April 27, 2011

Feedback about a performance not reviewed by Theatreview

David Murray     posted 23 Apr 2011, 04:28 PM

The following are some comments received about performances that Theatreview won’t review:

“I go to the theatre a lot, mainly Downstage and Circa, but this was the best thing I have seen in a very long time, absolutely blew me away”

“…excellent and meticulously directed production… innovatively designed set… creatively subtle”.

The play? The Wellington premiere of That Face by Polly Stenham.

Kinda suggests that Theatreview might have wanted to have seen this one even tho’ it wasn’t performed at Downstage, or Circa, or Batts – despite their down-the-nose atitude towards community theatre. I don’t expect the attitude to change tho’. 🙁

Ameet Chana     posted 23 Apr 2011, 05:27 PM

Oh David, when are you gonna let this go? I thought you had created your own website as result of your last rant to address this issue. Why is it so important that theatreview reviews these shows? Why aren’t you also on the back of publishers of theatre reviews such as theatrescene, Lumiere, Dompost,  capital times, Salient, texture as well? What is it that you seek? Congrats on an excellent production. I had seen the same show at Silo last year but i just dont get nor understand the amount of time and energy you focus venting, belittling, ridiculing and insulting a group of people whom this craft is their only source of bread and butter.

David Murray     posted 23 Apr 2011, 07:51 PM

> Oh David, when are you gonna let this go?

When the artifical distinction between remunerated and unremunerated theatre is abolished.

> I thought you had created your own website as result of your last rant to address this issue.

Nope. Not as a result of any “rant”. As a result of the need not being met by any other theatre related organisation.

> Why is it so important that theatreview reviews these shows?

That has already been well addressed. It is because there aftificial distinction between remunerated “professional” theatre and unremunerated theatre (everything else) is false, unhelpful to the general public, and should be done away with.

> Why aren’t you also on the back of publishers of theatre reviews such as theatrescene, Lumiere, Dompost,  capital times, Salient, texture as well?

I wasn’t aware that those organisations pretended to speak for the theatre world in New Zealand.

> What is it that you seek? Congrats on an excellent production. I had seen the same show at Silo last year but i just dont get nor understand the amount of time and energy you focus venting, belittling, ridiculing and insulting a group of people whom this craft is their only source of bread and butter.

What group of people is this? I wasn’t aware that the reviewers who contribute to this website were paid to do that.

Michael Wray    posted 23 Apr 2011, 10:26 PM / edited 23 Apr 2011, 10:27 PM

And the circle continues! I too don’t get why you continue to hound Theatreview and just Theatreview on this issue. As we have discussed and as you have been told numerous times, Theatreview does not have the resources to include amateur and community theatre. Your response to this was that Theatreview should rely on reproducing the reviews produced by the other media so John (and other volunteers) can go to the amateur and community theatre productions instead. This suggestion, which would effectively reduce Theatreview’s primary content of professional theatre to little or none, fails to address other areas that require resourcing – storage, traffic etc.

Does the complete absence of content on http://amdramreview.co.nz/ and the low number of reviews on http://www.review.org.nz/index.php  imply there aren’t that many people willing to become voluntary contributors for amateur and community productions?

I left the discussion on FB behind when David suggested that “if Theatreview cannot afford to employ reviewers then perhaps it’s in the wrong business.” To imply that Theatreview should cease because it doesn’t cover amateur and community theatre productions makes you sound like a troll. This impression is further enhanced when you treat Theatreview as being solely responsible for covering amateur and community theatre productions, as opposed to Capital Times, DomPost, Salient, Lumiere etc.

David Murray     posted 24 Apr 2011, 03:27 PM

> Does the complete absence of content on http://amdramreview.co.nz/ and the low number of reviews on http://www.review.org.nz/index.php  imply there aren’t that many people willing to become voluntary contributors for amateur and community productions?

I can’t comment on “amdramreview” other than the fact that it is impossible to contribute anything to that site – I certainly have tried!

I can comment on the number of reviews on Review Community Theatre – there are currently only a handful of registered users, and a majority of them belong to one theatre comany. I expect that as the site becomes more widely known then people will contribute reviews of all types of theatre in NZ – including that of remunerated theatre.

It’s worth pointing out that the purpose of that site is not only to enable people to post reviews, but for details about up-coming theatre productions (of any sort) to also be easily made available to the general public.

This isn’t trolling (as you allege) and newspapers don’t exist for the purpose of reviewing theatre in New Zealand, unlike your website!

Or does your website not primarily exist for reviewing theatre?

