Let’s talk about theater reviewing
For numerous reasons, including time constraints, paper edition deadlines, and a cup running over with spring and summer events, I’ve been using this blog more as a news outlet and events reminder than as a discussion space. As a result, we haven’t had a good discussion here in a while. So let’s try one.
Since I’ve been in this job (almost exactly a year now) the topic of theater reviews has come up over and over again. This region has a ton of theater going on: Roanoke alone has Studio Roanoke, Roanoke Children’s Theatre, Showtimers, Gamut, the struggling but still not out Star City Playhouse and the shuttered Mill Mountain Theatre working toward a comeback. There’s the Little Town Players in Bedford County, Blue Ridge Dinner Theatre in Ferrum, Attic Productions in Botetourt County, the Theatre at Lime Kiln in Rockbridge County. All the local colleges and universities — Radford, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, Hollins, Virginia Western, VMI, and more — have stage productions. And let’s not forget Broadway in Roanoke at the Roanoke Civic Center, or the fact that the state’s official drama house, the Barter Theatre, is just a couple hours away in Abingdon.
Given that my responsibilities in this beat extend way beyond theater coverage, it’s not even possible for me to see one show over the course of a year from every single company on that list, much less all of each company’s offerings. This I know from practical experience.
I’ve been thinking for some time that this blog would be an ideal venue for theater reviews sent in by readers. It could be something as simple as comments on blog entries (“Awesome show!” or “This stinks, stay away!”) or, if you e-mail me something ranging from a couple paragraphs to a full grown review, I could post it and credit you as a guest blogger/reviewer.
I’m still quite a ways away from adopting things like rules or submission standards, but I thought I would toss this idea out first and see how it floats.
And, if reading this inspires you to shoot me something about one of the ongoing or recently closed productions, go for it. We can learn by doing just as well as by discussing.
June 29, 2010 - 10:18 AM
Hey Mike. This is a great idea for discussion. I would like to point out that Gamut is still alive and kicking. We have been “dark” (not producing theatre)for a bit of time due to lack of space but we’re still in the game.
I would like to mention Studio Roanoke’s production of “Devil’s Sedan”. I felt it was quite a good production and hopefully attracted more audience later in its run.
Why mention a closed show? Well, because Roanoke is a word of mouth town in terms of theatre. Musical acts get great reviews and get notice after the fact. That doesn’t really work so well for theatre. Reviews really aid in audience building so all the best for opening up this space for dialogue, discussion and reviews of shows.
Thanks, Kathy! (And I will add you to the above list. I has the power!)
Mike, thank you for raising this topic which has been near and dear to my heart (and a thorn in my side) for quite awhile. I like the idea of opening up your blog for third-party submitted theatre reviews but I also have concerns about consistency, equity and informed critique. There are two issues here: 1) getting the word out about theatre going on in the area and 2) reviewing the theatre going on in the area. I think we can all agree that number 1 is beneficial to and appreciated by all the area theatres. However, there is a big difference between giving a personal opinion about a particular production, and giving an informed and well-balanced critique of that same production. In other words, not everyone is qualified to review theatre. So I think you open up a potential can of worms here but speaking strictly for myself, I’d let the worms out and just see how it all works out. Speaking as the Artistic Director of Gamut, we fully support open discussion about theatre and are comfortable wading into the mayhem and chaos that may ensue. If we can help in any way, just let us know.
Hey, Miriam! I agree with you about the can of worms. I realize that the submissions that come in could range wildly in quality and in, well, agenda. On the other hand, I tend to think a flawed discussion (and is there any other kind?) is better than none at all.
One of the “nice” things about handling this here is that there’s potential for instantaneous feedback, meaning a review can be both challenged and defended.
Agreed Mike. Both personally and as AD of Gamut. I will reach out to some other AD’s and get them to give you some feedback. Since you are doing this for the benefit of the local theatres, they should weigh in here and give you their thoughts. M
Thanks, Miriam, both for the feedback and helping me get the word out.
