Posted by 66
on 7/10/2009, 3:40 pm, in reply to "We've Done it Again! Reviews in SJ-R..."
Great discussion.
Like everyone who has posted so far, I hope the SJ-R continues to run with option 3. I believe that Brian and Maggie are both fair reviewers, and try to be honest in their opinions each time they review something.
What the offended folks are forgetting is that the public is paying money to see them. Just because they got up the nerve to audition (good for you, by the way…it does take guts to audition for a show), doesn’t mean the paying audience has to fawn all over you. You made the choice to audition and to sacrifice your time away from work, play and family. You are not doing the audience any favors by making that sacrifice….they are doing you a favor by coming to see the show. If the show isn’t great, the reviewer shouldn’t be forced to say it is. That hurts all community theatre in the end...because the paying public is smart...if a group does consistently bad work, the audience will stop coming to see shows there. They will miss the "good ones" too, because they will have been trained not to trust the reviews.
I don’t buy the "but they’re amateurs" line either. Some amateur shows are truly wonderful (Miss Saigon at the Muni for example)... some are not. A local reviewer is not holding us up to professional levels when they review us….but they should hold us up to the level of excellence that is occasionally achieved at this amateur rank.
The general paying audience (not including your friends and family) doesn’t care what troubles you’ve had in rehearsal. They don’t care that someone was sick or dropped out, or that the set fell apart, or the costumes weren’t finished in time. They shouldn’t have to care about that. They paid their money, and should expect to see a polished show when they arrive. They don’t want a bunch of excuses about what went wrong. They deserve to see the best show you can deliver.
If you are doing a free show in a church basement or at the local charity hall, that’s one thing….but if you are charging money at an established theatrical venue, then you have a level of quality you should be expected to reach.
If the SJ-R ever allows the 4th choice (letting readers write reviews), however, I hope they will insist on making people include their names. When a person can remain anonymous, they tend to say mean spirited, spiteful things, instead of making legitimate, thoughtful comments.
One additional thought...I believe the play selection should be up for review as well...if an organization picks a bad play, or one that the reviewer doesn’t like, why shouldn’t that be open for comment? Again, no one forced the group to pick that play, or forced an individual to audition for it. If the play is old-fashioned, or offensive, then the reviewer should have the right to mention that. It’s all part of the theatre-going experience, and has to be considered in addition to the performance.
Having said that….we’ve all received reviews at one time or another that were really nothing but a recap of the plot. That helps no one.
Responses: