Relatively Speaking *****
Sat, 3 Dec 2005, 11:15 pmGordon the Optom16 posts in thread
Relatively Speaking *****
Sat, 3 Dec 2005, 11:15 pmWhen one has the task of directing an Alan Ayckbourn play, where the timing must be spot on and his complicated plots spoken in a clear and plausible way, then, as has unfortunately been shown in the past the chances of failing can be quite high. However at the Harbour Theatre Celia AndrewsÂ’ gathered a brilliant cast and guided them with true professionalism.
The first act was one of tension between a young couple. Naïve and confused Greg (Leon Ousby) had doubts as to the fidelity of his new girlfriend Ginny (Angela Johnson). Despite the fairly serious script the two actors kept it light and fun.
Ginny said that she intended going to visit her parents (Steve Marrable and Nicola Bond) but was actually going see her ex-lover. Greg thought that he would surprise her by popping along too. Indeed he did and this lead to massive confusion of both couples.
It is a long time since I have seen a whole cast get so involved with their characters that they actually became them. The diction, the body actions were terrific. The innocent charm of Greg, the embarrassment of Ginny, the fond understanding attitude of the mother and the total mortification of the father caught in the middle.
The scenery was well above average thanks to Harry Schultz and his team. Good luck in your retirement if they let you go.
The music from the Beatles and Kinks was appropriate to the period of the play – early ‘60s. I have never before heard a sound effect (in this case a train) being used during the interval to suggest the move to a new location. A good idea.
The success of the acting performances was down to the cool ‘matter of fact’ approach of the director. Had the manic ‘Fawlty Towers’ method been used – as it often is with farces - then this could have been a disaster.
Even the programmes, by Minuteman, were some of the best that I have seen.
Definitely worth a very rare 5 stars. Superb in every way.
The first act was one of tension between a young couple. Naïve and confused Greg (Leon Ousby) had doubts as to the fidelity of his new girlfriend Ginny (Angela Johnson). Despite the fairly serious script the two actors kept it light and fun.
Ginny said that she intended going to visit her parents (Steve Marrable and Nicola Bond) but was actually going see her ex-lover. Greg thought that he would surprise her by popping along too. Indeed he did and this lead to massive confusion of both couples.
It is a long time since I have seen a whole cast get so involved with their characters that they actually became them. The diction, the body actions were terrific. The innocent charm of Greg, the embarrassment of Ginny, the fond understanding attitude of the mother and the total mortification of the father caught in the middle.
The scenery was well above average thanks to Harry Schultz and his team. Good luck in your retirement if they let you go.
The music from the Beatles and Kinks was appropriate to the period of the play – early ‘60s. I have never before heard a sound effect (in this case a train) being used during the interval to suggest the move to a new location. A good idea.
The success of the acting performances was down to the cool ‘matter of fact’ approach of the director. Had the manic ‘Fawlty Towers’ method been used – as it often is with farces - then this could have been a disaster.
Even the programmes, by Minuteman, were some of the best that I have seen.
Definitely worth a very rare 5 stars. Superb in every way.
Re: Speaking of Reviews - PASSIONATELY
Thu, 8 Dec 2005, 09:44 amWalter Plinge
Tim Smythe wrote:
>
>
> Sometimes, yes, other reviewers can go to a show but
> sometimes it's a fact of life that no one from that media
> outlet is available that night.
Yes, understandable, but for four nights? They have quite a few journalists on call to review and I find it hard to believe that they are all unavailable for all of those nights with so much prior warning.
> Newspapers are also limited by space - sometimes there just
> isn't the space for extensive reviews. As mentioned above,
> their duty is to their readers, not to the performers.
Have you seen the size of some of their reviews? And then have you turned to the back pages of the paper and looked at the size of the articles, not to mention the amount of space dedicated to Sport? yes there is a big following of sport, but that is because we - nor the papers, really foster the arts anymore, hence its relative decline in popularity and patronage. By giving it a full page maybe once or twice a week for Perth theatre - what does that say? If you are saying that the readers don't want it then why do so many people never know what is going on in Perth and don't know what to do except for the big shows that come from the Eastern states - and why bother advertising at all in the arts if your readers supposedly aren't interested in the Arts? It's this sort of attitude that is killing the arts - the assumption that there isn't a readership. And obviously there is - no matter how small it is - or there wouldn't be this debate going on and I can tell you it isn't isolated to this website alone. And are we not - as performers, producers, actors, back stage or whatever - classified as a readership? And why isn't there more reviews of Amateur theatre? They reviewed Grease at the Regal. They reviewed Les Mis at the regal, they review shows at the blue room and Rechabites - some of which have less professional and qualified actors than some of the amateur shows going around. And back to that wonderful question - what defines amateur and professional? A thirty thousand dollar budget? Then why weren't my company shows reviewed? Heck we even had Ben Elton - the writer of one of the plays come along and give his time to give us a personal review of the show - could not a reporter have taken some time to do the same thing?
As far as I am concerned it just isn't good enough that we sit on our arses and claim that there isn't a readership in Perth for the Arts. It's narrow minded and as I mentioned before, fosters the death of the arts - well theatre that isn't from the eastern states or starring WAAPA graduates.
> And some newspapers may have an editorial policy about
> community theatre, which may not come from the arts editor -
> it might come from the features editor or even the managing
> editor.
Again - Community theatre - What exactly is that? Shows done in little holes out in the middle of no where? Well maybe if those companies finally got some support from the news industry they would be able to make something more of themselves. Idealistic - HELL YES - But why the heck can't there be one extra page dedicated to four write ups about these "community shows" Does their effort not count? Is it because they don't spend enough money on shows? Well maybe if newspapers started to support them with reviews, then people would go to see them therefore increasing their revenue thus increasing the standard of shows and venues.
