Othello v Titus
Sun, 6 Aug 2000, 11:22 amGrant Malcolm13 posts in thread
Othello v Titus
Sun, 6 Aug 2000, 11:22 amHaving spent the previous night at Bell's Dream I was looking forward to an evening of contrast with Shakespearience's Othello v Titus.
I'll confess it wasn't entirely without some trepidation. While I shared much of Robert Cook's enthusiasm for Gibson Nolte's performance in the recent Macbeth, I'd wished someone had taken a nail gun to his somewhat undisciplined interpretation of Macduff and stapled his feet to the floor!
However, I had seen Gibson's Winters' Tale at Kalamunda last year and I was confident that, as a director, he had a firm grasp of the bard and I was looking forward to seeing how he and his fellow director Claire Hooper tackled these condensed versions.
It's difficult not to draw comparisons between the original sources and Kaiser's shorter versions. Shakespeare's Othello and Titus Andronicus they are not. That said, the stripped down texts stand perfectly well in their own right and succeeded admirably in performance.
The contrast with Bell Shakespeare was at once apparent in the almost complete lack of setting and the very simple costuming - not to mention the size of the venue. For all this, the company filled the space with inventive performances that invited the audience to share their journey.
Each play is performed by a cast of three and thankfully, with skillful editing, each actor plays at most only three parts. Shifts in characterisation together with single items of costume or rearrangments of hair neatly distinguished one role from another.
The plays move quickly. The performances are dynamic and the energy never flagged. Titus is as obscenely funny as Othello is tension packed. The invention and passion held the small Blue Room crowd firmly in its thrall.
Some more work on vocal technique might have assisted to carry the otherwise excellent performances of Booth and Keen, but it was a delight to see the development of Toby Malone as a performer. If occasionally physically understated his almost melodramatic vocal range was admirably suited to the roles. Rebecca Pithers performance was the highlight for me with extraordinary assurance, sensitivity and vocal clarity.
And I have to ask... Rebecca is that you? I thought you looked very familiar, but I didn't read the programme until i went for coffee after the show. Can it be that i really directed you when you were ten years old???
Cheers
Grant
I'll confess it wasn't entirely without some trepidation. While I shared much of Robert Cook's enthusiasm for Gibson Nolte's performance in the recent Macbeth, I'd wished someone had taken a nail gun to his somewhat undisciplined interpretation of Macduff and stapled his feet to the floor!
However, I had seen Gibson's Winters' Tale at Kalamunda last year and I was confident that, as a director, he had a firm grasp of the bard and I was looking forward to seeing how he and his fellow director Claire Hooper tackled these condensed versions.
It's difficult not to draw comparisons between the original sources and Kaiser's shorter versions. Shakespeare's Othello and Titus Andronicus they are not. That said, the stripped down texts stand perfectly well in their own right and succeeded admirably in performance.
The contrast with Bell Shakespeare was at once apparent in the almost complete lack of setting and the very simple costuming - not to mention the size of the venue. For all this, the company filled the space with inventive performances that invited the audience to share their journey.
Each play is performed by a cast of three and thankfully, with skillful editing, each actor plays at most only three parts. Shifts in characterisation together with single items of costume or rearrangments of hair neatly distinguished one role from another.
The plays move quickly. The performances are dynamic and the energy never flagged. Titus is as obscenely funny as Othello is tension packed. The invention and passion held the small Blue Room crowd firmly in its thrall.
Some more work on vocal technique might have assisted to carry the otherwise excellent performances of Booth and Keen, but it was a delight to see the development of Toby Malone as a performer. If occasionally physically understated his almost melodramatic vocal range was admirably suited to the roles. Rebecca Pithers performance was the highlight for me with extraordinary assurance, sensitivity and vocal clarity.
And I have to ask... Rebecca is that you? I thought you looked very familiar, but I didn't read the programme until i went for coffee after the show. Can it be that i really directed you when you were ten years old???
Cheers
Grant
Grant MalcolmSun, 6 Aug 2000, 11:22 am
Having spent the previous night at Bell's Dream I was looking forward to an evening of contrast with Shakespearience's Othello v Titus.
