Shift Swapping
Thu, 22 July 2004, 04:15 pmGreg Ross19 posts in thread
Shift Swapping
Thu, 22 July 2004, 04:15 pm“Shift Swapping” could just as easily have been titled “Shape Shifting,” although the chicks were in and out of their shifts quite often – now there’s a PR line to get the blokes in!
An excellent script, with more than a ring of truth about the vagaries of reunions. Those of us who are a certain age, understand only too well what it is like not to recognise, or be recognised by old schoolmates.
The phantom mirror was a nice touch in terms of explaining the uniform – shift? - although one later scene-in-uniform had me a little confused. The juxtaposition between order taking and gossip was wonderfully believable, as was the youngest friend desperately trying to be as grown-up as her work mates and part of the inner circle.
Jenny McCann captured the pathos of age and lost dreams perfectly, whilst Leah Maher was – the perfect bitch, readily recognisable from Claremont to Toorak. When the others asked her why she was questioning things, I had to refrain myself from yelling out, “Because she’s a lawyer.” Which is not to say Ms Maher is a real life bitch! No, no, no, no! Just a bloody good actor. Perhaps the most difficult part to play, was that of Sarah (the-bride-to-be), played by Julia Dalby, she did seem a little bland, compared to the other characters. This may be a fault of the script, in that people about to be married, are almost inevitably tense and nervous. Rayann Condy was fantastic as the “I call a spade a F$#$# shovel” film maker, loved the dagger look at the resident bitch.
Lighting was excellent, however I felt there was room to make more use of music, in terms of creating nostalgia and snapping the audience back to the future. As with the Rechabites, the Blue Room does have a problem when it rains heavily and the forecast is for further heavy rain, so the more softly spoken need to be ready for those unfortunate times. But hey, IÂ’m being picky. Great stuff people, male or female, weÂ’ve all come across the characters involved, a thoroughly believable vignette of life, after the chicken has crossed the road and the sky has fallen. Go see, you wonÂ’t be disappointed.
Disclaimer: Jarrad and Leah are friends of mine, my ticket was free and Amber helped me get dressed for a couple of weeks, some time ago.
All Good Things
Greg Ross
An excellent script, with more than a ring of truth about the vagaries of reunions. Those of us who are a certain age, understand only too well what it is like not to recognise, or be recognised by old schoolmates.
The phantom mirror was a nice touch in terms of explaining the uniform – shift? - although one later scene-in-uniform had me a little confused. The juxtaposition between order taking and gossip was wonderfully believable, as was the youngest friend desperately trying to be as grown-up as her work mates and part of the inner circle.
Jenny McCann captured the pathos of age and lost dreams perfectly, whilst Leah Maher was – the perfect bitch, readily recognisable from Claremont to Toorak. When the others asked her why she was questioning things, I had to refrain myself from yelling out, “Because she’s a lawyer.” Which is not to say Ms Maher is a real life bitch! No, no, no, no! Just a bloody good actor. Perhaps the most difficult part to play, was that of Sarah (the-bride-to-be), played by Julia Dalby, she did seem a little bland, compared to the other characters. This may be a fault of the script, in that people about to be married, are almost inevitably tense and nervous. Rayann Condy was fantastic as the “I call a spade a F$#$# shovel” film maker, loved the dagger look at the resident bitch.
Lighting was excellent, however I felt there was room to make more use of music, in terms of creating nostalgia and snapping the audience back to the future. As with the Rechabites, the Blue Room does have a problem when it rains heavily and the forecast is for further heavy rain, so the more softly spoken need to be ready for those unfortunate times. But hey, IÂ’m being picky. Great stuff people, male or female, weÂ’ve all come across the characters involved, a thoroughly believable vignette of life, after the chicken has crossed the road and the sky has fallen. Go see, you wonÂ’t be disappointed.
Disclaimer: Jarrad and Leah are friends of mine, my ticket was free and Amber helped me get dressed for a couple of weeks, some time ago.
All Good Things
Greg Ross
Re: Swift Shopping?
Sat, 21 Aug 2004, 02:43 amactor/ director wrote:
>
> dont know greg. never met him. but believe if you are going
> to review a show you need to cut to the chase and stop
> blowing smoke up... the review he made is of no help to the
> author or cast involved in the piece aside for the brief
> mention of the three unnamed actors. a review is aimed at
> giving all involved a non biased, objective view point at
> which to better themselves from. to grow from. you cant
> afford to be "nice" just because you know people involved and
> wish to spare there feelings. if this is the case then dont
> put your name to it, then say what you need to say. this is
> why i havent given mine. this is a hard business at the best
> of times and people deserve to know where they can improve. i
> have had worse aimed at me, you take on what you can use and
> build yourself from it. a freind once said to me, "never
> believe your publicity, because the moment you do, you fail
> to improve".
Some things here I agree with, some I don't. (Perhaps that's how you ought to have begun your post under Greg Ross's?)
I don't think there's a lot of value in just being nice, 'blowing smoke up' as you put it.
But neither is there any more value in just being confrontational. The operative word here is being 'just'....giving a justified argument to support whatever opinion you wish to put forward.
But I think you probably agree so far.
