Domestic Bliss (Melbourne)
Mon, 27 Sept 2004, 08:43 amDavid Ryding14 posts in thread
Domestic Bliss (Melbourne)
Mon, 27 Sept 2004, 08:43 amOkay, so its a retyped review from a newspaper here in Melbourne but it's the Melbourne Fringe with over 250 shows. You do whatever you can.
At least we didn't write a our own review.
From an audience point of view, it takes a brave actor to star in a one-man show. In this Melbourne Fringe Festival play, Lockwood portrays hapless haberdashery shop worker Chris Domestic Bliss whose life turns on his head on his 25th Birthday
Proving his comedic gift, Lockwood also plays ChrisÂ’s blokey dad, his Ronn Moss loving horny housewife mum, drug addled girlfriend and rough as guts bets mate, as well as a few cameo characters thrown in.
The fact Lockwood also wrote the script explains why the performance is so tight and fast paced
Domestic Bliss has much more hits than misses, with witty one liners, clever interplay and Kath and Kim-esque comedy about life in the suburbs. There's also a few dark and tender moments so it's not slapstick all the way
The play is performed in a 600-bed backpackerÂ’s hostel so you could make friends in the audience.
Tickets are $10"
Megan Miller
MX
Shameless promotion section
Cinema @ Hotel Bakpak
147 Franklin St Melbourne
all shows at 6:30pm and a cheaper than a service wash $10!
Tickets; 8421 8777 or at the door
Written and performed by Damon Lockwood
Directed by David Ryding
Domestic Bliss urges you to remember families aren't just for Christmas
At least we didn't write a our own review.
From an audience point of view, it takes a brave actor to star in a one-man show. In this Melbourne Fringe Festival play, Lockwood portrays hapless haberdashery shop worker Chris Domestic Bliss whose life turns on his head on his 25th Birthday
Proving his comedic gift, Lockwood also plays ChrisÂ’s blokey dad, his Ronn Moss loving horny housewife mum, drug addled girlfriend and rough as guts bets mate, as well as a few cameo characters thrown in.
The fact Lockwood also wrote the script explains why the performance is so tight and fast paced
Domestic Bliss has much more hits than misses, with witty one liners, clever interplay and Kath and Kim-esque comedy about life in the suburbs. There's also a few dark and tender moments so it's not slapstick all the way
The play is performed in a 600-bed backpackerÂ’s hostel so you could make friends in the audience.
Tickets are $10"
Megan Miller
MX
Shameless promotion section
Cinema @ Hotel Bakpak
147 Franklin St Melbourne
all shows at 6:30pm and a cheaper than a service wash $10!
Tickets; 8421 8777 or at the door
Written and performed by Damon Lockwood
Directed by David Ryding
Domestic Bliss urges you to remember families aren't just for Christmas
Re: review-writing Bliss-ters
Sat, 9 Oct 2004, 01:49 am> crgwllms wrote:
> > A 400 word review in The West last Monday (of a show written
> > by Domestic Bliss director Dave Ryding) contained 7
> > paragraphs (about 70%) that basically retold the plot.
Grant Malcolm wrote:
>
> This may be market-driven. How many of you, when encouraging
> Joanne Public to see a show, have been asked "what's it about?"
Okay, but I expect to be told in a two- or three- sentence answer, not 300 words that literally provide a TOTAL synopsis..!
> Of course, most people frequenting this site when encouraged
> to see a show would be asking "who's in it? or who's staging/
> directing/ lighting/ designing/ etc it?"
Yes, but I still think you're missing the most important question, the one I reckon most people will ask first: 'Is it any good?'
Surely that's the bottom line if you're trying to convince someone to part with their hard-earned? If it's a well-known play (let's use Hamlet as an example) most people are going to skip the 'what's it about?' question anyway and simply want to know somebody's opinion of whether it's worth paying to see.
I'm pretty sure I can say that ALL your other questions, 'What's it about', 'Who's in it', 'Who wrote it', etc, are basically asked to help determine the answer to MY question ...Is it worth me getting off my ass and paying to see?, i.e. Is it any good?
Now if that's the most important question, surely our dumbed-down media would realise they should still at least be giving THAT one an answer?
But of course, because it's a subjective question, there isn't just ONE answer...and this is the problem. To answer the question means having to venture an opinion; and because no matter WHAT opinion, some may consider it the WRONG opinion, reviewers are scared to even try.
So they answer all the ones they can do safely...and fill 91% of their review with bland factual statements, mostly telling you what happens, and not satisfying the one thing you WANT to know.
But whether or not I am going to AGREE with a reviewer's opinion (in which case I would also be asking your secondary questions to try to answer my question myself), it's just as important that I RESPECT their opinion and the way they justify it. I'm totally willing to accept that I may have differing taste to that of the reviewer, but if they have constructed a well-written argument I will take their information into some consideration.
A reviewer who takes the bland way out doesn't encourage me to take ANY notice of what they're saying: basically all they're doing is re-wording the theatre company's press release and not demonstrating any thought process of their own.
I'm afraid I'm not going to respect a reviewer's efforts until they EARN it.
HAVE AN OPINION!
Cheers,
Craig
PS Thanks Grant, for venturing a counter-opinion!
> > A 400 word review in The West last Monday (of a show written
> > by Domestic Bliss director Dave Ryding) contained 7
> > paragraphs (about 70%) that basically retold the plot.
Grant Malcolm wrote:
>
> This may be market-driven. How many of you, when encouraging
> Joanne Public to see a show, have been asked "what's it about?"
Okay, but I expect to be told in a two- or three- sentence answer, not 300 words that literally provide a TOTAL synopsis..!
> Of course, most people frequenting this site when encouraged
> to see a show would be asking "who's in it? or who's staging/
> directing/ lighting/ designing/ etc it?"
Yes, but I still think you're missing the most important question, the one I reckon most people will ask first: 'Is it any good?'
Surely that's the bottom line if you're trying to convince someone to part with their hard-earned? If it's a well-known play (let's use Hamlet as an example) most people are going to skip the 'what's it about?' question anyway and simply want to know somebody's opinion of whether it's worth paying to see.
I'm pretty sure I can say that ALL your other questions, 'What's it about', 'Who's in it', 'Who wrote it', etc, are basically asked to help determine the answer to MY question ...Is it worth me getting off my ass and paying to see?, i.e. Is it any good?
Now if that's the most important question, surely our dumbed-down media would realise they should still at least be giving THAT one an answer?
But of course, because it's a subjective question, there isn't just ONE answer...and this is the problem. To answer the question means having to venture an opinion; and because no matter WHAT opinion, some may consider it the WRONG opinion, reviewers are scared to even try.
So they answer all the ones they can do safely...and fill 91% of their review with bland factual statements, mostly telling you what happens, and not satisfying the one thing you WANT to know.
But whether or not I am going to AGREE with a reviewer's opinion (in which case I would also be asking your secondary questions to try to answer my question myself), it's just as important that I RESPECT their opinion and the way they justify it. I'm totally willing to accept that I may have differing taste to that of the reviewer, but if they have constructed a well-written argument I will take their information into some consideration.
A reviewer who takes the bland way out doesn't encourage me to take ANY notice of what they're saying: basically all they're doing is re-wording the theatre company's press release and not demonstrating any thought process of their own.
I'm afraid I'm not going to respect a reviewer's efforts until they EARN it.
HAVE AN OPINION!
Cheers,
Craig
PS Thanks Grant, for venturing a counter-opinion!
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···