What are Reviews for? And do we have the right to complain?

Logos | 12/07/2010 - 16:15

The debate that occurs on this site a lot when bad reviews are posted has of course raised its ugly head again. It is interesting because I have just read a complaint about a review in a local community theatre paper published here in Adelaide.
Craig Williams recently posted on the thread about the Grads production "I don't know what reviews are for?"

Its an interesting question, even for someone who has been knocking about in this business for about 40 odd years amateur and pro.

The media who write reviews see it one way and we see it another.

Newspapers will tell you that they only publish material, whatever it is, that they see as newsworthy and before you all dissolve into loud guffaws give that some thought. You may, as I do, perceive the massive amounts of column inches spent each week on the various codes of football a complete waste of paper. There are some people however who cannot survive without all that c**p.
I tend to avidly read all the material that I can find on various topics including but not limited to performing arts. But realistically how many people share those interests? The major media find that not many do. And of course one of the ways that they judge that is by the amount of paid advertising that the pages attract. Film companies buy advertising ergo they believe that people who want to watch films read papers ergo papers print film reviews.
How much money is spent in daily print media to advertise plays?

We see reviews as part of our publicity machine that doesn't cost anything. Wrong. In what way is a review newsworthy? How many people actually go to the play? They don't write reviews for us but for the public who generally don't care so they don't write reviews. Its a tough world out there. Do you think that printing a review of your play will sell enough papers to pay the wages of the writer alone? I doubt it.

Now the problem of a bad review.
If you get one, suck it up. I've had some real beauties over the years.
It's one persons opinion, it's not libel, it's not a personal attack (or if it is it becomes pretty obvious pretty quickly.) Does it cause anyone who might have come to see the show to change their minds and stay home? Not sure.
I do however reckon a good review brings people in who might not have come to see the show otherwise.
There isn't a clash there really. I don't think it will keep away anyone who was seriously considering coming if its bad. But I think it will attract people who weren't seriously coming if its good.

There are some actions that I will always criticise reviewers for. Ad Hominem attacks on individuals are not good. If you don't like someone personally don't say so in a review. If you don't like their performance well that's different.
Not staying to the end and then publishing a review as though you did is unforgivable, regardless of whether its a good review or a bad one. I guess if you don't stay till the end, say you didn't and say why then you can write a review of the first half.

Anyway. I guess maybe my point is that we all of us tend to be a bit thin skinned. We need to step back take a deep breath and accept reviews be they good or bad.

Logos's blog | email this blog | 726 reads

What is a review?

Author: Labrug
Date: 13/07/2010 - 10:41

I see that there is a very thin line between what is a review and what is basically becoming an insulting rant. Reviewers walk dangerously close to that line when they inject emotive language into a review. That is not to say that a reviewer should not review emotionally. They should simply not let it take over the review be it good or bad.

On the other side of the fence, there is the response of the Reviewed whom, as you say, can emotionally respond to blunt or subtle, or even falsely perceived attacks on their abilities, personality and professionalism.

I think there are times where a strong response of opposition to a review can be justified by the quality of the review itself, and then there are times where the reaction seems to overstate the intent of the review.

Yes there are thinned skinned performers. That is seen everyday and nowadays, parodied on You Tube, and there are also thinned skinned reviewers whom react rather than rationalise, destruct rather than construct. When a professional reviewer (one whom is paid to write) decides to publicly vent his emotional response to something, without offering an objective point of view to go with it, this to my mind is unprofessional and unethical. Complaints may well be justified.

And that is where the thin line rests; the line between ethical and slander. It is very easy for a reviewer to stay quite clearly on one side of this line (either side) as long as they remain consistent in their approach and intent, if it be to provide a technical and objective overview, or an emotionally charged rant/vent/soliloquy. When you start to blend the two, you invite confusion both from the readers and those being reviewed.

However, all that said an done, one thing that does not get recognised enough is that a bad review can often be as good as a glowing on for getting people to come see a show. Look at certain Radio Hosts of recent years, even certain Judges of popular talent shows - mean, sharp, tactless, occasionally vulgar and offencive, yet very very popular. These people have made a career in being this way. Readers/Viewers either love or hate them, but they all know about them and listen to them.

Let's face it, there are Trolls out there and they are on both sides of the fence - Reviewers who like talking nasty; reviewees who get a kick from raising some noise. All that before we hit the honest and genuine insults and insulted.

Yes, we are thinned skinned and probably need to toughen up a bit. All of us. Be you reviewer, reviewee, or just the reader, there will always be someone out there wanting to get a reaction, provoke and taunt. Don't let these often loud yet rather isolated voices distract you from others and what is really important.

