19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 25, 2019 9:49:30 GMT
There’s certainly no rule here about reviewing before press night. Whether it’s one of our brilliant and highly regarded reviewers, or someone who saw it and just wants to share a few thoughts it's all very much appreciated by those of us who want to hear feedback as soon as possible. Everyone’s capable of applying a common sense approach if the production is very new, indeed most people here who see things in preview will comment that certain issues will probably get tightened up before press.
And of course we have to take account of shows which have ridiculously long preview periods, as well as those who never had a press night at all for whatever reason *coughGhostcough* 😁
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 22:14:35 GMT
I used to moderate a food forum, back in the olden days before anyone had blogs, Tripadvisor or Instagram. One problem the site ran into was when people who contributed to the forum started to believe they were reviewers, or critics, and started making business cards with their forum user names to hand out at restaurants, usually in the hope of getting a freebie. Much like this forum, contributors were a mix of professionals and enthusiasts. Tony Bourdain was great fun, always up for a heated debate. Marina O’Loughlin used to come for group dinners, back when she was at the Metro and before anonymity became her thing. #goodtimes Where I think confusion enters, is when we enthusiasts use the term ‘reviewing’ or ‘review’ when we mean ‘writing a forum post’. Doesn’t matter how long, thoughtful, funny or erudite the post is. If you are not paid for it; it is not a review. We are humans sharing our experiences with other enthusiasts and it doesn’t matter if they were posted in preview, after press night or even before the show has opened. In fact, many of my favourite discussions on here are about shows that have closed (I love me a tonyloco remininiscence or a @cardinalpirelli observation about Oliver Awards of years past.) |
|
3,429 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 25, 2019 23:42:25 GMT
Happysooz, you've hit the nail on the head. Happily, the press night reviews have been very positive for Local Hero - the least favourable being the Telegraph, which didn't reference the female lead once and seemed more concerned with picking holes in the music.
|
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 25, 2019 23:48:17 GMT
Where I think confusion enters, is when we enthusiasts use the term ‘reviewing’ or ‘review’ when we mean ‘writing a forum post’. Doesn’t matter how long, thoughtful, funny or erudite the post is. If you are not paid for it; it is not a review. Well, that’s certainly a view. I’m not sure it’s a view lots of our bloggers would agree with though! |
|
3,429 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 26, 2019 0:01:31 GMT
Further to earlier feedback, I shan't publish the other reviews I've read... suffice to say the FT awarded 5 stars, The Herald 5 stars, The Times 4 stars. And the FT found the pace of the first half "lively". Very interesting reviews all online but Times behind a paywall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 0:26:57 GMT
Where I think confusion enters, is when we enthusiasts use the term ‘reviewing’ or ‘review’ when we mean ‘writing a forum post’. Doesn’t matter how long, thoughtful, funny or erudite the post is. If you are not paid for it; it is not a review. Well, that’s certainly a view. I’m not sure it’s a view lots of our bloggers would agree with though! Yes, that does come across a bit strong when bolded like that. They’d be welcome to disagree. I am open to changing my view. When I used to blog about food I eventually switched to describing what I wrote as a ‘write up’ rather than a review. I didn’t see myself as a critic, just an enthuasiastic amateur. I think that there’s a lot of blurred lines now with bloggers, certainly with food bloggers, where you don’t always know if they were invited, if the meal was comped or if they got a few extras. The well known ones are essentially performing the service of a critic, without the reader always knowing exactly what happened. They’re paid by the PRs or the restaurant, in better service, extra starters or a whole meal, rather than by the publication. It is different for theatre, of course. Doesn’t matter if the bloggers paid for their ticket or not, the performance is the same. But a blogger could write their thoughts three weeks after a performance, or the next day. You don’t know if they saw it in preview, or after press night. At least with a professional critic you know they are reviewing what you will go and see. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 1:11:26 GMT
At least with a professional critic you know they are reviewing what you will go and see. But do you though? As has been mentioned previously, some professional critics go to see the show during previews, but their opinions are just embargoed until the opening night, which is more of thing for the cameras and celebs to be seen at these days. |
|
3,429 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 26, 2019 8:03:45 GMT
Having kicked off the debate, it's fascinating to read all the different views. For me, it has been interesting to note how the professional critics awarded universally positive reviews - regardless of embargoed copy. To evolve the discussion, when so much effort and cost goes in to a long creative process, is it fair that a wannabe online critic can potentially harm the future success of a production by openly reviewing and scoring a show that is previewing? As people who love theatre, shouldn't we respect the process and allow the company to complete the preview run before openly posting reviews? Particularly when one person's three star review is heavily outweighed by four and five star reviews (from some notable and highly respected critics).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 9:02:30 GMT
But what makes a review from that dreadful man at the Daily Hate Mail (presumably paid) more valuable than a review on here (presumably unpaid) from the likes of, say, Steve and Nicholas , who both post thoughtful, informative, interesting and considered reviews (yes, I would call them reviews) even when they don't like something? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 9:44:32 GMT