I'll confess it wasn't entirely without some trepidation. While I shared much of Robert Cook's enthusiasm for Gibson Nolte's performance in the recent Macbeth, I'd wished someone had taken a nail gun to his somewhat undisciplined interpretation of Macduff and stapled his feet to the floor!
However, I had seen Gibson's Winters' Tale at Kalamunda last year and I was confident that, as a director, he had a firm grasp of the bard and I was looking forward to seeing how he and his fellow director Claire Hooper tackled these condensed versions.
It's difficult not to draw comparisons between the original sources and Kaiser's shorter versions. Shakespeare's Othello and Titus Andronicus they are not. That said, the stripped down texts stand perfectly well in their own right and succeeded admirably in performance.
The contrast with Bell Shakespeare was at once apparent in the almost complete lack of setting and the very simple costuming - not to mention the size of the venue. For all this, the company filled the space with inventive performances that invited the audience to share their journey.
Each play is performed by a cast of three and thankfully, with skillful editing, each actor plays at most only three parts. Shifts in characterisation together with single items of costume or rearrangments of hair neatly distinguished one role from another.
The plays move quickly. The performances are dynamic and the energy never flagged. Titus is as obscenely funny as Othello is tension packed. The invention and passion held the small Blue Room crowd firmly in its thrall.
Some more work on vocal technique might have assisted to carry the otherwise excellent performances of Booth and Keen, but it was a delight to see the development of Toby Malone as a performer. If occasionally physically understated his almost melodramatic vocal range was admirably suited to the roles. Rebecca Pithers performance was the highlight for me with extraordinary assurance, sensitivity and vocal clarity.
And I have to ask... Rebecca is that you? I thought you looked very familiar, but I didn't read the programme until i went for coffee after the show. Can it be that i really directed you when you were ten years old???
Cheers
Grant
I'll confess it wasn't entirely without some trepidation. While I shared much of Robert Cook's enthusiasm for Gibson Nolte's performance in the recent Macbeth, I'd wished someone had taken a nail gun to his somewhat undisciplined interpretation of Macduff and stapled his feet to the floor!
However, I had seen Gibson's Winters' Tale at Kalamunda last year and I was confident that, as a director, he had a firm grasp of the bard and I was looking forward to seeing how he and his fellow director Claire Hooper tackled these condensed versions.
It's difficult not to draw comparisons between the original sources and Kaiser's shorter versions. Shakespeare's Othello and Titus Andronicus they are not. That said, the stripped down texts stand perfectly well in their own right and succeeded admirably in performance.
The contrast with Bell Shakespeare was at once apparent in the almost complete lack of setting and the very simple costuming - not to mention the size of the venue. For all this, the company filled the space with inventive performances that invited the audience to share their journey.
Each play is performed by a cast of three and thankfully, with skillful editing, each actor plays at most only three parts. Shifts in characterisation together with single items of costume or rearrangments of hair neatly distinguished one role from another.
The plays move quickly. The performances are dynamic and the energy never flagged. Titus is as obscenely funny as Othello is tension packed. The invention and passion held the small Blue Room crowd firmly in its thrall.
Some more work on vocal technique might have assisted to carry the otherwise excellent performances of Booth and Keen, but it was a delight to see the development of Toby Malone as a performer. If occasionally physically understated his almost melodramatic vocal range was admirably suited to the roles. Rebecca Pithers performance was the highlight for me with extraordinary assurance, sensitivity and vocal clarity.
And I have to ask... Rebecca is that you? I thought you looked very familiar, but I didn't read the programme until i went for coffee after the show. Can it be that i really directed you when you were ten years old???
Cheers
Grant
Walter PlingeThu, 10 Aug 2000, 12:26 pm
RE: Othello v Titus
I must confess to not having seen much professional (or amateur) Shakespeare in the past, so I have very few performances to compare 'Othello v Titus' with.
But, from my few experiences, I can say that this blew nearly all of them out of the water. It certainly blew me away.
