Relatively Speaking *****

When 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.

It is arguable that reviewing a play on or after its last night does little good for anyone except perhaps the reviewer. Still, I'm glad I got to see this one.

As farces go, this one was more 'verbal' than action-based, so character development was important. It may have been jet-lag, but it took me a while to come to grips with these characters. I think some of the emotional levels were a bit erratic and some of the dialogue seemed a bit contrived in the first act, but by the middle of the second act I was fully engaged.

A nice twist at the end was well-delivered. I particularly appreciated the belated appearance - at curtain call - of the wayward hoe. I had been convinced it was metaphorical only! But then, 60's London is a long way from the NYC ghettos of 2005.

5 stars Gordon? That's laying your rep on the line!

Thou villainous knotty-pated bladder!

I agree with Stinger that it is preferable to give a review before the final night, but with Melville, the Old Mill and the Harbour Theatre all having shows at, or around, the same time then I couldn't get there before their last night.

If the general concensus is that a review after the final night is a waste of time and only for the reviewer, then I am quite happy not to do it in the future.

However, if no review is posted then I feel that all of the cast, and techs who have put so much work into such an admirable production - and this team really worked well together - should get some sort of appreciation and recognition.

I would love to see someone else do an earlier review, yourself for example.

Surely others must appreciate the local shows.

This is not the first time this issue has been raised on this website. There is a real dearth of written feedback for community theatre productions in this burg, to the point where people associated with the show are actually reviewing (often surreptitiously) themselves. The solution is obvious to me.

If I were a producer, I would offer preview or first night complimentary tickets to reviewers who are consistently competent, constructive and objective. I believe these skills are taught as part of theatre & drama courses at some universities (including Murdoch) these days.

Perhaps the contact details of duly accredited reviewers could be included on another page of this site. Maybe their reviews might even be picked up by the press and thus more widely disseminated. Seems to be a 'win-win' arrangement to me. Comments anyone?





Thou pribbling flap-mouthed bladder!

I wholeheartedly agree.
I would say though, the "designated reviewers" should confirm that they will indeed attend. And be struck off and cast into the netherworld if they don't.

And yes, Im happy to put my hand up....stinger wrote:
>
> This is not the first time this issue has been raised on this
> website. There is a real dearth of written feedback for
> community theatre productions in this burg, to the point
> where people associated with the show are actually reviewing
> (often surreptitiously) themselves. The solution is obvious
> to me.
>
> If I were a producer, I would offer preview or first night
> complimentary tickets to reviewers who are consistently
> competent, constructive and objective. I believe these skills
> are taught as part of theatre & drama courses at some
> universities (including Murdoch) these days.
>
> Perhaps the contact details of duly accredited reviewers
> could be included on another page of this site. Maybe their
> reviews might even be picked up by the press and thus more
> widely disseminated. Seems to be a 'win-win' arrangement to
> me. Comments anyone?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thou pribbling flap-mouthed bladder!



Thou spleeny doghearted barnacle!

stinger wrote:
>
> This is not the first time this issue has been raised on this
> website. There is a real dearth of written feedback for
> community theatre productions in this burg, to the point
> where people associated with the show are actually reviewing
> (often surreptitiously) themselves. The solution is obvious
> to me.



Although Ron Banks cops a lot of flack, and some expressed relief at his announced departure.....he does take notice of independent theatre. Monday's West included reviews of both 'Big Fun Sometimes' and 'Rent'. Sarah McNeil at the Subiaco Post Community News is another who regularly sees independent shows. (Often because if they didn't include community shows there'd be nothing to write about...pro shows being few and far between!)



> If I were a producer, I would offer preview or first night
> complimentary tickets to reviewers who are consistently
> competent, constructive and objective.


Several companies have invited me to their shows in the past; I like to think because I fit those criteria. But while I may have a consistent style, I'm unfortunately not consistently available. I don't get to see as much as I'd like to, even with invites. Or time to write about every show I see... which you kind of feel obliged to if you were given comps for that reason.


> I believe these skills
> are taught as part of theatre & drama courses at some
> universities (including Murdoch) these days.
> Perhaps the contact details of duly accredited reviewers
> could be included on another page of this site. Maybe their
> reviews might even be picked up by the press and thus more
> widely disseminated. Seems to be a 'win-win' arrangement to
> me. Comments anyone?


Ah. But there's a difference between critically reviewing a show as a theatre student would...with constructive objective feedback; and the way a newspaper reviews a show for it's readership....the only real criteria being 'what's it about?' and 'is it worth going to see?'.
The average reader of a newspaper review is not interested in the sort of details of constructive criticism that we theatre people want to receive, or the kinds of opinions (objective or not) that we get through discussion here on this site.

I agree I'd love to see the standard of reviewing be lifted in the press; I wish more of them would dare to express their opinion rather than reiterate press releases and plot details, and their accuracy often leaves much to be desired. But I'm not sure what 'duly accredited' constructive criticism would really mean to a newspaper that just wants to sell copies to the general public.

The best bit about this website for me is the opportunity to hear raw, immediate reactions and opinions, regardless of how well they are constructed or expressed. Not fit for wider publication, but usually more valuable feedback because of it.


Cheers,
Craig

Ahh Reviews...