Please, tell me what the defining line is between community and professional theatre worth reviewing - if its the budget - my shows countered that. If it is the experience of the actors - We had professional actors (if you count working in television and in the same co-op productions usually reviewed by the paper) We also had people with degrees - in some cases multiple degrees - and people who have performed in thirty or more productions. If you ask me and yes I am getting passionate because I am fed up with the state of theatre and the lack of support it receives - the people at the paper aren't doing their damn jobs - call it idleness, ignorance or whatever, there is no excuse for it whether it comes from the managing editor or otherwise. And I know this isn't going to have any effect on them but I have to ramble on like this to vent.
Heck if you need more journalists - The minor in one of my degrees is in Journalism, I also have two degrees in theatre as well as Honours. I have also reached my bench mark of my Seventieth stage production, am working on my first professional short film, my third season of one kids tv series - the second series I have actually worked on - so if you need another reviewer with knowledge and know how I'm available, and hey I get to see shows for free - why wouldn't I want to do the job?
There are hundreds of people out there willing to do the job so don't tell me or anyone else that "No one was available" - get staff that actually have an interest in their jobs and the ability to do them - why else would you have a job unless you were able to do it at least twice a week?
There is my rant. Hope it makes me sound like the angry young man that I am, because thats about all this posting is going to do but it had to be said. Now I look forward to people having a go right back at me - BRING IT ON!!!
Anthony
>
>
> Sometimes, yes, other reviewers can go to a show but
> sometimes it's a fact of life that no one from that media
> outlet is available that night.
Yes, understandable, but for four nights? They have quite a few journalists on call to review and I find it hard to believe that they are all unavailable for all of those nights with so much prior warning.
> Newspapers are also limited by space - sometimes there just
> isn't the space for extensive reviews. As mentioned above,
> their duty is to their readers, not to the performers.
Have you seen the size of some of their reviews? And then have you turned to the back pages of the paper and looked at the size of the articles, not to mention the amount of space dedicated to Sport? yes there is a big following of sport, but that is because we - nor the papers, really foster the arts anymore, hence its relative decline in popularity and patronage. By giving it a full page maybe once or twice a week for Perth theatre - what does that say? If you are saying that the readers don't want it then why do so many people never know what is going on in Perth and don't know what to do except for the big shows that come from the Eastern states - and why bother advertising at all in the arts if your readers supposedly aren't interested in the Arts? It's this sort of attitude that is killing the arts - the assumption that there isn't a readership. And obviously there is - no matter how small it is - or there wouldn't be this debate going on and I can tell you it isn't isolated to this website alone. And are we not - as performers, producers, actors, back stage or whatever - classified as a readership? And why isn't there more reviews of Amateur theatre? They reviewed Grease at the Regal. They reviewed Les Mis at the regal, they review shows at the blue room and Rechabites - some of which have less professional and qualified actors than some of the amateur shows going around. And back to that wonderful question - what defines amateur and professional? A thirty thousand dollar budget? Then why weren't my company shows reviewed? Heck we even had Ben Elton - the writer of one of the plays come along and give his time to give us a personal review of the show - could not a reporter have taken some time to do the same thing?
As far as I am concerned it just isn't good enough that we sit on our arses and claim that there isn't a readership in Perth for the Arts. It's narrow minded and as I mentioned before, fosters the death of the arts - well theatre that isn't from the eastern states or starring WAAPA graduates.
> And some newspapers may have an editorial policy about
> community theatre, which may not come from the arts editor -
> it might come from the features editor or even the managing
> editor.
Again - Community theatre - What exactly is that? Shows done in little holes out in the middle of no where? Well maybe if those companies finally got some support from the news industry they would be able to make something more of themselves. Idealistic - HELL YES - But why the heck can't there be one extra page dedicated to four write ups about these "community shows" Does their effort not count? Is it because they don't spend enough money on shows? Well maybe if newspapers started to support them with reviews, then people would go to see them therefore increasing their revenue thus increasing the standard of shows and venues.
Please, tell me what the defining line is between community and professional theatre worth reviewing - if its the budget - my shows countered that. If it is the experience of the actors - We had professional actors (if you count working in television and in the same co-op productions usually reviewed by the paper) We also had people with degrees - in some cases multiple degrees - and people who have performed in thirty or more productions. If you ask me and yes I am getting passionate because I am fed up with the state of theatre and the lack of support it receives - the people at the paper aren't doing their damn jobs - call it idleness, ignorance or whatever, there is no excuse for it whether it comes from the managing editor or otherwise. And I know this isn't going to have any effect on them but I have to ramble on like this to vent.
Heck if you need more journalists - The minor in one of my degrees is in Journalism, I also have two degrees in theatre as well as Honours. I have also reached my bench mark of my Seventieth stage production, am working on my first professional short film, my third season of one kids tv series - the second series I have actually worked on - so if you need another reviewer with knowledge and know how I'm available, and hey I get to see shows for free - why wouldn't I want to do the job?
There are hundreds of people out there willing to do the job so don't tell me or anyone else that "No one was available" - get staff that actually have an interest in their jobs and the ability to do them - why else would you have a job unless you were able to do it at least twice a week?
There is my rant. Hope it makes me sound like the angry young man that I am, because thats about all this posting is going to do but it had to be said. Now I look forward to people having a go right back at me - BRING IT ON!!!
Anthony
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···