Unfamiliar with both plays (and I call myself a theatre student?) I was certainly in for some surprises. I couldn't believe that Shakespeare could actually conceive some of the gruesome ideas that came up in these plays (particularly Titus, 'cullinary' in the program synopsis has a rather different meaning to what I had expected...).
The plot was dense with action. So much happened in the forty or so minutes that each performance took that I could hardly find time to sip my glass of wine. And even though each performer played several roles, it was still fairly easy for the unaware audience member to get the gist of what was happening. It definitely helped with such strong and well characterised performances from the cast.
The two plays had different directors (Claire Hooper directed Othello and Gibson Nolte directed Titus) and were fairly different, yet equally as brilliant. Titus was a bit more abstract, and included some rather funny dance segments choreographed by Hooper, though I personally felt a bit naughty for laughing at the subject matter. :)
In the battle of Othello v Titus I would definitely call it a draw.
Well done to the cast and crew.
Michelle Sowden.
But, from my few experiences, I can say that this blew nearly all of them out of the water. It certainly blew me away.
Unfamiliar with both plays (and I call myself a theatre student?) I was certainly in for some surprises. I couldn't believe that Shakespeare could actually conceive some of the gruesome ideas that came up in these plays (particularly Titus, 'cullinary' in the program synopsis has a rather different meaning to what I had expected...).
The plot was dense with action. So much happened in the forty or so minutes that each performance took that I could hardly find time to sip my glass of wine. And even though each performer played several roles, it was still fairly easy for the unaware audience member to get the gist of what was happening. It definitely helped with such strong and well characterised performances from the cast.
The two plays had different directors (Claire Hooper directed Othello and Gibson Nolte directed Titus) and were fairly different, yet equally as brilliant. Titus was a bit more abstract, and included some rather funny dance segments choreographed by Hooper, though I personally felt a bit naughty for laughing at the subject matter. :)
In the battle of Othello v Titus I would definitely call it a draw.
Well done to the cast and crew.
Michelle Sowden.
Toby MaloneFri, 11 Aug 2000, 12:29 am
RE: Othello v Titus
Although the run of the show is not quite done, and I really wasn't meaning to write anything about the show itself on the website (being a little too close the show) but I just wanted to make a comment.
I have been following with interest in the last few days the attacks on 'Secret Squirrel', who it was revealed was Simon Baldwin, an old friend of mine. I felt that some of Simon's criticisms on this site were a little harsh, but I was also glad to see someone have the guts (albeit anonymously) to say what they actually THOUGHT about a show in review. Simon was at 'OvT' tonight and I asked him if he was thinking of going home to write a scathing criticism of the show - and was surprised to see that he was very much reluctant to do that, even under his own name, because of the nasty rebukes he had received from offended cast and crew. I really do think this is a shame, because it is nice to get a bagging every now and then - I mean, how often do we as performers read a review that is 100% complimentary? Not really all that often. Being bagged lets you know what other people thought could do with improvement, and you are free to take or disregard those opinions as you wish. I don't want to get into a rant about this - I certainly don't want to get into an argument over this. What I am saying is that Simon didn't sound all that interested in continuing to review shows honestly (remember, everyone - it's just an OPINION) on here anymore because some people didn't like to hear that their show wasn't perfect. I am not asking everyone to throw their arms wide and receive a bagging with gratitude, but it's what makes us stronger as performers - noting criticisms and opinions and using them to help sculpt our performances. Nobody likes being told that they did something that they have worked so hard on (especially community theatre whose focus is fun and personal fulfillment) is crap, but you can't always be in Findlay winners. I will wind this up here, but I just wanted to say that I think it is a shame that a bit of criticism - even if it is from someone with a pseudonym or whatever - was so uproariously received that the critic in name (who, by the way, I felt had plenty of good points, but also plenty of others I didn't agree with) feels he can't contribute anymore.
I hope I haven't offended anyone, and Simon - apologies for speaking for you, but that's my opinion about the whole situation and I just wanted to air it. Thanks to everyone who has seen and reviewed Othello v Titus - we are all overwhelmed by the reception we have gained.
Thanks again.
