Theatre Australia

your portal for australian theatre

GRADS - With Friends Like These...

Tue, 29 June 2010, 02:55 pm
Jonno20 posts in thread
I've just read a copy of Ron Banks' shocking assassination of this production. First I should 'fess up that I have been involved as set builder, and that I am a friend of several castmembers. How a so called professional reviewer can deliver such a withering attack whilst admitting to only seeing the first half, is highly suspect. Does he have some personal negative history with Edgar? I watched both the opening night and the second performance. I was in fact seated close behind the couple who left early, and had heard several appreciative laughs from them. Maybe they got a text re. a babysitter crisis; who knows? Mr Banks leaves us in no doubt as to his feelings regarding a character in a comedy afflicted with a stutter. The other 80-odd audience members on both nights didn't seem to share his offended sensibilities. They stayed right to the end, laughed loudly and frequently, and applauded enthusiastically. Perhaps Banks has a close relative suffering this affliction: that would be the only logical explanation for his degree of vehemence. A fair reviewer, even if mentioning offence at that particular element, might also have mentioned the delightful performances from many of the cast - I would personally single out Kerri Hilton and Beth Legg. Don't be put off by the singularly one-eyed review. As a long term GRADS member, I am pleased to see the group presenting a new, local and thoroughly amusing light comedy. No doubt the penetration of "The West Australian" and Ron Banks' abuse of his media power will affect the success of the production disastrously, which is a real pity when so many of us have worked long and hard to mount a show which is far more worthy than he implies.

Thread (20 posts)

JonnoTue, 29 June 2010, 02:55 pm
I've just read a copy of Ron Banks' shocking assassination of this production. First I should 'fess up that I have been involved as set builder, and that I am a friend of several castmembers. How a so called professional reviewer can deliver such a withering attack whilst admitting to only seeing the first half, is highly suspect. Does he have some personal negative history with Edgar? I watched both the opening night and the second performance. I was in fact seated close behind the couple who left early, and had heard several appreciative laughs from them. Maybe they got a text re. a babysitter crisis; who knows? Mr Banks leaves us in no doubt as to his feelings regarding a character in a comedy afflicted with a stutter. The other 80-odd audience members on both nights didn't seem to share his offended sensibilities. They stayed right to the end, laughed loudly and frequently, and applauded enthusiastically. Perhaps Banks has a close relative suffering this affliction: that would be the only logical explanation for his degree of vehemence. A fair reviewer, even if mentioning offence at that particular element, might also have mentioned the delightful performances from many of the cast - I would personally single out Kerri Hilton and Beth Legg. Don't be put off by the singularly one-eyed review. As a long term GRADS member, I am pleased to see the group presenting a new, local and thoroughly amusing light comedy. No doubt the penetration of "The West Australian" and Ron Banks' abuse of his media power will affect the success of the production disastrously, which is a real pity when so many of us have worked long and hard to mount a show which is far more worthy than he implies.
Walter PlingeTue, 29 June 2010, 03:33 pm

Why is it that as soon as a

Why is it that as soon as a group or an individual did not like a negative review they instantly leap to the defensive and attack the reviewer? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. There has been many a time when I have gone to see a theatre show and decided that it was terrible and I have expressed that opinion. You simply can not expect everyone to enjoy every single thing that they see. Yes, this time you got a negative review. Deal with it. No amount of bitching and calling Ron Banks names is going to change the fact that he didn't like the show. He isn't "abusing" his media powers, he is doing his job which is to review a show. If he was that offended that he left at interval than that is his choice. No one should have to sit through a production that offends them. We all have choices about what we choose to view and not view. In this case Ron banks decided to not view the end of a production which offended him. Every review is one-eyed. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased piece of writing. We are all influenced by our history, experiences and knowledge. One mans trash is another mans treasure. If we all liked the same thing the theatre would be a boring place filled with carbon copies of what had proceeded it before hand.
Walter PlingeTue, 29 June 2010, 03:57 pm

And this is why the West

And this is why the West rarely ever reviews community theatre. Because of the instant precious reactions we've seen here.
David AshtonTue, 29 June 2010, 05:43 pm

In years gone by when I was

In years gone by when I was co-producing shows at the Regal, a negative review by Mr Banks was good news, many customers who were familiar with his idiosychratic views would give a show a look if he didn't like it, in those days with the Daily News, a show good receive a damning review from Ron and a brilliant review from the competition on the same day, he really tended not to like anything "light", and people knowing his tastes would understand this.It's just a pity that an alternative view is not now available.
Bass GuyTue, 29 June 2010, 08:17 pm

A fair point...