Mike–
I think this is a great idea, and probably the best solution (outside of the creation an publication of Roanoke’s own version of Variety).
I think you’ve been doing a great job of taking on arts coverage at the Times and I really appreciate this reminder of both how vibrant our arts community is and how extensive the types and offerings are. We are truly blessed.
And I was recently told by someone I respect that when you give people free ice cream, some of them will complain about the flavors. It can be very frustrating for arts organizations when they can’t (for practical reasons laid out nicely in your post) get the coverage they hope for.
Something like this will allow audiences to get some information about plays they might not be familiar with (like all the plays at Studio Roanoke) and better judge if the play is for them before they go.
The only drawback is, of course, that formal reviews are sometimes absolutely necessary for the advancement of an artistic career. Dealing in primarily new plays, I know that publishers frequently require a review of a production before they will consider it as a submission.
If you do see a show in any of our local theatres that you might be able to help in that way, I hope you’ll consider taking on the review.
Of course, if you hate it…never mind.
I have a technical question for you, Todd: in the theater universe, can a blog entry on a newspaper site count as a “formal” review?
Hey Mike,
I got in a ton of trouble last week for posting the following:
“Theater today is cowardly, derivative, tentative and attacks easy marks which all “right thinking” people will agree are evil. You don’t provoke people who never attend the theater, i.e. the “christian right”, therefore, something else is the intent, eh? No one mocks Islam, for fear of being killed, for example. Christians? Weak and ineffectual, the perfect prey.”
I was mildly rebuked by some of my friends, most of whom are theater people. What concerns me is the apparent belief that all must be positive and that one must try to be helpful. Try sending a manuscript to a New York publisher if you want the truth about your work. It ain’t helpful, it’s hurtful, but an intelligent person learns from it.
The difficulty in an open theater-goer/reviewer system in Roanoke as I see it is that mostly all the people who would offer an opinion are people who hope directors or boards would choose them as actors at auditions or would choose to have them direct at some later date and so might not be objective. It can become incestuous very quickly, as you have said.
If you want a fair group of critics, who might even be “regulars”, you can’t go wrong with Miriam and Todd. They convinced me to go see Devil Sedan against my better judgement. And they were right. I’d read their reviews and pay attention! (maybe I’d get a good role……..at some later date…..)
Hey, Michael. Of course I’d love for Miriam and Todd to send me theater reviews, but I also think they might feel a little restrained by their roles in prominent local theater endeavors — it’d be up to them as to what they felt comfortable doing, I suppose.
I appreciate your vote of confidence Michael, but Mike’s point about restraint is quite accurate. I would need to see how this evolves overall and mull it over carefully. But I would certainly be a voice here in some capacity, because we all know that it’s practically impossible for me to hush.
I would say that one very beneficial thing for all us theatre folk is to have audiences respond on this blog about productions. I think it really gives us a chance to hear from audiences after they have had a chance to mull over a production. We can see what worked, what didn’t, what was cool, what wasn’t so cool, or even open up discussions such as the one Michael mentions. So I hope this keeps on keeping on.
I imagine the trick is making sure audiences know they have this option. Must work on that.
Mr., Allen!
You’re on to something.
Let the worms crawl out of the can, slither on stage or in the house as a silent reviewer, and assist in shining a dedicated spotlight on Roanoke theatrical “hidden” treasures. With that being said, anyone who has ever been under a spotlight knows how hot it can get, so let the light shine on the theatrical blunders of the valley as well.
Ahh Utopia!
Yet as Michael Ridenhour stated, the potential for abuse of “the system” is a definite concern. Alas no good deed goes unpunished. As a native Roanokian I have had the pleasure, nay the privilege to Act, Director and evolve into an all around artistic practitioner.