Absit invidia (and DFT No no no )

Jeff Watkins

Looking for an Agent? Read this first!!

Reviews

Author: Tulipa (not verified)
Date: 13/07/2010 - 14:01

Seeing as this site serves mainly the amateur and community theatre world, it seems appropriate to consider the subject of show reviews specific only to that sector.

Why does any amateur company invite or accept a reviewer to attend a show? A reviewer who's words will, at best, find their way in to a monthly amateur theatre magazine about a month after the season finishes. I contend that it's less to do with promoting a show and more do do with seeking affirmation, recognition and a public pat on the back for a job well done. What actor has not sought out reviews for their show and skimmed through for a mention of their name? Bandied the article around when they were well regarded and publically dissed the reviewer when they were slammed.

Reviewers really are in a no win situation. If a reviewer habitually finds merit and heaps praise on every show they see, then their opinion is not taken seriously by anyone. On the other hand, whether we admit it or not, we love tough reviewers. The people who really know their stuff and are not dutifully obliged by anything put in front of them. Tough reviewers set standards. Either their own or in their field. They raise standards and set benchmarks. When we get a nod from these people we know we have earnt it.

Reviewers rarely ask you to agree with them. A review is, by nature, one person's opinion and a good reviewer will always justify their praise or criticism. If someone states that the show was not to their taste for some stated reason and they left at interval, then so be it. If a food reviewer was finding the cuisine of a restaurant to be nauseating or poorly prepared would you expect them to continue to eat just to satisfy the criteria of having 'stayed the distance'?

Inviting a reviewer to your show is the equivalent of asking someone "do these jeans make my bum look big?" You have to be prepared to accept that person's honest opinion, regardless of your feelings.

Tulipa

Tulipa temptingly tendered...

Author: Bass Guy
Date: 13/07/2010 - 14:12

..."If a food reviewer was finding the cuisine of a restaurant to be nauseating or poorly prepared would you expect them to continue to eat just to satisfy the criteria of having 'stayed the distance'?"

My answer remains "yes"; if it is their profession, and they are there to review the restaurant, I believe they are obligated to suffer it. If they go to the restaurant for a meal whilst NOT reviewing it, sure- they can hurl the plate across the room.

Otherwise, and this gets back to the point I was making with Banks, the organisiation that has asked you to review their work is justified in their disappointment of their treatment by you. I would expect- nay, DEMAND- this of any "professional' critic regardless of arena.

Eliot McCann- still angling for a reviewing gig at the West.

Iron Gut Eliot

Author: crgwllms
Date: 14/07/2010 - 15:08

I love Tulipa's analogy about the restaurant; it's even better than mine about the bus breaking down halfway. So I can't agree with Eliot that the analogy doesn't work. If I was reviewing a restaurant and found I was nauseated by the first course to the point where I lost my appetite and had to excuse myself because I felt sick, then there's no way I'm going to continue to the dessert...regardless of whether it was the most delicious and perfectly concocted dessert in the world.

The restaurant would have to put up with a review that said their food made me sick; and them crying 'but you didn't stay for dessert' is not going to win them any sympathy.

You're correct in saying the reviewer is paid to review - but where you mislead is with your statement.. "the organisation that has asked you to review their work is justified in their disappointment..." That makes it sound like the THEATRE COMPANY is paying the reviewer, but it's NOT. The reviewer's employers are the PAPER, and they simply ask him/her to fill their copy with a point of view. If the point of view is that the show was not worth staying the distance, then they've got the opinion they paid for and the reviewer has done their job.

Restaurant reviews don't happen because the restaurants want them, either. They happen because the paper thinks the public wants them. Good restaurants are obviously keen to be reviewed because they're confident they'll score favourably. I suspect bad restaurants would hate reviewers (just like bad theatre productions do!). But they can't make DEMANDS, as you so capitally emphasised, just because a reviewer is a professional critic.

Here's another, more theatrical analogy: picture the Broadway audition where an endless queue of hopefuls wait in line to deliver their song and dance to be the lead in The Phantom Of The Opera. You get a limited time to show your worth. You come onstage to sing "All I Ask Of You" and your voice sounds like a donkey throwing up...the producer who's being paid to judge you at the audition is going to shout "NEXT" and end it right there...they're not going to waste time with you to discover that you do a pretty mean soft shoe shuffle, if you've so obviously failed the first criteria.

Or: You go on your driving test. The cop sitting next to you is being paid to review you. At the first intersection you drive through a red light and run over a pedestrian. Do you think the 'reviewer' is going to stay to the end of the test to see how perfectly you can parallel park, because that's what you paid for? Of course not. A fail means FAIL, there and then, regardless of whether your performance improves later in the test.