... is made by The Beckett; surely there is something of a dereliction of duty, or at very least professional ethics, by being paid (I assume Banks was paid) to review a show, and not "suffering" the whole work. Who knows, maybe the second half would have explained the first? It is at the very least poor form on Banks' part. It is even WORSE form on the West's part to publish this "non-review" as a review. Were they that short of content today that any meagre column inches, no matter how bleak, would have sufficed? This is something I would encourage be best taken up with Mr Stephen Bevis in his capacity as the West's Arts Editor. I am given to understand that the reason this community theatre show was reviewed was simply because of the involvement of the august personage of Mr Metcalfe. In fact there was a valedictorian-style piece about him last week in The West detailing this very production. If memory serves (and it could very well serve a double-fault here) I thought that piece was also penned by Mr Banks... can anyone confirm this? However, the fact remains that the show has received another patented "Banks Bashing", but I honestly don't believe he holds the sway he once did. People will come see Mr Metcalfe's show to say goodbye, and they'll make up their own mind. Eliot McCann- who wouldn't mind a gig reviewing for The West, if anyone's interested....
Robert J WhyteWed, 30 June 2010, 03:28 am

I think its ironic that Mr

I think its ironic that Mr Banks' surname rhymes with an certain activity that I think he does a better job of.
grantwatsonWed, 30 June 2010, 08:33 am

Full disclosure: I used to

Full disclosure: I used to be GRADS President, although that said I'm not a member of GRADS any more, live in Melbourne and have never read Edgar's script so couldn't possibly comment on it. That out the way, I think people (including GRADS members and those working on this play) have a complete and justifiable right to be upset with this review. Mr Banks was paid (I assume) to review the play for The West Australian - not review half a play, which is what he's openly admitted he's done here. That's deeply unprofessional. I know from talking with enough critics (and even being a critic occasionally myself) that sneaking out halfway through is a dreadfully common practice, that doesn't make it less unprofessional. Admitting it in the text of the review just makes Mr Bank unprofessional as well as stupid. If Banks wasn't willing to review the play properly, he shouldn't have reviewed it at all - and if the West had any journalistic integrity (ha!) they wouldn't have printed it.
Walter PlingeWed, 30 June 2010, 11:48 am

You could always complain

You could always complain to the managing editor of the West, Brett McCarthy. His email is brett.mccarthy@wanews.com.au. You could also contact MediaWatch (media@your.abc.net.au), Crikey (boss@crikey.com.au), the media section at The Australian (meadea@theaustralian.com.au) and the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance at http://www.alliance.org.au/contacts/WA_Branch/ Or The Sunday Times would probably love to stick the boot into its competitor on something like that. Email chief-of-staff John Flint at flintj@sundaytimes.newsltd.com.au
PamelasWed, 30 June 2010, 12:39 pm

One wonders if Mr Banks'

One wonders if Mr Banks' opinion of the treatment of Claudius the Stammerer in the BBC drama is equally as scathing. In Friends, the character of Steve is treated with sympathy - it's the reaction of the other guests that is laughed at by the audience, not Stevie. Banks would have seen this had he stayed for the second act, but he didn't. "...and for the last three minutes on the wind of a windless day I have heard the sound of drums and flute...""
leecetheartistThu, 8 July 2010, 01:10 am

Actually, I quite liked it. AND I stayed all the way through!