Toby Malone
Michelle Sowden wrote:
-------------------------------
I must confess to not having seen much professional (or amateur) Shakespeare in the past, so I have very few performances to compare 'Othello v Titus' with.
But, from my few experiences, I can say that this blew nearly all of them out of the water. It certainly blew me away.
Unfamiliar with both plays (and I call myself a theatre student?) I was certainly in for some surprises. I couldn't believe that Shakespeare could actually conceive some of the gruesome ideas that came up in these plays (particularly Titus, 'cullinary' in the program synopsis has a rather different meaning to what I had expected...).
The plot was dense with action. So much happened in the forty or so minutes that each performance took that I could hardly find time to sip my glass of wine. And even though each performer played several roles, it was still fairly easy for the unaware audience member to get the gist of what was happening. It definitely helped with such strong and well characterised performanc....
I have been following with interest in the last few days the attacks on 'Secret Squirrel', who it was revealed was Simon Baldwin, an old friend of mine. I felt that some of Simon's criticisms on this site were a little harsh, but I was also glad to see someone have the guts (albeit anonymously) to say what they actually THOUGHT about a show in review. Simon was at 'OvT' tonight and I asked him if he was thinking of going home to write a scathing criticism of the show - and was surprised to see that he was very much reluctant to do that, even under his own name, because of the nasty rebukes he had received from offended cast and crew. I really do think this is a shame, because it is nice to get a bagging every now and then - I mean, how often do we as performers read a review that is 100% complimentary? Not really all that often. Being bagged lets you know what other people thought could do with improvement, and you are free to take or disregard those opinions as you wish. I don't want to get into a rant about this - I certainly don't want to get into an argument over this. What I am saying is that Simon didn't sound all that interested in continuing to review shows honestly (remember, everyone - it's just an OPINION) on here anymore because some people didn't like to hear that their show wasn't perfect. I am not asking everyone to throw their arms wide and receive a bagging with gratitude, but it's what makes us stronger as performers - noting criticisms and opinions and using them to help sculpt our performances. Nobody likes being told that they did something that they have worked so hard on (especially community theatre whose focus is fun and personal fulfillment) is crap, but you can't always be in Findlay winners. I will wind this up here, but I just wanted to say that I think it is a shame that a bit of criticism - even if it is from someone with a pseudonym or whatever - was so uproariously received that the critic in name (who, by the way, I felt had plenty of good points, but also plenty of others I didn't agree with) feels he can't contribute anymore.
I hope I haven't offended anyone, and Simon - apologies for speaking for you, but that's my opinion about the whole situation and I just wanted to air it. Thanks to everyone who has seen and reviewed Othello v Titus - we are all overwhelmed by the reception we have gained.
Thanks again.
Toby Malone
Michelle Sowden wrote:
-------------------------------
I must confess to not having seen much professional (or amateur) Shakespeare in the past, so I have very few performances to compare 'Othello v Titus' with.
But, from my few experiences, I can say that this blew nearly all of them out of the water. It certainly blew me away.
Unfamiliar with both plays (and I call myself a theatre student?) I was certainly in for some surprises. I couldn't believe that Shakespeare could actually conceive some of the gruesome ideas that came up in these plays (particularly Titus, 'cullinary' in the program synopsis has a rather different meaning to what I had expected...).
The plot was dense with action. So much happened in the forty or so minutes that each performance took that I could hardly find time to sip my glass of wine. And even though each performer played several roles, it was still fairly easy for the unaware audience member to get the gist of what was happening. It definitely helped with such strong and well characterised performanc....
Walter PlingeFri, 11 Aug 2000, 11:04 am
RE: Othello v Titus
One word sums up this play...GREAT!
fantastic...and enjoyable play
fantastic...and enjoyable play
Walter PlingeSat, 12 Aug 2000, 02:50 pm
RE: Vale - Secret Squirrel
Hi Toby,
Thanks for taking the time to contribute. I concur, I don't want to get into an argument, and I'm certainly not offended by your posting, but since I was one of Secret Squirrel's biggest critics I thought I should reply rather than you thinking you'd been ignored.