Because if Quentin Letts hates something then it's usually a good indicator that I'll get on with it, whereas Steve is SO thoughtful that sometimes he gives productions more credit than they've earned and I end up sitting in the audience rolling my eyes and wondering how anyone could like it?  I agree that an unpaid review is as valuable as a paid review from a consumer perspective, often moreso because the unpaid reviewer tends to buy their own tickets and thus isn't as worried about staying on The List, and I agree that people shouldn't get carried away and consider themselves a reviewer just because they've scattered a few opinions across a message board and/or Twitter. But when you get people like Steve and Nicholas posting their reviews, hell, it's super easy to tell the difference between a review in a post and a post that's just an opinion without necessarily putting much critical thought behind it, right? The only problems are the people who think their opinion posts are as substantial as the review posts, and swaggering around the place because of it (like Happysooz's foodie friends, I don't know if we have any here so much). (Also didn't Quentin Letts leave the Fail?) |
|
3,429 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 26, 2019 11:07:30 GMT
Letts (not) be having you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 14:35:22 GMT
But what makes a review from that dreadful man at the Daily Hate Mail (presumably paid) more valuable than a review on here (presumably unpaid) from the likes of, say, Steve and Nicholas , who both post thoughtful, informative, interesting and considered reviews (yes, I would call them reviews) even when they don't like something? I don't think that a professional review is more valuable, sorry if I wasn't clear about that. Far far from it! I was more chiming in that we need to be aware that we are not professional reviewers, so we can't be criticised for posting thoughts during previews. I'm often more interested in what people on here say than what most professional critics say. I can think of one recent example where a professional review shed light on a production (Holly Williams in the Independent made the BDSM angle of When We Have Sufficiently Tortured the Audience very clear, in a way that I thought posters on here hadn't.) The question of worth is a really interesting one. I have now calibrated my tastes to many professional reviewers and posters. I know that I don't care what Michael Billington says, for example, so I read his reviews in the same way I read the football results. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 14:37:21 GMT
Because if Quentin Letts hates something then it's usually a good indicator that I'll get on with it, whereas Steve is SO thoughtful that sometimes he gives productions more credit than they've earned and I end up sitting in the audience rolling my eyes and wondering how anyone could like it? Yes, I love it when you find someone diametrically opposed to you. Given there's always more stuff to see than we have time for, knowing what not to see is a useful filter. |
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Apr 3, 2019 21:42:08 GMT
Settling down with a single malt after the show and an eventful day.
Absolutely loved it, the pace and subtle changes to the plot were spot on and the musical score was as expected, having listened to the film soundtrack more times than I care to admit to, the new songs were riddled with subtle references and variations throughout and made me smile as they evoked the cinematography of the film.
Definitely will see it again when it transfers to the Old Vic, not sure it will appeal to everyone as knowing the film enhances the experience and may not have the same impact to someone coming to it fresh and with my limited musical theatre experience am the last person to understand what makes a good musical.
|
|
3,429 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Apr 4, 2019 7:38:13 GMT
So glad you liked it Neil! I'm taking the kids on Saturday as despite the odd swear word I think they'll enjoy it.
|
|
821 posts
|
Post by ensembleswings on Apr 4, 2019 18:03:54 GMT
Saw it over the weekend, well worth the trip to Edinburgh, so much so that despite the distance I’ve booked another trip. It’s a beautiful show and I personally prefer it to the film.
I’d say it definitely helps if you have seen the film beforehand, I went with a friend who hadn’t and although they still enjoyed it there were a few things that they just ‘didn’t get’ and couldn’t understand why they got the reaction they did (the rabbit, motorbike and mermaids are ones I remember them mentioning).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 9:21:09 GMT
I’ve just booked for this on Wednesday. I don’t really know anything of the plot, nor have I seen the film, but the set design intrigues me, and I’ve heard good things.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 13, 2019 21:32:23 GMT
Wow. The highest compliment I can pay this production is that it made me fall in love with Ferness and that idiosyncratic Forsyth ambience all over again. My biggest worry was that inserting songs would dilute the overall story. All I can say is silly me. Mark Knopfler has come up with some absolute barnstormers, I especially enjoyed Filthy Dirty Rich. Will book for the Old Vic as soon as it goes onsale!
|
|
3,429 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Apr 14, 2019 21:22:39 GMT
I agree Talkingheads - I'm off to see it again on Wednesday. I really hope they release s cast recording.
|
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 16, 2019 12:32:46 GMT
Old vic season announcement for 26th April 2019. I assume this will be announced then
|
|
5,149 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Apr 16, 2019 13:22:59 GMT
From what I've heard its due at the Old Vic May 2020, from speaking to someone at the Lyceum
|
|
3,429 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Apr 16, 2019 13:37:45 GMT
So Old Vic May 2020 after another run at the Lyceum beforehand, perhaps...
|
|
5,149 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Apr 16, 2019 13:56:33 GMT
So Old Vic May 2020 after another run at the Lyceum beforehand, perhaps... No plans for another run at Lyceum to my knowledge... |
|
3,429 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Apr 16, 2019 15:01:35 GMT
I'd be very surprised if it didn't do another stint next year.
|
|
5,149 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Apr 16, 2019 15:06:54 GMT
From what I understand, they're already programmed until past the slot this could go in to. It'll go back in to the rehearsal room, as there will be cuts and changes needed for London, and then they'll go on to the OV - no plans before London, and currently no return plans either (to my knowledge)
|
|
