|
|
Post by partytentdown on May 19, 2016 6:49:06 GMT
|
|
543 posts
|
Post by freckles on May 19, 2016 7:03:58 GMT
I didn't know they could in the first place. Makes for a jollier evening, I suppose, but aren't they there to do a job?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 7:09:36 GMT
I have very little sympathy. If the critics were being expected to buy their own tickets, I'd sympathise, but the inability to take a friend or partner along without them paying their way doesn't get in the way of them doing their job, and although being out at the theatre most nights can put a dampener on a critic's social life, that's kind of what they signed up for in the first place. And how many other jobs are there where there's an expectation of taking your partner to work with you just for fun? There are bigger battles to be fought, there are better hills to die on.
EDIT: oh, I've just looked at the article in the OP. What a childish headline!
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by David J on May 19, 2016 7:22:23 GMT
I find taking someone along when reviewing is perfect, so that there is a second opinion and the two of us can bounce thoughts off each other.
I'm sure the same can be said for the critics
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 7:29:15 GMT
That's the point Dominic Cavendish makes in the Telegraph. If that's the case maybe they should take along one of their readers rather than a partner/ friend so the view they get reflects the public's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 7:30:20 GMT
I should've read the article before starting. Considering the critic is usually given one of the best seats in the house and is offered the opportunity to pay £20 to bring a guest, that's an astonishingly good price, presuming the NT isn't going to make the critic and the guest sit apart from each other. If the critic has a range of potential guests, I think they'll find that the guests won't mind half as much as the critics seem to. (Though if the critic does take the same guest every time, then those £20 fees could add up after not very long, although there aren't that many NT press nights in the grand scheme of things tbh.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 7:32:27 GMT
That's the point Dominic Cavendish makes in the Telegraph. If that's the case maybe they should take along one of their readers rather than a partner/ friend so the view they get reflects the public's. Maybe they could make conversation with the people sitting next to them, or even *gasp* a fellow critic who will have their own ideas but would also appreciate the opportunity to talk it over with someone who understands the need to talk it over and is sympathetic to the fact the critic can no longer bring their own guest. |
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on May 19, 2016 7:37:50 GMT
Also, in some theatres they also get free food and drinks!
|
|
543 posts
|
Post by freckles on May 19, 2016 7:43:42 GMT
I find taking someone along when reviewing is perfect, so that there is a second opinion and the two of us can bounce thoughts off each other. I'm sure the same can be said for the critics But isn't that like saying we should all take a mate to work with us, in case we need to discuss anything with them? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 7:47:59 GMT
Technically no, as no one ultimately cares what we think. (At least, not in the same way that people are supposed to care what a critic thinks.)  Also, critics are loners at their publications; if I need to talk to someone about my work, I'll talk to whoever's sitting nearest who understands the particular aspect in question. |
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 19, 2016 8:06:48 GMT
My sympathy is extremely limited. £20 is not a lot to pay, and movie critics seem to handle having to write review without taking a friend or partner along to films.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 8:17:28 GMT
I love that this is even a debate. As Shenton points out, it's a perk. It's not Rufus Norris taking it out on critics. It's a way of raising money, whilst also enabling the NT to invite a much broader spectrum of reviewer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 8:21:17 GMT
Usually, the opinions of a companion are more worthwhile if they've paid a token £20 than if they've sneaked in on a freebie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 8:23:03 GMT
Good point. Should make the critics pay for BOTH tickets so they are reviewing from the perspective of a paying customer. If they can only afford restricted view or back of the circle, they review the show from that perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 8:37:39 GMT
Actually, this change in policy is designed to grant to respected bloggers the free access to excellent seats on press performances that will allow them to experience the production in ideal conditions, and not to make public comments after seeing an early dodgy preview from a rubbish seat (like a lot of the commenters on this website!)