I disagreed with what Simon wrote and the way he did it, from his very first "review", and I still do.
He went to opening nights of "Butterflies Are Free", "Bumpy Angels" and "Good Common Evil", hung around afterwards socialising with the people involved and telling them how he enjoyed the show (I know because I was there on two of those occasions), then went home and wrote malicious reviews.
I choose my words carefully and, in my opinion, his reviews were malicious. Behind the safety of anonymity he offered no constructive criticism other than to say the shows were crap. In each case, these were after opening nights and seemed almost intent on dissuading future audiences.
What's the best way to bankrupt a bank? You spread rumours that it is in serious financial trouble, people are encouraged to withdraw funds en masse, the bank loses much of its money and the rumour becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The same can be done with rumours about circulations or ratings of magazines or television programs.
Probably the best way to jinx a show is to state, as early as possible, that it is crap and that people should stay away. Approximately 1000 people read this site every week. A recent poll suggested that 30% would decide to skip a show upon reading a bad review. That's 300 bums on seats and 300 ticket sales. Admittedly, statistics are not infallible, but I'm presenting a worst-case scenario. David Crewes (editor of the ITA Link newsletter) touched upon this in his recent editorial.
Few shows are perfect, and most people take that as it comes. Rightly or wrongly, it is a view supported by the relative cheapness of tickets. I was speaking to an experienced friend who said that the professional (ie: expensive) production of Earnest was good, but no better than much of Perth's independent theatre. I see where you're coming from, but I completely disagree with your statement, "it is nice to get a bagging every now and then".
No it isn't. It is nice to hear some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism or valid suggestions, but it is painful to be BAGGED publicly and anonymously.
You wrote, "Nobody likes being told that they did something that they have worked so hard on (especially community theatre whose focus is fun and personal fulfillment) is crap". I DO agree with this, and it corresponds both to extracurricular activities such as theatre, and to professional life. Nobody likes being told that their work - either amateur hobby or full-time profession - is poor. SO WHY DO IT?
Sorry, I'm starting to rant myself. To wind it up, your post proves our point: Simon was told his reviews were crap, people turned against him, and now he's discouraged from continuing. What he set out to do has backfired. Worse, he has inspired cretins like "Poppy" and "Your Biggest Fan" who think they now have a mandate to spew bile - but fortunately, for the moment, are only shooting themselves in the foot with their inanities.
It is possible to write GOOD critical reviews (I did like Malcolm Crisp's review, for instance). Notice that no one bags "Stinger" - despite the fact he/she is anonymous - because stinger's reviews present good and bad points WITHOUT being nasty, cruel or personal. I think Luke put it best when he said, "Instead of bagging our local theatre I'd like to promote, after all, we're all in the same big theatrical boat". (Luke, you have the soul of a poet.)
Food for thought, perhaps.
JB
Thanks for taking the time to contribute. I concur, I don't want to get into an argument, and I'm certainly not offended by your posting, but since I was one of Secret Squirrel's biggest critics I thought I should reply rather than you thinking you'd been ignored.
I disagreed with what Simon wrote and the way he did it, from his very first "review", and I still do.
He went to opening nights of "Butterflies Are Free", "Bumpy Angels" and "Good Common Evil", hung around afterwards socialising with the people involved and telling them how he enjoyed the show (I know because I was there on two of those occasions), then went home and wrote malicious reviews.
I choose my words carefully and, in my opinion, his reviews were malicious. Behind the safety of anonymity he offered no constructive criticism other than to say the shows were crap. In each case, these were after opening nights and seemed almost intent on dissuading future audiences.
What's the best way to bankrupt a bank? You spread rumours that it is in serious financial trouble, people are encouraged to withdraw funds en masse, the bank loses much of its money and the rumour becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The same can be done with rumours about circulations or ratings of magazines or television programs.
Probably the best way to jinx a show is to state, as early as possible, that it is crap and that people should stay away. Approximately 1000 people read this site every week. A recent poll suggested that 30% would decide to skip a show upon reading a bad review. That's 300 bums on seats and 300 ticket sales. Admittedly, statistics are not infallible, but I'm presenting a worst-case scenario. David Crewes (editor of the ITA Link newsletter) touched upon this in his recent editorial.
Few shows are perfect, and most people take that as it comes. Rightly or wrongly, it is a view supported by the relative cheapness of tickets. I was speaking to an experienced friend who said that the professional (ie: expensive) production of Earnest was good, but no better than much of Perth's independent theatre. I see where you're coming from, but I completely disagree with your statement, "it is nice to get a bagging every now and then".
No it isn't. It is nice to hear some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism or valid suggestions, but it is painful to be BAGGED publicly and anonymously.
You wrote, "Nobody likes being told that they did something that they have worked so hard on (especially community theatre whose focus is fun and personal fulfillment) is crap". I DO agree with this, and it corresponds both to extracurricular activities such as theatre, and to professional life. Nobody likes being told that their work - either amateur hobby or full-time profession - is poor. SO WHY DO IT?
Sorry, I'm starting to rant myself. To wind it up, your post proves our point: Simon was told his reviews were crap, people turned against him, and now he's discouraged from continuing. What he set out to do has backfired. Worse, he has inspired cretins like "Poppy" and "Your Biggest Fan" who think they now have a mandate to spew bile - but fortunately, for the moment, are only shooting themselves in the foot with their inanities.
It is possible to write GOOD critical reviews (I did like Malcolm Crisp's review, for instance). Notice that no one bags "Stinger" - despite the fact he/she is anonymous - because stinger's reviews present good and bad points WITHOUT being nasty, cruel or personal. I think Luke put it best when he said, "Instead of bagging our local theatre I'd like to promote, after all, we're all in the same big theatrical boat". (Luke, you have the soul of a poet.)
Food for thought, perhaps.
JB
Grant MalcolmSat, 12 Aug 2000, 07:19 pm
RE: Vale - Secret Squirrel
Hi Jarrod
While i didn't personally feel all of SS's contributions were as unremittingly malicious as you suggest, i think you have provided a very neat summary of the course of discussion and the various views expressed on the topic.
I do think it's worth taking a moment to address the question of the effect of negative reviews on this site. Broken Limb's production of Macbeth received something of a "bagging" at the hands of Robert Cook in The West - a substantially larger readership than attending this website. The night I attended their was a very reasonable house and I gather the season generally did very well.
If a review, by a paid theatre critic selected for publication in our daily newspaper would appear not to have dented ticket sales, you've got to seriously question whether anyone would take any notice of the views of someone posting anonymously on this website.
Let's give each other at least a little credit. We're all capable of drawing our own conclusions about whether or not someone's point of view is worthwhile. Posting anonymously and in a dismissive manner will ring alarm bells with anyone seriously looking for an unbiased and balanced critique. Anyone prepared for a moment to place credence in the views of an anonymous poster deserves to be taken for a ride - and that includes people who take offence at such anonymous reviews.
Quite apart from this, this site has never been intended as a soapbox for the Secret Squirrel's of the world. It will only become one if people meekly stand by and allow their work to be trashed or smugly sniff disdainfully at the poor quality of the discussion and refuse to contribute.
If people don't like the quality of the contributions from some of the anonymous posters, then they should really think about putting hand to keyboard and doing something to lift the tone around here. Great to to see Jarrod is leading the way in this respect!
Cheers
Grant
While i didn't personally feel all of SS's contributions were as unremittingly malicious as you suggest, i think you have provided a very neat summary of the course of discussion and the various views expressed on the topic.
I do think it's worth taking a moment to address the question of the effect of negative reviews on this site. Broken Limb's production of Macbeth received something of a "bagging" at the hands of Robert Cook in The West - a substantially larger readership than attending this website. The night I attended their was a very reasonable house and I gather the season generally did very well.
If a review, by a paid theatre critic selected for publication in our daily newspaper would appear not to have dented ticket sales, you've got to seriously question whether anyone would take any notice of the views of someone posting anonymously on this website.
