sound angry or rash, but I am simply trying to help you see where this debate might just be leading. I'm sorry to anyone who didn't get this far, because I was too young to waste your time.

Regards,
Angela.

It is getting boring. Why not leave it at:-
"Those who dislike anonymous crits should ignore everything posted by SS or any other pseudonym and those who don't give a toss can read them"
it gets down to the old censorship debate.Surely we are all mature enough to decide for ourselves and can cope with others who decide differently.

Gary wrote:
-------------
In your case Leah, your credentials are well established. If you give a bad review most people would probably agree with it because you know what you are talking about.


Based on this comment Gary, I assume that I would never be allowed/considered worthy enough to post a review - whether it be in the positive or negative.

I have plodded around theatre for the past almost 5 years - but I would be surprised to learn that I have 'credentials' outside my home theatre, well established or not. Why then, simply because few people know me, should I keep my opinion to myself when all around me are expressing theirs? Why cannot I exercise my right to freedom of speech?

Or should I be restricted to a 'good' review, and then work very hard establishing myself on a better-known platform before I attempted what could possibly be a more 'honest' review? I will point out that my lack of a high-profile in other theatre companies around Perth is entirely my choice, however I have sat in the audience of many a show from Wanneroo to Rockingham.

For example, I recently went to see Marloo's production of 'The Boyfriend' (a show that I enjoyed, by the way). I'll fill you in on a few background details. I know about music - being a piano and guitar player; I know a little about directing - having dabbled enough to produce a 1-act; I know about costumes - being an inveterate seamstress; I know about lights - having not only dabbled in this area but attended the recent course at PICA; and I have experience in the sound side of things. And I'll throw in front of house just for good measure.

Precisely what then, in your view, disqualifies me from posting a review? Would it only be that fact that you don't know who I am? Maybe we could ask Grant nicely to change for format/layout of this page so that you not only give a name and email address but there is a space for qualifications too, that must be filled in before any message is posted.

Or possibly it can be sorted with a simple name change from "Theatre Review" to "Theatre Reminisces" which would effectively take the contents of this page from critique to opinion.

Louise

Oh I give in.
It seems that I am to be hoist upon the petard of political correctness. I have never suggested that anyone not review theatre.
Why has this little debate about constructive criticism turned into a virtual discussion about free speech?
If all reviews are after all "Just opinion" then there can be no rational starting point to discuss just how good a production is.
Either there are are non emotional objective ways to evaluate theatre or there are not.
You either care about what people say or you dont.
I wasn't the one who talked about tests, I simply mentioned that if people expect to be taken seriously when they review something, they should be prepared to be reviewed themselves.
Well now that I seem to have shifted the center of attention from Secret Squirrel to me (pro censorship, down with free speech, treading upon the disadvantaged) which was not my intention.
Should I preface anything I say with "In My Honest Opinion" or can I assume that people can take statements in context.
After all, all of my statements are also opinions. I wont make comments about other peoples shows that I can't back up with reasons for my opinions.
Once again if reviews are just opinions, then why are theatre companies so eager to be judged for the Finlays?
If opinions count for so little, then awards also count for little.
Enough all ready, since I seem to have trouble making myself understood in this public forum, I will take my own counsel for a while.

Just a small point Gary, It's Finley not Finlay. Please watch your spelling. Tsk...tsk.

Blah.

"In order to sensibly review something or comment upon it,one must actually know something about it." - I havent seen anywhere on this site a heading which reads "Sensible Reviews"...certainly if you have paid your dosh to see the show you are ALLOWED an opinion and there is no ITA rule book to say it must be sensible. Or well informed. Just as there is no rule to say that anyone has to take any notice of it whatsoever. If you dont agree with his opinion, why bother yourself getting all dithery about it? If the reviewer is so obviously out of touch with all manner of theatre knowhow, why, in heavens name, does he have so many peoples backs up? Surely it would be easier to think to yourself.."Oh bullshit, this man knows nothing!" And if people are wanting sugar coated reviews, why not just invite your friends and family to the show. Well, unless you have family like mine.

"Posters like SS and his/her ilk should be discouraged, why cause dissent with uninformed negative critisicm, when you can cause as much fuss without the rancour with fair and honest reviews(which presupposes some theatrical knowledge)." - Where is it written that to be an audience member, you have to have theatrical knowledge? Everyday, average, non theatre going folk do sometimes pop along to see a bit of a play once in a while. Are their opinions less valuable? Certainly they can hear if something sounds dreadful just as the rest of us can, or if something looks a bit shocking, and seen as they do make up a percentage of the audience population, its just as important to hear the opinion of the less informed theatre goer as it is the Brechian expert.

I guess this rave isnt really about the reviews of Mister Squirrel....I think Im just offended on behalf of the less informed members of an audience.

*puts on her "Audience Rights for the Ill Informed" t shirt*

Gary, to my mind (and the minds of those who organize and compile the Finley adjudicators score sheets) a review is only one person's reaction or opinion to a show. I'm a Finley adjudicator myself and on the bottom of the sheet where we make our comments on the production and forward it to the company involved there is a sentence which states: "Please note that these comments are my own personal reaction to the performance I attended on the date shown".

Joe, of course you are completely correct.
My sincere apologies for spelling it wrong.
The topist responsibal has been fismissed.

Im sorry, I had no idea that the reviews played no part in the adjudication of the production.

Oh...I think I spelt Brecht wrong.

Dismiss my whole arguement!

You give up Gary? Me too.
Ever get the feeling people don't actually READ what you've written?
Like, people just jump up and down and scream and yell because every written word on this public site is a personal attack on them.
I will say this once more. I'm not likely to post anything more on this site after this anyway (don't think of this as anything personal, Grant, Jarrod etc)

{This goes out to Jay and Louise in particular}

Never once was it stated by anyone that you are not allowed to express your own OPINIONS.
Never once did anyone say you have to present your resume, have a degree or be of a certain age to express your OPINIONS.

But, to me at least, (and this is only my OPINION) there is a difference between PERSONAL OPINION and a REVIEW. If a review is written well it shouldn't matter whether the reviewer LIKED the show or not. A good reviewer (even if they are anonymous) should be able to present a balanced critique of a show and by USING their own knowledge and experience as background to the review PROVE that they HAVE some knowledge and experience.

Everyone has an opinion. Dime a dozen. That's not the job of a reviewer. A reviewer addresses the pros and cons of a show, what worked and what didn't and what could have been changed. A reviewer is familiar with the style of the play, technical aspects and the company that produced the show (notice I said FAMILIAR, not EXPERT). A reviewer reviews a show to spark other people's interest so they will want to see it and form their OWN OPINIONS.

Everything I have written on this site is MY opinion.
And nothing I have ever written is a personal attack. Never, ever think of it as such.
However, I am sick of constantly rephrasing myself, defending what I say and making sure no one gets upset. I am sick of the bitchiness that goes on not only on this site but in the whole theatre community. I know this is the nature of the beast and that it is the same everywhere, but I've had enough.

Think what you like, I'm out of here.
"I may be gone for some time".

~T.S.

DON"T GO!!

I personally have enjoyed all of your posts Trace and I have been EDUCATED by them. Brecht, huh, who woulda thunk it! Now I can confidently pretend to know even the merest thing about him, where before I was always waffling away with people looking at me like I was an uninformed lunatic.

DON"T LEAVE ME AND LET PEOPLE FIND OUT I"M AN IDIOT!!

Seriously, all conributions should be welcome. Disagreement and debate are the essence of the mind's evolution. All contriutions to my mind welcome.

See you on Sauturday night at Bumpy Angel, (still running at Don Russell!!).

LEAH