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
Greg RossThu, 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
Walter PlingeFri, 20 Aug 2004, 02:17 pm
Re: Shift Swapping
hmmm.... not sure which show you were watching, but this review could not have been further off the mark if it was for the performance of shift swapping i saw. you cited the script as exellent... once again, hmmm.. it started out with promise yes, then petered out into a disarray of unfinished ideas. having said that though if the author took time to second act the piece to explore the underlying sub plots the show may very well have held the audience better than it actually did. provided the sub plots were explored and not left as half done concepts. I do agree with your take on the individual performances of the girls except for that of julia dalby. I felt she gave grounding to a character thrown into an awkward situation, and take my hat off to her for seeing it through to fruition as it was by far the most under developed character of the piece.. its a shame the same cannot be said for a certain review writer who failed to see a show to curtain up at harbour. how we are expected to take seriously a mans understanding of theatre in this situation is beyond comprehension.
all good things... yes, it could have been.
all good things... yes, it could have been.
Walter PlingeFri, 20 Aug 2004, 07:04 pm
Re: Shift Swapping
Is there a reason you're being so unkind in this reply? I mean, did Greg do something to you personally or are you just being bitter in general?
Greg RossFri, 20 Aug 2004, 07:45 pm
Re: Hand Swapping
Heavens! The path of vitriol widens and as always, itÂ’s some castrated cretin hiding under the oft-used blanket of anonymity, demonstrating the inevitable lack of grounding in English grammar.
Take your hand off it darling, stop harbouring those thoughts, swallow the Bex, have a good lie down and get over it.
Greg Ross
5 / 16 Kings Park Road, West Perth 6005
Ph/fax: 9321 0262 Mob: 0418 953 275
Take your hand off it darling, stop harbouring those thoughts, swallow the Bex, have a good lie down and get over it.
Greg Ross
5 / 16 Kings Park Road, West Perth 6005
Ph/fax: 9321 0262 Mob: 0418 953 275
Walter PlingeFri, 20 Aug 2004, 07:58 pm
Re: Shift Swapping
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".
Walter PlingeFri, 20 Aug 2004, 08:07 pm
Re: Shift Swapping
i sit corrected, the others were mentioned..
crgwllmsSat, 21 Aug 2004, 02:43 am
Re: Swift Shopping?
actor/ 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%]
Walter PlingeSat, 21 Aug 2004, 07:30 am
Re: Swift Shopping?
you bring up some very valid points. so for the record: i allowed myself to get caught up in second hand information and emotion in regards to greg ross vacating a show which is something i could/ should have just left alone as all it achieved was to take merit away from my words. in fact as i dont know greg or the situation it quite honestly has nothing to do with me. my views on this are my own and should have been left as such.
I do still believe what i have written in regards to the show, but what you have said has reminded me of something someone else once told me, " there is no right or wrong, just other peoples opinions". so.., with that i extend an apology to mr ross for being so hard in my take on his review.
I wish to state one other thing, I at no time sledged the cast in my thinking as greg stated in a follow up. poison i think was the word. quite the contrary, I felt they did well with what they had to work with which i initially wrote. i felt the script was under prepared, and made remark regarding greg ross, both of which i have addressed here.
so.. for those who wish to see this as "back pedalling", feel free to do so. I actually feel alot better for writing this, this morn.
one last thing craig, how you signed off took a little away from your words, i wasnt trying to impress anyone with titles, I just didnt want to use my name, and didnt know what else to call myself. as actor/ director is what i am, it seemed to do.
I will bow out gracefully from this and bid you all a good weekend as i dont really wish to get involved in slinging matches. better things to put energy to.
regards..
I do still believe what i have written in regards to the show, but what you have said has reminded me of something someone else once told me, " there is no right or wrong, just other peoples opinions". so.., with that i extend an apology to mr ross for being so hard in my take on his review.
I wish to state one other thing, I at no time sledged the cast in my thinking as greg stated in a follow up. poison i think was the word. quite the contrary, I felt they did well with what they had to work with which i initially wrote. i felt the script was under prepared, and made remark regarding greg ross, both of which i have addressed here.
so.. for those who wish to see this as "back pedalling", feel free to do so. I actually feel alot better for writing this, this morn.
one last thing craig, how you signed off took a little away from your words, i wasnt trying to impress anyone with titles, I just didnt want to use my name, and didnt know what else to call myself. as actor/ director is what i am, it seemed to do.
I will bow out gracefully from this and bid you all a good weekend as i dont really wish to get involved in slinging matches. better things to put energy to.
regards..
David RydingSat, 21 Aug 2004, 08:30 am
Re: Swift Shopping?
I am curious to know why now, more than a fortnight after the play. you felt the need to review Gregs review and add your own?
I am also disappointed that yoou cannot add your name to your comments. I didnt write the play anonymously
If you are worried that your comments will offend me then don't, because they won't.
Cheers
[%sig%]
I am also disappointed that yoou cannot add your name to your comments. I didnt write the play anonymously
If you are worried that your comments will offend me then don't, because they won't.
Cheers
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeWed, 25 Aug 2004, 01:35 pm
Re: Swift Shopping?