Let's give each other at least a little credit. We're all capable of drawing our own conclusions about whether or not someone's point of view is worthwhile. Posting anonymously and in a dismissive manner will ring alarm bells with anyone seriously looking for an unbiased and balanced critique. Anyone prepared for a moment to place credence in the views of an anonymous poster deserves to be taken for a ride - and that includes people who take offence at such anonymous reviews.
Quite apart from this, this site has never been intended as a soapbox for the Secret Squirrel's of the world. It will only become one if people meekly stand by and allow their work to be trashed or smugly sniff disdainfully at the poor quality of the discussion and refuse to contribute.
If people don't like the quality of the contributions from some of the anonymous posters, then they should really think about putting hand to keyboard and doing something to lift the tone around here. Great to to see Jarrod is leading the way in this respect!
Cheers
Grant
Walter PlingeSat, 12 Aug 2000, 08:11 pm
RE: Vale - Secret Squirrel
I feel compelled to write in an attempt to qualify or at least understand the severe and indeed malicious character assasination that is occuring on this website. I have not now, nor before ever stated that my views and opinions were to be privelidged over those of others or that I believe myself to be infallible. I saw a shortage of quality (indeed any) reviews and decided that perhaps I should turn my intelligence and experience into voicing what a good number people think about various productions. Yes, I have stated that one of the reasons was that I saw so many people being unashamedly two-faced and complimenting performers and crew and then with the same breath telling someone else what they really thought. Of course, many people enjoy community theatre and compliment with sincerity and honesty. However, as I have already explained it is not a useful charade to continue to promote both ignorance and a mediocre standard of local theatre. Attacking me for using a psuedonym was the first easy defence, passionately arued, the pros and cons of which I will not go into here, suffice to reiterate that my choice was intended to divert attention to the review, rather than the reviewer - there were never any malevolent or cruel intentions to slag and bitch from behind a safe facade.
I admit that I was tactless in my first review, at that stage I was trying to prove a point and to get some intelligent discussion motivated - this is not to say that my reviews were slipshod and hasty, I have honestly spent quite a while thinking of the right thing to say. Having then been criticised for my "vitriol" (along with a host of other derogatory comments and name-calling) I then wrote a sugar-coated review of Macbeth. I was promptly shot down for getting it wrong. Not only did a professional reviewer accuracte portray what I wanted to say but many other people voiced their disagreement with my tactful, constructive review.
A no win situation!? Probably, nevertheless I continued on, clinging to the assumption that what I was doing still had some value. I was then asked to review a show written and directed by a fellow Curtin student, and he saw fit by way of retaliation to reveal my identity - which was greeted silently on the website. I habour no resentment towards Luke but will admit I was quite disturbed and worried that now the hoardes of pro-community theatre groupies would be after me and I would never work in local theatre again (oh no!). The challenge for fellow ita'ers to come and try their hand at reviewing me went unmet and I can say it was their loss.
Sorry about the length of this rant, but I feel I am allowed to justify myself in the eyes of general readers and those who attack me more savagely than I have ever reviewed.
To conclude, I will continue to review - you can read or not, take heed or not - I impose my opinion on nobody.
Thankyou for your time
Luv Secret Squirrel (or should that be Secret Smartarse - I lose track of the insults)
I admit that I was tactless in my first review, at that stage I was trying to prove a point and to get some intelligent discussion motivated - this is not to say that my reviews were slipshod and hasty, I have honestly spent quite a while thinking of the right thing to say. Having then been criticised for my "vitriol" (along with a host of other derogatory comments and name-calling) I then wrote a sugar-coated review of Macbeth. I was promptly shot down for getting it wrong. Not only did a professional reviewer accuracte portray what I wanted to say but many other people voiced their disagreement with my tactful, constructive review.
A no win situation!? Probably, nevertheless I continued on, clinging to the assumption that what I was doing still had some value. I was then asked to review a show written and directed by a fellow Curtin student, and he saw fit by way of retaliation to reveal my identity - which was greeted silently on the website. I habour no resentment towards Luke but will admit I was quite disturbed and worried that now the hoardes of pro-community theatre groupies would be after me and I would never work in local theatre again (oh no!). The challenge for fellow ita'ers to come and try their hand at reviewing me went unmet and I can say it was their loss.