|
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on May 19, 2016 9:50:12 GMT
Surprised Shenton even has time to review these days, based on the number of selfies he tweets from trans-atlantic planes and dinners with his New York pals. I'm sure he can find the odd twenty quid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 12:03:09 GMT
A slight twist in the tale - I've just had an email from Rufus Norris no less saying that the drum revolves need work doing and they need to raise £350k to get it done without disruption. Sounds like this +1 palaver is really just a tiny part of a greater financial picture, one that's going to feature a fair bit of belt-tightening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 12:32:12 GMT
Think I might start a justgiving campaign for this
- just £20 will allow a critic to take their partner to the theatre so they don't have to talk to a member of the public
- just £15 will let them get a decent glass of wine each if there's only house wine available at the free bar
#prayforthecritics
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 13:40:33 GMT
A slight twist in the tale - I've just had an email from Rufus Norris no less saying that the drum revolves need work doing and they need to raise £350k to get it done without disruption. Sounds like this +1 palaver is really just a tiny part of a greater financial picture, one that's going to feature a fair bit of belt-tightening. Me too. I might give them a few pennies for that one. I do love the NT revolve. It gives me a little fizzle of excitement every time. |
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 19, 2016 15:19:49 GMT
Yes, I was thinking of chucking a few quid their way to get the drum revolve working properly.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 19, 2016 16:31:52 GMT
As someone who has spent a good chunk of the past few years reviewing regional theatre, the standard expectation is that the press get 2 tickets. The first change I was aware of was when the RSC restricted online only coverage to a single ticket for press nights - which didn't go down that well in some quarters. The RSC always used to give free copies of scripts (for new/rediscovered pieces) to all critics - they then stopped doing that and only gave them to 'major' outlets. I had to fight to get WOS included on that list.
Given how many freebies theatres do tend to give out, this does seem a little tight-fisted of the NT. Will they be charging the great and the good for their partners? I doubt it.
Part of the strategy was always to woo the press in order to get them onside. It won't be the critics who pay for the extra ticket, it will be their publications.
There is a fragmentation in terms of theatre coverage with many major national publications reducing their arts pages. This is not going to help build good relations between the NT and Fleet Street - at a time when the artistic future of the company has been in question as a result of some very poorly received productions.
|
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 19, 2016 16:39:07 GMT
Will you feel differently if (as has been suggested) it turns out those tickets are now being given for free to bloggers, instead of to critics' friends?
That would mean more reviewers getting to see the finished show for free on press night from a good seat than before, and allows reviewers who aren't necessarily being paid to write to see the show for free.
|
|
5,716 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 19, 2016 17:47:28 GMT
A slight twist in the tale - I've just had an email from Rufus Norris no less saying that the drum revolves need work doing and they need to raise £350k to get it done without disruption. Sounds like this +1 palaver is really just a tiny part of a greater financial picture, one that's going to feature a fair bit of belt-tightening. Me too. I might give them a few pennies for that one. I do love the NT revolve. It gives me a little fizzle of excitement every time. Ryan, there isn't a play written or about to be written that needs a revolve. It is pretty ridiculous that they built it with so such high maintenaince needs and expense. That they are lumbered with it I suppose requires thinking about its use. But to be honest I think this is chucking good money after bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 17:57:34 GMT
Me too. I might give them a few pennies for that one. I do love the NT revolve. It gives me a little fizzle of excitement every time. Ryan, there isn't a play written or about to be written that needs a revolve. It is pretty ridiculous that they built it with so such high maintenaince needs and expense. That they are lumbered with it I suppose requires thinking about its use. But to be honest I think this is chucking good money after bad. OMGosh. Whaaaa? I can't even process that comment it's so insane!! I love the revolve! Any play can be improved by the revolve just as any musical can be improved by a tap routine. I'm hoping Rufus Norris is reading this and seriously considering blacklisting you from the NT for heinous opinions like that!! Do you kick old ladies down the escalators on the underground and throw puppies into sacks too? Doesn't need the revolve. Insanity! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 20:05:00 GMT
Sure, no show *needs* the revolve, but technically I don't *need* to eat cake, so  |
|
