Ladies doth protest too much, methinks
The Enterprise ran a pair of reviews of local community theater performances in Tuesday’s “Friends & Family” section. Packaged as one story, the piece reviewed Beaumont Community Players’ production of “Don’t Hug Me,” and Port Arthur Little Theatre’s presentation of “Macbeth.”
The reviewer gave glowing recommendations to BCP’s production, calling it charming and saying it “provides a humorous, entertaining evening for viewers.”
She also said some great things about the PALT show, saying, among other things, that “the staging of Banquo’s ghost scene is brilliant.”
But, she also had multiple criticisms of the performance, primarily that the PALT company appeared to have overextended itself in attempting to present the Shakespearean tragedy. She acknowledged that the PALT play was a more difficult task, in fact noting that the group was reaching “for the stars” in trying to present the difficult production.
She also gave specific examples of how she felt the presentation fell short. Her familiarity with the play is unquestionable. She’s taught it to classrooms full of students for most of 20 years.
Since the play reviews appeared on our pages, The Enterprise has been bombarded by multiple e-mails from a few individuals who have called the reviewer everything from unethical to hateful. I promise you she is neither.
The review expresses her opinion, an educated and thoughtful opinion and one to which she is entitled. Nobody from BCP paid her off for their good review and nobody from PALT offended her to draw a review that included some negative observations. There’s nothing here involving professional ethics.
The uproar, the second in as many productions from the same select group in the same theater company, has driven our editor to suggest an option in coverage of community theater: Groups might choose to allow us to provide the reading public with honest reviews, or they might opt simply not to be reviewed – reducing their overall publicity for the production, but preserving their apparently fragile egos. Of course that opt-out choice would also eliminate the possibility of any totally positive reviews, which the same group has received (from the same reviewer) numerous times.
While readers certainly have the right, and the opportunity, to disagree with a reviewer, that doesn’t mean that reviewer’s opinion isn’t valid. I’ve read movie reviews that call a movie shallow and predictable – and sometimes that makes me go see it – because sometimes I want my entertainment to be shallow and predictable rather than intriguing or thought-provoking.
Similarly, the reviewer’s characterization of the BCP performance as a “charming, excellently rendered musical” might steer some people away from it – if they don’t light entertainment or don’t care to see a musical.
It is a reviewer’s (very tough) job to give readers a realistic assessment of the entertainment being reviewed. To sugar-coat that for the sake of popularity actually WOULD be a violation of professional ethics.
The reviewer gave glowing recommendations to BCP’s production, calling it charming and saying it “provides a humorous, entertaining evening for viewers.”
She also said some great things about the PALT show, saying, among other things, that “the staging of Banquo’s ghost scene is brilliant.”
But, she also had multiple criticisms of the performance, primarily that the PALT company appeared to have overextended itself in attempting to present the Shakespearean tragedy. She acknowledged that the PALT play was a more difficult task, in fact noting that the group was reaching “for the stars” in trying to present the difficult production.
She also gave specific examples of how she felt the presentation fell short. Her familiarity with the play is unquestionable. She’s taught it to classrooms full of students for most of 20 years.
Since the play reviews appeared on our pages, The Enterprise has been bombarded by multiple e-mails from a few individuals who have called the reviewer everything from unethical to hateful. I promise you she is neither.
The review expresses her opinion, an educated and thoughtful opinion and one to which she is entitled. Nobody from BCP paid her off for their good review and nobody from PALT offended her to draw a review that included some negative observations. There’s nothing here involving professional ethics.
The uproar, the second in as many productions from the same select group in the same theater company, has driven our editor to suggest an option in coverage of community theater: Groups might choose to allow us to provide the reading public with honest reviews, or they might opt simply not to be reviewed – reducing their overall publicity for the production, but preserving their apparently fragile egos. Of course that opt-out choice would also eliminate the possibility of any totally positive reviews, which the same group has received (from the same reviewer) numerous times.
While readers certainly have the right, and the opportunity, to disagree with a reviewer, that doesn’t mean that reviewer’s opinion isn’t valid. I’ve read movie reviews that call a movie shallow and predictable – and sometimes that makes me go see it – because sometimes I want my entertainment to be shallow and predictable rather than intriguing or thought-provoking.
Similarly, the reviewer’s characterization of the BCP performance as a “charming, excellently rendered musical” might steer some people away from it – if they don’t light entertainment or don’t care to see a musical.
It is a reviewer’s (very tough) job to give readers a realistic assessment of the entertainment being reviewed. To sugar-coat that for the sake of popularity actually WOULD be a violation of professional ethics.
posted by Sheila Friedeck at 3:38 PM
2 Comments:
Quite naturally you would support Ms. V, since you employed her for this review. And, she's taught it for over 20 years? She's only been a certified English teacher for about 6 years. Interesting. You still, however, miss the point that the review contained "personal" attacks, and its content was not always focused on the art of the play itself. And, some of the lines criticized were obviously misinterpreted by Ms. V. She, and not PALT, is apparently the one having difficulty with interpretation.
Mary has been a certified teacher since 1985 and is certified in three states, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas, where she has taught for three years. Please check your facts and avoid your own personal attacks.
Post a Comment
<< Home