For the most part, I think reviews are basically meaningless ego trips (for the performer, if it's good, and for the reviewer, if it's bad). I mean, really, isn't a review basically just one person's opinion about one specific performance anyway? I know what you're thinking, "Why, Fausto, that's quite hypocritical of you, considering you post your own very opinionated reviews of every show you see on this very blog." Well, just calm the f*ck down, sister. The difference is, I'm always right. Oops, did I just type that? Sorry, that wasn't supposed to work its way down to my fingers from my brain. Too late. Moving on... Yes, good reviews are also a nice box office boost. But if you can't sell a 7-show run with a cast and crew of over 40 in a 200 seat house, you've got some serious PR/marketing issues. It's friggin' Oklahoma!, for God's sake. The title alone guarantees to pull in the q-tip crowd (Janet's, one of our violinists, affectionate term for the "more mature" audiences - think about it, you'll figure it out). While I don't mean to look a gift horse in the mouth, I can't really take the basically glowing reviews for our recent Oklahoma! production seriously because they're filled with either non-sensical criticism or blatant hyperbole.
So below are some of my critiques of our critic's comments. Obviously, I don't give a rat's ass whether these reviewers read my comments. And quite frankly, they probably don't give a sh*t what I think anyway. Since I get paid zilch to write my reviews and they are making a living writing professionally, I'm sure they're laughing (or cursing me) all the way to the bank. So here goes.
"Choreographer Fausto Pineda's vision awakens at the end of the...first act..." - what the hell does that mean? Was it asleep during the beginning of the first act? Is it good? Is it bad? Is it appropriate? Is it pedestrian? Is it interesting? Review the choreography - I'm a big boy, I can take it.
"Co-directors...have given license to the actors, with the comic roles especially, to go full out in their characterization" - as opposed to "half-out" in their characterizations? Who would want to see any show where the actors didn't go full out in their characterizations? Does this mean the dramatic roles weren't fully characterized?
"The staging of two songs, which features girls sitting on the floor, provides the audience with merely a view of talking heads. A small movable platform would have remedied that situation." - I'd actually have no problem with this criticism except for the fact that 1) the sight lines were specifically checked from all parts of the house to make sure that the blocking would be seen and 2) the same reviewer wrote a rave (with no mention of floating heads) for our recent staging of Madama Butterfly - in the same theatre - where at least a third of the opera was performed by singers sitting on the floor. And a movable platform? On the Oklahoma plains? Um, OK, sure.
"...[the creative staff presents] their surprisingly wonderful offering of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s classic musical, " Oklahoma!" - "surprisingly"? What was she expecting, a train wreck? Wow, talk about coming in with low expectation.
"...dances — where no one, astonishingly came near to bumping into each other..." - I had to laugh out loud at that one. Is that supposed to be a compliment to the choreographer (me)? Was she expecting people to crash into each other and kick each other in the face? That's why we have rehearsals.
Yes, I'm sure this is all coming off as just a rant from a pompous, egotistical know-it-all. And it sort of is. But I've been called way worse. At the very least I expect professional reviews to be coherent and contain real criticism. Be specific about what you like and don't like and why. And exaggerated praise only makes you sound like a gushing sixteen-year old girl.
Oh, and lest you accuse me of being ugrateful, thank you to the Cranford Eagle and Westfield Leader for their positive reviews of our show!
No comments:
Post a Comment