Sorry about the length of this rant, but I feel I am allowed to justify myself in the eyes of general readers and those who attack me more savagely than I have ever reviewed.
To conclude, I will continue to review - you can read or not, take heed or not - I impose my opinion on nobody.
Thankyou for your time
Luv Secret Squirrel (or should that be Secret Smartarse - I lose track of the insults)
Walter PlingeTue, 15 Aug 2000, 03:09 pm
RE: Vale - Secret Squirrel
"The challenge for fellow ita'ers to come and try their hand at reviewing me went unmet and I can say it was their loss." - SS
See my posting of last week. Weren't you the Bruce Spence clone in 'Tests'?
I think it should be compulsory in all introductory drama courses for students to learn to write well-balanced critiques of shows they have seen. Not only would it make them more useful to their fellow performers but it could also improve their own performance skills.
Can I respectfully suggest (as others have before) that this sort of rant be removed to the 'gossip' page and more thought be put into what is posted on this page?
Cheers
See my posting of last week. Weren't you the Bruce Spence clone in 'Tests'?
I think it should be compulsory in all introductory drama courses for students to learn to write well-balanced critiques of shows they have seen. Not only would it make them more useful to their fellow performers but it could also improve their own performance skills.
Can I respectfully suggest (as others have before) that this sort of rant be removed to the 'gossip' page and more thought be put into what is posted on this page?
Cheers
Walter PlingeTue, 15 Aug 2000, 04:43 pm
RE: Vale - Secret Squirrel
'Can I respectfully suggest (as others have before) that this sort of rant be removed to the 'gossip' page and more thought be put into what is posted on this page?' - 'Stinger'
Why not practice what you preach, Mr(s?) Stinger, by refraining from adding yet another tiresome contribution to this 'rant' in the review section?
Why not practice what you preach, Mr(s?) Stinger, by refraining from adding yet another tiresome contribution to this 'rant' in the review section?
Walter PlingeFri, 18 Aug 2000, 03:45 pm
RE: secret love
First I think I should apoligise to Amy Leeder about the love letter I sent.It was just that I thought you were very beautiful and it just got the better of me. I really would like to out myself on who I really am, but I feel that if that happens you would never want to know me. So I"ll go now and you may never know who I really am. Because I dont have the gutts to call you and ask you out. But let me tell you this someone somewhere did and always will love you.
Love your Romeo
Walter PlingeSat, 26 Aug 2000, 06:25 am
RE: Vale - Secret Squirrel
Anyone who pays attention to a good review must therefore pay attention to a negative one.
Simple as that.
Simple as that.
Walter PlingeMon, 18 Sept 2000, 06:50 pm
RE: Othello v Titus
Hi Grant,
Thankyou for your lovely review.
I think you directed me in The Miricle Worker. I was 10 yrs old and it was my second play.
I am currently rehearsing for my next play ' Dune Del Mar' for Artrage 2000. It opens October 3rd at The Arthouse behind the Blue Room. Maybe you could come and watch.
Looking forward to catching up and auditioning for one of your plays in the future, keep me in mind.
Kind Regards
Rebecca Pithers
Thankyou for your lovely review.
I think you directed me in The Miricle Worker. I was 10 yrs old and it was my second play.
I am currently rehearsing for my next play ' Dune Del Mar' for Artrage 2000. It opens October 3rd at The Arthouse behind the Blue Room. Maybe you could come and watch.
Looking forward to catching up and auditioning for one of your plays in the future, keep me in mind.
Kind Regards
Rebecca Pithers
Walter PlingeTue, 20 Jan 2004, 09:27 pm
RE: Vale - Secret Squirrel
He should never have left our cartoon.
come back Secret! I miss you!
Love always
Morrocco
XOX
Thou bawdy dismal-dreaming giglet!
come back Secret! I miss you!
Love always
Morrocco
XOX
Thou bawdy dismal-dreaming giglet!