I do believe theatre productions can be judged in the same way, and it's sour grapes to blame the reviewer for not staying, if it's your performance up to that point which has caused them to want to leave. For it to come to that must mean your production has FAILED in their eyes. End of story. Literally.

To get back to comments made by Logos and Labrug, about what a review is...I'd like to clarify what a review ISN'T.

It's NOT intended to be a critique of your work. In other words, don't expect to have carefully considered comments intended to show you where you went wrong and point you in the right direction. It's not constructive criticism intended to help you improve. In fact, it's not intended for you AT ALL.

A review in a paper is for their readership. They don't care about fine details of constructive criticism...if you want that, get a good director to give you notes. The public simply want to know basic information about the play, what the reviewer thought, and whether they recommend it or not. Actual criticism that may be helpful to the actors or director is not actually relevant or interesting to the newspaper readership.
So Tony, no one is guffawing about newspapers only publishing what is newsworthy, because of course they are! And Jeff, you very rarely see a 'technical and objective overview' in any printed review. They don't have to be.

My main gripe with them is that they often don't get their facts straight, they're often poorly constructed, and they rarely express a value judgement. The last point can perhaps be understood if you accept that a journalist is trained to 'only deliver the facts'...but then that really doesn't excuse the first two points! What I regard as a 'bad' review is nothing to do with it liking or disliking the play, but simply bad journalism.

'Reviews' as we've come to know them on THIS website are actually pretty valuable because regardless of how well they're written, they come from peers; under anonymity they can express whatever opinion they like; and they often DO contain constructive feedback that is relevant to those in the production as well as the general readership of this site. They'd never be published in a newspaper journal, but neither should they be.

In the past I have criticised Banks (directly, to his email address at the paper) for not expressing any form of opinion. (In fact, I notice that was the subject of my very first ever post here in 2001). In this case, I actually applaud him because he so obviously did.
Whether that opinion is to be agreed with by anyone else is itself a matter of opinion...and not worth getting too anxious over.

Eliot, if you're still angling for that job at The West, you may need to change your paradigm, because it's pretty obvious that in the history of reviewers they've employed, they all have pretty well the same approach. And knowing what you're talking about is not actually one of the primary criteria.

Cheers,
Craig

~<8>-/====\---------

Have you thought about

Author: Shaun Miller (not verified)
Date: 13/07/2010 - 14:44

Have you thought about actually contacting The West with your request? The editor is Brett McCarthy. Why not email him and see what's going? brett.mccarthy@wanews.com.au

Oo!! Ta!!

Author: Bass Guy
Date: 13/07/2010 - 15:03

Thanks for that, Mr Miller- will do. You're a prince among men!

Critics

Author: BrisbaneCritiques
Date: 14/07/2010 - 11:10

A good theatre critic is first a foremost a good writer. If you can't communicate your thoughts and opinions through written words then you're essentially useless. A good theatre critic is candid, informed, fair and brave.
While I believe amateur theatre primarily invites reviewers to critique their shows for publicity, whether it be good or bad, I agree they also seek recognition and affirmation. Amatuer theatre means sacrifice and hard work, and it's only natural participants would want feedback.
I used to think a bad review wouldn't stop anyone from seeing a show that they had planned to see. However, I have had many of my readers say they rely solely on the website to decide what they will and won't go along to.
There will always be a place for critics, especially as long as people of the arts remain narcissistic.

Kellie Scott
Critic for www.brisbanecritiques.com, www.aussietheatre.com and The Catholic Leader newspaper.

Ironic

Author: John E Carson
Date: 14/07/2010 - 15:33

"A good theatre critic is first a foremost a good writer." But nowhere without a good sub editor, it seems?

Timing

Author: BrisbaneCritiques
Date: 14/07/2010 - 15:22

My timing of today's post is too perfect. I just came across a blog of a director I wrote a review for a few months ago who listed a number of links to the reviews for her show. None had comments next to them except mine, making sarcastic disgruntled comments about how I was the only reviewer who didn't enjoy the show etc. Out of a list of 8 links she only focused on mine to comment about about the negativity I wrote about. Not the 7 others who gave the show glowing reports.
An artist is never satisfied!

Not ironic at all...

Author: BrisbaneCritiques
Date: 14/07/2010 - 19:09

John, you are 100% spot on, and I've got a fantastic sub who does all my reviews! Unfortunately, they don't check my grammar on blogs.

What are Reviews for? And do we have the right to complain?

Comment viewing options