Michael Wray    posted 24 Apr 2011, 03:58 PM

My website? I have two websites and both are to do with football.

The theatre review sections of those papers review theatre in their respective regions.

Theatreview reviews theatre in NZ, but does not cover schools or amateur productions.

Given that this has been stated and reasons given so many times, what is so hard to understand? Unless of course, you are just trolling and understanding isn’t the issue.

Anyway, we’ve come full circle. Again. I’ve used simple English as best I can. I will now leave it to others to respond the next time you get bored and decide to raise the topic. Again. And again. And again….

John Smythe      posted 24 Apr 2011, 04:58 PM / edited 24 Apr 2011, 11:17 PM

Thank you, Michael, for your support and commitment. David, please read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the following so we don’t all keep re-repeating ourselves:

1.     Theatreview has only ever aimed and purported to be a review website – with supporting content – for the professional performing arts.

2.    Only one of its six-plus years of operation to date has has seen the managing editor position funded as a part-time position. In October last year it reverted to a ‘labour of love’ minimally supported by those who have joined the Performing Arts Directory (PAD) and small amounts of targeted funding from charitable foundations.

3.    As founding/managing editor and senior critic I seek to maintain Theatreview as a rigorous and constructive contribution to, and celebration of, professionally produced performing arts. The undoubtedly valuable activities of the community / amateur performing arts remain outside the purview of Theatreview and always will. 

4.    This position implies no value judgement on the respective qualities of pro v am performing arts – obviously ‘gold’ and ‘dross’ can be found in both sectors. But the purpose, value, raison d’être and accountability of each sector is entirely different from the other.

5.    Even if Theatreview became fully resourced – through the efforts of the recently established The Theatreview Trust – to operate on a totally professional basis, coverage of community / amateur productions would not occur on the Theatreview website.

6.    As a gesture of support to help facilitate the setting up of an independently managed community / amateur review site, we did offer to supply a clone of Theatreview but this was not picked up.

7.    There are some grey areas as to what qualifies a production to be seen as ‘professional’ and from time to time we need to make a judgement call on that. It generally comes down to whether the people creating the work see this as their primary vocation, as opposed to an interest they pursue (ardently in many cases) in their spare time. 

It may also be relevant to note, here, that confusion can easily arise around the term ‘community theatre’. When regional professional theatres were first set up in NZ, they were sometimes referred to as community theatres. It remains a common term for amateur theatres that are fundamentally linked to their towns or suburbs. Homegrown theatre created about a community by the community for the community is also called ‘community theatre’ (and may represent a community-of-interest that is not defined geographically). Poison and Purity, created by Paul Maunder’s Kiwi Possum Productions, is an example and such productions may well attract the interest of Theatreview because they fulfil a fundamental purpose of theatre that is too often ignored by fully professional theatres. 

Andrew Goddard             posted 26 Apr 2011, 05:09 PM

Hello all,

Can I say that I have sympathy for both arguments? John, the work you put into maintaining this website is admirable, as I believe is David’s commitment to seeing high-quality community theatre reaping the fruits of hard labour and passion. Naturally, reviewers cannot make it to every single performance put on by a community theatre – if not for quality concerns, then simply for the fact that it could indeed defeat its ultimate purpose of reviewing professional performing arts. Nor do I expect you to change your minds on this issue. That said…

The grey area & “judgement call” aspects of which you speak John, is one that perhaps David and others might feel is not appreciated by the website currently. I know for a fact that several of the cast of That Face are aspiring actors in at least a semi-professional sense, who pursue the craft with rigour and skill. Moreover, the same company behind this show put on the The Three Musketeers last year which had two established professional actors and more semi-professional actors also, including myself. Without wanting to suggest that you “ought to have” reviewed either production, I would just like to ponder out loud (sort of…) whether the judgement call as to what makes theatre professional or not is applied often or accurately enough? I may be too close to the performances in question to apply my own judgement on the matter properly, but perhaps there are more ostensibly “community” or “amateur” shows out there that would be suitable for rigorous, constructive and celebratory discussion? Not a criticism per se, merely a matter for discussion (if you feel the need)…

John Smythe      posted 27 Apr 2011, 12:28 PM

As I recall, Andrew, I found out about the casting in The Three Musketeers after the fact and was never approached about That Face before or during the season. Before I make any ‘judgement call’ I need to know what’s coming up. All else has been said above and elsewhere.

Andrew Goddard             posted 27 Apr 2011, 03:09 PM

Fair enough, does make it a bit hard to review if you haven’t been approached.