Please find my humble but rather lengthy and difficult to edit here review at any of the three links below. I know there is some editing to do, but it's late and I wanted to get my impressions down quickly. In short, nice production. Thanks! http://www.lympago.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b=leeceramble,m=1278520272,s=0 http://leecetheartist.livejournal.com/227811.html?#cutid1 http://leecetheartist.dreamwidth.org/222751.html?#cutid1
David HardieThu, 8 July 2010, 08:53 am

It's widely acknowledged

It's widely acknowledged that the days of the all powerful critic that can make or break a production, reputation or career are over. Ironically one of the reasons is a the rise of forums such as this are looked to by people about assessing plays etc. The point that such a negative review probably reflects equally badly on the journalist and/or the publication. It is a cliche, but in the case of there being nothing positive to say then it is probably best to say nothing and there are reviewers (shoutout to Gordon Optimist) who adopt this stance. For what it is worth, I saw the play and enjoyed it. Some roles were played better than others but in community theatre there is nothing out of the ordinary with this. The play itself is not Chekov but doesn't pretend it is. However, getting a reviewer from the mainstream media to show up (even for first half) is not achieved by accident. I'm assuming that Grads invited Ron Banks to attend and review the show. In which case it is disingenuous to cry foul when the review is negative. This is a different to complaining about the quality of the review and the journalism but would anyone be complaining about a positive (un-warrented or otherwise) review where the reviewer went home at interval?
Bass GuyThu, 8 July 2010, 09:38 am

David deftly declared...

"It is a cliche, but in the case of there being nothing positive to say then it is probably best to say nothing and there are reviewers (shoutout to Gordon Optimist) who adopt this stance." I'm not so sure- whilst I give big kudos to Gordon for reviewing practically every show produced in Perth (he must get at least 30 hours to the day rather than the normal 24 ;-D) I don't think much can be gained from always saying "You've all done very well" etc etc ... not to say that all Gordon's reviews are unanimously positive; just lots of them. You can be tactful and critical at the same time, it just requires finesse and tact; qualities I believe are sorely lacking in Ron Banks' writing. Also: "This is a different to complaining about the quality of the review and the journalism but would anyone be complaining about a positive (un-warrented or otherwise) review where the reviewer went home at interval?" Well, for one I would be. Because positive or negative notwithstanding, if you only review half a show you've only done half your job. And frankly should only be paid half your wage. Eliot McCann. Hire him as a reviewer!!
leecetheartistThu, 8 July 2010, 03:29 pm

It's pretty clear in the

It's pretty clear in the first act. I wonder how Mr Banks reacts when encountering a real person who suffers a speech impediment? Does he withdraw in embarrassment then? Not very sensitive. Way to go, because what "Steve" was doing I've encountered with real people, and what was being advised were/are recognised strategies. Theatre is supposed to evoke a response and sometimes it holds up a mirror to the soul. Um. Does this mean I can't listen to the Stutter Rap any more? --Why do I always end up writing reviews late at night?
Daniel KershawFri, 9 July 2010, 06:13 pm

Should I have to remind

Should I have to remind people that the point of theatre is not reviews?
David HardieSat, 10 July 2010, 05:21 am

Daniel: Good point.

and well made.
crgwllmsMon, 12 July 2010, 06:40 am

Pointedly

I'm not even sure what the point of reviews is. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------
Daniel KershawMon, 12 July 2010, 07:28 am

"Craig Williams is the

"Craig Williams is the best".
osullivankateTue, 20 July 2010, 04:14 pm

I find that a large number

I find that a large number of Gordon's reviews can actually be read in such a way where he commends the good and avoids commentary on those things that are deliberately scathing. The statements of "You've all done very well" are often tempered with commentary on other parts of the play (e.g. the script, lighting, audience", rather than just being a "BRAVI" type review. Although, when warrented, those are certainly also doled out.
osullivankateTue, 20 July 2010, 04:15 pm

Here Here!

Here Here!
Walter PlingeWed, 21 July 2010, 01:33 am

Hear Hear

Hear Hear
← Back to Theatre Reviews