I too find it unfortunate when people post things anonymously in these kinds of forums. It automatically takes away much of the strength of those people's opinions because they don't appear to have the courage to stand behind those opinions. (I'm not saying that this *is* the case, BTW. I'm just saying that it *looks* like that.)
crgwllmsThu, 26 Aug 2004, 11:01 pm
Re: Secret Intelligensia
Grant Watson wrote:
>
> I too find it unfortunate when people post things anonymously
> in these kinds of forums. It automatically takes away much of
> the strength of those people's opinions because they don't
> appear to have the courage to stand behind those opinions.
> (I'm not saying that this *is* the case, BTW. I'm just saying
> that it *looks* like that.)
I don't know that it makes much difference. Who the hell knows or cares who I am outside of Perth? My opinions stand on their own merit, not on what name I call myself.
I read these forums looking for intelligence, not courage. I wish some people had the intelligence to stand behind their opinions...
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> I too find it unfortunate when people post things anonymously
> in these kinds of forums. It automatically takes away much of
> the strength of those people's opinions because they don't
> appear to have the courage to stand behind those opinions.
> (I'm not saying that this *is* the case, BTW. I'm just saying
> that it *looks* like that.)
I don't know that it makes much difference. Who the hell knows or cares who I am outside of Perth? My opinions stand on their own merit, not on what name I call myself.
I read these forums looking for intelligence, not courage. I wish some people had the intelligence to stand behind their opinions...
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeFri, 27 Aug 2004, 02:16 pm
Re: Swift Shopping?
craig you forgot phantom comicbook enthusiast
Walter PlingeFri, 27 Aug 2004, 02:40 pm
Re: Swift Shopping?
If you don't want to get involved in slinging matches, why make comments that promote them? Maybe it was included to make a review that really told me nothing about the show interesting.
At least by reading gregs review I found out what the show was about and who was in it and what he thought of the show , and then could make up my own mind whether I would go and see it or not.
And i won't finish by making some nasty comment about some one I don't know, on a sitiuation where I wasn't there and really don't know anything about.
cheers
At least by reading gregs review I found out what the show was about and who was in it and what he thought of the show , and then could make up my own mind whether I would go and see it or not.
And i won't finish by making some nasty comment about some one I don't know, on a sitiuation where I wasn't there and really don't know anything about.
cheers
crgwllmsWed, 1 Sept 2004, 02:56 am
Re: Secret News Agent?
walter plinge wrote:
>
> craig you forgot phantom comicbook enthusiast
Hmmm....in the jungle it seems even the trees have eyes....
Cheers
Craig
in Denham, but it's surprisingly chilly...
[%sig%]
>
> craig you forgot phantom comicbook enthusiast
Hmmm....in the jungle it seems even the trees have eyes....
Cheers
Craig
in Denham, but it's surprisingly chilly...
[%sig%]
Greg RossWed, 1 Sept 2004, 08:29 am
Re: Ghosts Who Act
My dear Mr Williams
Wonderful! A fellow tragic!
I too have boundless Phantom comics, including No 1 and the edition featuring Bob Hawke (as Oz PM).
And, if I may be so bold as to relate the tale - I once, in my capacity as the smoke and mirrors man for the luxury car dealership at which I toil, lent Mr Guest - he of that other genre, (the operatic pretender to the Phantom Throne), an E-TYPE Jaguar, to drive around Perth for a Ch 7 piece and at the same time, lent him my treasured Ghost Who Walks cap.
The Phantom was then photographed capped by the Phantom.
A 50th birthday present from one of my daughters, was the script from the movie, but alas – well, a very good thing really for the public at large … hmm! … I will never appear as the Phantom. The world is simply not ready for it! Aunty Jack? Yes
Cheers
Greg
Wonderful! A fellow tragic!
I too have boundless Phantom comics, including No 1 and the edition featuring Bob Hawke (as Oz PM).
And, if I may be so bold as to relate the tale - I once, in my capacity as the smoke and mirrors man for the luxury car dealership at which I toil, lent Mr Guest - he of that other genre, (the operatic pretender to the Phantom Throne), an E-TYPE Jaguar, to drive around Perth for a Ch 7 piece and at the same time, lent him my treasured Ghost Who Walks cap.
The Phantom was then photographed capped by the Phantom.
A 50th birthday present from one of my daughters, was the script from the movie, but alas – well, a very good thing really for the public at large … hmm! … I will never appear as the Phantom. The world is simply not ready for it! Aunty Jack? Yes
Cheers
Greg
Walter PlingeWed, 1 Sept 2004, 12:14 pm
Re: Secret News Agent?
Outside the sherriff's office..... a stranger
"Those are bad men you stopped walker."
"How do you know my name?"
"Those are bad men you stopped walker."
"How do you know my name?"
Greg RossWed, 1 Sept 2004, 12:27 pm
Re: Secret News Agent?
Still outside the sherrif's office ...
"The devil's in the detail, the coat and the sunglasses had me fooled, but the dog's a dead give-away."
"The devil's in the detail, the coat and the sunglasses had me fooled, but the dog's a dead give-away."
Walter PlingeWed, 1 Sept 2004, 02:06 pm
Re: Secret News Agent?
"It's not a dog, it's a wolf. "
Greg RossWed, 1 Sept 2004, 03:47 pm
Re: Secret Dogs Business
True ... but did you have to blow his cover?
They'll never let him on the DC3 again!
They'll never let him on the DC3 again!