Where I think you're perhaps blowing hot air is in your definition of a review. WHO SAYS it has to be a non-biased, objective view point helping the author and cast to better themselves? Show me any professional newspaper review where that is the objective..!
EVERY review is an opinion, and by design, subjective. And most reviews are simply about telling your readership your opinion. I think this is what Greg was trying to do, in his own way. You can disagree with that view, and I was interested to hear your contrasting opinion...but there's no point getting personal about someone's point of view; I'm sure there are some who may disagree with yours. (I have no opinion of the show itself, not having caught it. I heard mixed reports.)
What you are trying to describe sounds more akin to a director's notes, which ARE solely for the purpose of assisting the people involved to improve. A review tells you what the author thinks, implies whether or not they recommend it to others, and perhaps sometimes offers an opinion on what THEY would suggest to make it better. But in my experience this is not always a qualified critique for the actors or author to learn anything from, although the opinion is always worth at least observing.
'Believing your publicity' is a slightly different thing to believing your reviews...I think your "freind" 's quote refers to the hyperbole every publicity department puts out about itself because they're trying to sell the show.
Reviews are eventually a kind of publicity anyway, and essentially should be dealt with in the same way...but are also a type of feedback, which can be taken on board or discarded. The trick is to realise that it is only ONE opinion. It has it's own worth, but should not be blown out of proportion....which is what I believe you are doing when you come down so heavily on ONE person's opinion. Whether you disagree or not, the original still has value.
You can choose to demonstrate your own viewpoint as a contrast or opposition, and perhaps the original view-giver will be swayed to agree or not....but you can never assume you hold the popular opinion. Others will determine that for you later.
As an aside, I don't understand what you're trying to prove by stating so boldly, 'actor/director'. This IS a theatre website; I think you'll find most people here are one or the other or both. You try to make a point of being anonymous so you can speak plainly and honestly; let the words you speak here impress us rather than a dubious statement of title.
Cheers,
actor/singer/musician/acrobat/voiceover artist/composer/lyricist/director/tutor/writer/puppeteer/dancer/juggler/announcer/divemaster/reviewer
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> dont know greg. never met him. but believe if you are going
> to review a show you need to cut to the chase and stop
> blowing smoke up... the review he made is of no help to the
> author or cast involved in the piece aside for the brief
> mention of the three unnamed actors. a review is aimed at
> giving all involved a non biased, objective view point at
> which to better themselves from. to grow from. you cant
> afford to be "nice" just because you know people involved and
> wish to spare there feelings. if this is the case then dont
> put your name to it, then say what you need to say. this is
> why i havent given mine. this is a hard business at the best
> of times and people deserve to know where they can improve. i
> have had worse aimed at me, you take on what you can use and
> build yourself from it. a freind once said to me, "never
> believe your publicity, because the moment you do, you fail
> to improve".
Some things here I agree with, some I don't. (Perhaps that's how you ought to have begun your post under Greg Ross's?)
I don't think there's a lot of value in just being nice, 'blowing smoke up' as you put it.
But neither is there any more value in just being confrontational. The operative word here is being 'just'....giving a justified argument to support whatever opinion you wish to put forward.
But I think you probably agree so far.
Where I think you're perhaps blowing hot air is in your definition of a review. WHO SAYS it has to be a non-biased, objective view point helping the author and cast to better themselves? Show me any professional newspaper review where that is the objective..!
EVERY review is an opinion, and by design, subjective. And most reviews are simply about telling your readership your opinion. I think this is what Greg was trying to do, in his own way. You can disagree with that view, and I was interested to hear your contrasting opinion...but there's no point getting personal about someone's point of view; I'm sure there are some who may disagree with yours. (I have no opinion of the show itself, not having caught it. I heard mixed reports.)
What you are trying to describe sounds more akin to a director's notes, which ARE solely for the purpose of assisting the people involved to improve. A review tells you what the author thinks, implies whether or not they recommend it to others, and perhaps sometimes offers an opinion on what THEY would suggest to make it better. But in my experience this is not always a qualified critique for the actors or author to learn anything from, although the opinion is always worth at least observing.
'Believing your publicity' is a slightly different thing to believing your reviews...I think your "freind" 's quote refers to the hyperbole every publicity department puts out about itself because they're trying to sell the show.
Reviews are eventually a kind of publicity anyway, and essentially should be dealt with in the same way...but are also a type of feedback, which can be taken on board or discarded. The trick is to realise that it is only ONE opinion. It has it's own worth, but should not be blown out of proportion....which is what I believe you are doing when you come down so heavily on ONE person's opinion. Whether you disagree or not, the original still has value.
You can choose to demonstrate your own viewpoint as a contrast or opposition, and perhaps the original view-giver will be swayed to agree or not....but you can never assume you hold the popular opinion. Others will determine that for you later.
As an aside, I don't understand what you're trying to prove by stating so boldly, 'actor/director'. This IS a theatre website; I think you'll find most people here are one or the other or both. You try to make a point of being anonymous so you can speak plainly and honestly; let the words you speak here impress us rather than a dubious statement of title.
Cheers,
actor/singer/musician/acrobat/voiceover artist/composer/lyricist/director/tutor/writer/puppeteer/dancer/juggler/announcer/divemaster/reviewer
Craig
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···