> > If I were a producer, I would offer preview or first night
> > complimentary tickets to reviewers who are consistently
> > competent, constructive and objective.
>

As a producer of shows at both the Playhouse and the Subiaco Theatre Centre, I offered tickets to newspapers for reviewers or simply comps if they wanted to send someone. On both occasions nobody showed. Their excuse was simply Ron Banks was out of town. What of the other reviewers? Well I know one would not see one of the shows for personal reasons, as for the other writers on call for the West - who knows?

So we can't rely on our own local rags to write reviews for us and as Craig says, we won't get anywhere near the detailed "critical" feedback we need for productions - rather comments about whether it was funny enough, the general overview of the show, whether the actors are WAAPA or not. Reviews on this website have been - though of late I have not seen many examples of such - detailed, critical and helpful toward enhancing productions and other times simply encouraging toward a production. It really is just nice to know people (especially your peers) actually came to see the show and hear what they thought about it. Because goodness knows most of us don't really care what Ron Banks thinks (though we actually do) and as for the news I just read that he may be leaving - YAY. Because if you read most of his reviews, if it isn't a big Musical like Singing in the Rain, Cabaret or Les Mis, he isn't going to like it much - you need only check his old reviews for that.

Bitter - maybe, but then again, I like Cheese? - Sorry a student encouraged me to write that.

It would be nice to see an increase in reviews on this site instead of mock ups, insults and random garbage (especially advertising) Rent has received quite a few - go guys! You guys all rock!!! And I was hoping to see their show when Big Fun isn't on but I have been told that it is Sold out - not gonna stop me trying though. Good luck with the season Yall.

Peace Out and All that Jazz!!!! That Jazz!

Anthony

Contrary to what news you have heard...RENT is not actually sold out just some performances, and I would encourage you to get onto BOCS, or at the last resort, attempt a Student Rush, if they have one.

Good Luck in getting to see it....it really is awesome and so much detail to watch, plus good eye candy.

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.

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.

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.

I take it that means they don't think it's worth covering at all, eh?

Fine then. Why don't we just establish some 'guidelines' for reviews on this website, incorporating some of the above suggestions?

I nominate Craig Williams to be 'Guideline Nazi'.

Guideline #1 could be 'Don't accept a comp unless you are committed to writing a review.'

Guideline #2 could be 'comps are not transferrable'.

Once a review is posted, the individual groups can always 'cut and paste' it into their own publicity (with due acknowledgement).

Personally, I think reviewers should NOT be anonymous but also they should NOT name individuals in reviews (except this one).



Thou artless full-gorged nut-hook!

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

Well, if you rant like that, you're pretty much guaranteed a journo or reviewer will put you to the bottom of the pile or onto a blacklist. They all have one.

But if you feel that passionately, why not take it up with the managing editor? E-mail him: paul.armstrong@wanews.com.au

Aharwood wrote:
> 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.
> Anthony

All I know is last year the venerable Mr Banks wrote a feature article on David Williamson for the West, were he stated that none of his recent plays "had been performed in Perth", and he actually singled out 'Corporate Vibes'. Now considering that we had done 'Corporate Vibes' a few months earlier, this quite pissed me off and i was tempted to write a complaint, but what good would it do, I mean even if he had said they had "only" been done by amateur comapnies, that would have been better than getting it wrong.

[Don't get me started on journos and bad fact-checking]

Let us hope and pray that the new Arts Editor comes in with a breath of resh air. Do we have any names yet?

Well if they do black list me it is because they know I am right. And what difference does it make when they don't come as it is?

Besides the show I am in now will most likely be my last in Perth so if anyone wants to see it you better book!!!

Thanks for the contact details for the managing editor, may just drop him a more civil line.

A lively discussion at a party on Saturday brought to light an interesting difference of opinions. Is the purpose of a review to give some feedback to the club, director, cast etc, or is it to be used as a means of publicity??

It depends on your point of view whether it should be early or late!

Compliments of the season to all

stinger wrote:

> Fine then. Why don't we just establish some 'guidelines' for
> reviews on this website, incorporating some of the above
> suggestions?
>
> I nominate Craig Williams to be 'Guideline Nazi'.
>
> Guideline #1 could be 'Don't accept a comp unless you are
> committed to writing a review.'
>
> Guideline #2 could be 'comps are not transferrable'.
>
> Once a review is posted, the individual groups can always
> 'cut and paste' it into their own publicity (with due
> acknowledgement).
>
> Personally, I think reviewers should NOT be anonymous but
> also they should NOT name individuals in reviews (except this
> one).
>





I might not fit your guidelines, Stinger.

- Comps aren't only for reviewers. I assume you mean 'commit to writing a review if you are invited primarily for that purpose'. Otherwise, I recommend accepting as many comps as you can get your hands on.

- Ditto for guideline #2. Transfer if you see fit. Perhaps transfer to someone else capable of reviewing?

- I've seen people do some pretty creative cutting and pasting. Are you going to publish guidelines on how they can quote extracts?

- And I have no problem with anonymous reviewers or the practice of naming individuals....


I have no idea how to police your guidelines, and as I have a generally variant point of view, I demote myself from 'Guideline Nazi' down to 'Drama Debate Despot'.

Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]