Has Cookie done it again?
Sun, 4 Feb 2001, 05:39 amGrant Malcolm8 posts in thread
Has Cookie done it again?
Sun, 4 Feb 2001, 05:39 amTheatre reviewer for the West, Robert Cook, appears to have a knack for swimming against the tide. Some previous reviews have raised the ire of contributors on this site.
His recent description of Effie Crump Theatre's PIAF contribution as a "graveyard of stagy theatre" maybe yet another example:
Here's a response from MEAA's Steve Shaw:
Dear All,
rarely do I actively take on the roll of promoter. However, having just read Robert Cook's review of Effie Crump's production of "Redemption" I am forced to take action.
I attended the same performance as Cook and simply cannot reconcile his review with the production I saw and I am sure that the vast majority of audience members I spoke to post performance would have a similar reaction.
I do not intend to provide you with a review of my own, other than to say that Murray-Smith's writing and this play will always be difficult to perform and only the best of our performers will carry it.
The performances given, in my humble opinion, were stunning and are exactly what this play needs to give it life.
Cook has simply missed the point entirely.
If you have any intention of visiting Effies to see this production, do not let Cook's review influence your decision. This is genuinely quality work all round.
This is a production that deserves to be seen by the widest audience possible and shouldn't be perceived as a flop based on such a misguided interpretation.
Oh and for those of you who may be thinking "...well Marcelle is Steve's wife etc etc...", oh please, trust me, I am somewhat more mature than that.
Congratulations to Ingle for "The Getaway Bus" , the mob at Yirra Yaakin for "Alice" both of which I look forward to seeing shortly. Also congrats. to the Hole for "Ghosts".
His recent description of Effie Crump Theatre's PIAF contribution as a "graveyard of stagy theatre" maybe yet another example:
Here's a response from MEAA's Steve Shaw:
Dear All,
rarely do I actively take on the roll of promoter. However, having just read Robert Cook's review of Effie Crump's production of "Redemption" I am forced to take action.
I attended the same performance as Cook and simply cannot reconcile his review with the production I saw and I am sure that the vast majority of audience members I spoke to post performance would have a similar reaction.
I do not intend to provide you with a review of my own, other than to say that Murray-Smith's writing and this play will always be difficult to perform and only the best of our performers will carry it.
The performances given, in my humble opinion, were stunning and are exactly what this play needs to give it life.
Cook has simply missed the point entirely.
If you have any intention of visiting Effies to see this production, do not let Cook's review influence your decision. This is genuinely quality work all round.
This is a production that deserves to be seen by the widest audience possible and shouldn't be perceived as a flop based on such a misguided interpretation.
Oh and for those of you who may be thinking "...well Marcelle is Steve's wife etc etc...", oh please, trust me, I am somewhat more mature than that.
Congratulations to Ingle for "The Getaway Bus" , the mob at Yirra Yaakin for "Alice" both of which I look forward to seeing shortly. Also congrats. to the Hole for "Ghosts".
RE: Has Cookie done it again?
Sun, 4 Feb 2001, 10:02 amWalter Plinge
Hi Grant
I have to say that I agree with Steve Shaw on this one. I didnt see the play on the same night, I saw it the following night, but I do know that the audience response on both nights (after seeing it myself and talking to people who were there on the previous night) was nothing like the reaction that Robert Cook has.
Surely any reviewer needs to remember that one persons view is exactly that, one person's thoughts. When that person is reviewing a play for the only paper that the majority of people read (No offence meant to the community papers here!), then you must also include some comment or deference to the rest of the audience.
If I was going to a Wiggles concert and had no children of my own and had never heard of their material, I would be a poor reviewer indeed if I came away saying that it was childish and silly without acknowledging the fact that the show was designed for children. Surely Mr. Cook also needs to acknowledge that the majority of the audience loved it. No mention of the standing ovations and no mention of the fact that the audience were still raving about the show and its merits for long after the final bow.
Effie Crump theatre, along with many other theatres at this time of the year, is competing with so many others for an audience. If the mainstream audience is going to simply read one persons review and take it for gospel that that is how everyone felt, then that is indeed a shame and an indication that Mr. Cook has no idea what the role of a reviewer really should be.
I would urge people to make sure that they make their own mind up on this one. Perhaps Mr. Cook doesnt have the necessary mindset or indeed the experience to understand this play and therefore simply calls it ' a dawsons creek for grown ups;'
If this is where his experience lies and indeed stops, then most theatre in this state will be stodgy and boring to him.
For my money , I thought Marcelle was very very good. There were moments, when the show was slightly stilted, but I tend to think this has more to do with the writing than anything else, but full marks must go to her for a very moving performance, in a very challenging role.
Just for the record, if my students wrote a review like Robert Cooks, they would have failed the assignment.
Kerri Hilton
I have to say that I agree with Steve Shaw on this one. I didnt see the play on the same night, I saw it the following night, but I do know that the audience response on both nights (after seeing it myself and talking to people who were there on the previous night) was nothing like the reaction that Robert Cook has.
Surely any reviewer needs to remember that one persons view is exactly that, one person's thoughts. When that person is reviewing a play for the only paper that the majority of people read (No offence meant to the community papers here!), then you must also include some comment or deference to the rest of the audience.
If I was going to a Wiggles concert and had no children of my own and had never heard of their material, I would be a poor reviewer indeed if I came away saying that it was childish and silly without acknowledging the fact that the show was designed for children. Surely Mr. Cook also needs to acknowledge that the majority of the audience loved it. No mention of the standing ovations and no mention of the fact that the audience were still raving about the show and its merits for long after the final bow.
Effie Crump theatre, along with many other theatres at this time of the year, is competing with so many others for an audience. If the mainstream audience is going to simply read one persons review and take it for gospel that that is how everyone felt, then that is indeed a shame and an indication that Mr. Cook has no idea what the role of a reviewer really should be.
I would urge people to make sure that they make their own mind up on this one. Perhaps Mr. Cook doesnt have the necessary mindset or indeed the experience to understand this play and therefore simply calls it ' a dawsons creek for grown ups;'
If this is where his experience lies and indeed stops, then most theatre in this state will be stodgy and boring to him.
For my money , I thought Marcelle was very very good. There were moments, when the show was slightly stilted, but I tend to think this has more to do with the writing than anything else, but full marks must go to her for a very moving performance, in a very challenging role.
Just for the record, if my students wrote a review like Robert Cooks, they would have failed the assignment.
Kerri Hilton