Hi, Alison. Interesting, your saying you're 'home there' in the theatre. I
feel the same. Almost like a secular religious experience.
BTW, I call the Guardian 'Groan' as a ref to what many call it but I can't
remember how they spell it. Their ref comes from noticing the constant
misspellings in the paper itself, which seem to persist, but not
super-often. I love the paper. Can only contrast it, UK'ly, with The Times
and The Scotsman, both good, but not as Whole and Human as Groan, IMNeverHO.
USA papers I read regularly are NYT, and the LATimes. As to newspaper
theatre critiquing, I'm aware that Groan has not only MIchael Billington but
Nancy Gardner, she whose coverage, concision-with-meaning, and spot-on
assessments astound me! I've found, as well, one or two exceptional critics
in London's online Timeout.
My attempts at reviewing [which at the time I thought were excellent]
turned out to be analyses of the play, not the production---not what folk
want when they turn to a theatre critic! ;-) My hat's off to you and
others who can manage Real reviews!
Best,
Judy
2008/12/6 Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]>
> Hi Judy - theatre's one of my thangs, certainly. I feel at home there,
> even when I'm dodging brickbats.
>
> And yes, it is "groan"... I get very tired of the whole
> blogger/mainstream critic thing. I see on average about two -
> sometimes three - plays a week through the theatre season, which can
> get punishing. I guess it's also a bit different in Australia, since
> many theatre bloggers are also mainstream theatre critics, me
> included, so the question seems rather tired - I'm the Melbourne
> theatre reviewer for the national daily here, the Australian, another
> blogger, Chris Boyd, reviews for the Financial Review and the Herald
> Sun, another edits a local weekly arts magazine, yet another is a
> journalist on the Australian, etc etc. I write 400 word reviews for
> the Oz, and on average 1200 word reviews for the blog, and in the blog
> review many shows which don't get into the arts pages of the Oz. And I
> like blogs because, unlike print reviews, what I write is available in
> the archives all the time, and is easily accessible to anyone who is
> interested. Which probably tells you all you need to know about the
> difference between the two activities. I know which one is hardest
> work!
>
> I freelance for the Guardian blog pages now and then. It usually
> elicits charming comments like "why are we reading about those
> colonials in Orstrilia?"
>
> xA
>
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Judy Prince
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Alison, I'm playing 'catch-up', just read your smashing essay on Barry's
> > *Ecstasy* in your Theatre Notes:
> > http://theatrenotes.com/2008/08/on-ecstasy.html
> >
> > Really do feel that theatre's your 'thang', Ms A.
> >
> > As if, apparently, remembering that, I put in a last bit for you - and
> > others - in this yesterday's comment to Groan [Guardian] online article
> on
> > critics vs theatre bloggers:
> >
> > Dec 06 08, 5:23am
> >
> > Yes, indeed, definitely. May I present some further logic and then a
> > proposal:
> >
> > 1) Bloggers're great, fine, and likely to be as astute, professional,
> > thorough, backgrounded, and entertaining as paid critics----and as
> quixotic,
> > odd-focused, ill-tempered, and 'out to lunch', as paid critics, as well.
> > Blogs, yes, excellent, on the reasonable principle that more is better.
> But
> > blogs do not have the grabability of a major newspaper. This and other
> > newspapers [online or in print] draw readers in far greater numbers than
> > individual blogs can.
> >
> > 2) Most theatre critics have not been Educated Properly for their
> > role---which I find all the better for what they must do: see a lot of
> > plays, do a lot of research, grow along with the growing theatre
> community,
> > develop the long view that inevitably opens an impassioned observer to
> > worthy, fresh work. They don't necessarily need a uni degree in any
> aspect
> > of the theatre; they do need play-immersion out of sheer adoration for
> it,
> > and they need A Life other than theatre.
> >
> > That said, even dedicated bloggers are few who would attend 12 plays a
> month
> > for years, and for each play submit a review that's responsible,
> detailed,
> > and helpful to theatre practitioners as well as theatre-goers. We have,
> > then, the continuing need for newspaper-paid theatre critics. In fact, I
> > propose the need for MORE newspaper-paid theatre critics.
> >
> > 3) We need more because we need to have more information. We need to hear
> > the unheard gossip, be moved to visit less-familiar-to-us play venues,
> find
> > out more of the techniques of playwrighting, acting, directing, scene-,
> > costume-, lighting-, sound- and movement-design. We need to hear it from
> the
> > folk who actually work in those areas. Hence,
> >
> > 4) I propose Guest Critics in addition to main critics. A different Guest
> > Critic each month could be 'found' and tapped by the newspaper, or they
> > could volunteer themselves by submitting several reviews to recommend
> them
> > for the monthly spot. They could, as well, be from other countries
> reporting
> > on plays they've seen in their native lands.
> >
> > Surely this newspaper in this nation can manage enthusiastic inclusion in
> > its theatre criticism as well as in its theatres.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
> Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
>
|