The one thing that I can say with the utmost of certainty is: Roanoke politics run well beyond the squabbles of council. They leach into enrichment programs and create an environment for favoritism and complacent actions to thrive.
As a simple solution, perhaps a peer rating system for reviewers and the reviews themselves can be derived. This could function similarly to most message boards. This would lend credibility to the good and help identify the Warhol’s.
The bottom line – Sound idea just needs a little tweaking. This service is overdue for a city struggling to bring the arts to the forefront without arresting its participants.
Let me know how I can help!
Chesh
Chesh, I guess you’re talking about “rating” a review the way it’s done on Amazon.com. I have reservations about that, in that someone upset with a review could well rally as many friends as they could e-mail to give that review a thumbs-down. I’d probably prefer a review be debated in comments rather than rated.
Michael does point out the inherent flaw in this sort of a system, which is that all too often the discussion becomes argument between the posters rather than a discussion of the topic at hand.
With one reviewer you get a sense of what that person likes or dislikes–I always knew I’d like a movie Gene Siskel hated, for example–but with this being an open forum that kind of coming to understand the tastes or biases of those giving the reviews might be more difficult to achieve. There is also the risk of rather than an objective critique we only get press releases which might be better served by being on the company website than posing as review or preview.
But, on the whole, in a situation where the whole art beat can’t possibly be covered by one person in a conventional way, I think that a common forum for discussing what’s going on in the arts is probably a good thing.
Game on!
There’s been a couple requests along the lines of “What can I do to help?”
I think the main answer I have at the moment is: write something up and send it to me.
I just put together the theater calendar for what’s upcoming in July. I think I’ll share it a little later this week, and see if it gives anyone ideas for something they’d want to tackle.
Mike,
Thanks for bringing up this topic. It’s been a peeve of mine for some time. As an old j-school guy, I understand the limitations you face. But as Todd pointed out, reviews are vital to a playwright’s resume, and Studio Roanoke needs to find partners in the community who can offer that important feedback, positive or otherwise.
I don’t know that an open forum is the answer. As much as one might hope for carefully considered criticism, it’s far too easy for some to leave steaming piles on the doorstep, whether they’ve seen the play in question or not.
Perhaps a better solution would be a team of bloggers who aren’t connected to any of the local theatre companies. Todd has a bevy of MFA candidates who might be likely suspects, and the theatre programs at Virginia Tech, Roanoke College, Hollins, Randolph, etc., are full of students and faculty with the critical chops to do the job. I’ve been thinking about asking a few of these to write no-strings-attached reviews of Studio Roanoke shows, which we would post on our web site. It’s a bit of a risk, but as a developmental theatre, it’s also a service to our artists.
It’ll be interesting to see what develops here.
Well, no one would be able to post or have their work posted without me inspecting what’s been written first. That might well take care of “steaming piles.”
Any “team” working with me would have to be volunteers. I’m not really opposed to the idea in principle — though I’d be hesitant at this point to turn it into something formal, as in “Jane is a designated official reviewer on the Arts & Extras team.”
What is Anna Wentworth up to these days or Beth Jones?
They used to write theatre reviews….which helped make Roanokers aware of what theatre is available in their own backyards. Theatre is alive and well in Roanoke, and we run our shows for more than one night. It would be wonderful if our community could be enlightened about the variety and scope of what is being offered on a consistent basis. It takes a village (including the village media) to support the arts whether it be art, music or theatre.
Well, if either of those folks wanted to volunteer their time, you can bet I’d be delighted to hear from them.
I would add Jeff DeBell, Chris Gladden and Gene Marrano to Pat’s comments. The more I’ve mulled this over, I really think that a set “crew” of reviewers would be necessary to lend any real legitimacy to the reviews. Agreeing with Todd there. And also agreeing that something is better than nothing. I think giving this a try and seeing how it pans out will help guide how to structure it as time goes on.
If a crew emerges, great, and if its members are happy with blog publication as their reward, wonderful. Previous experience in volunteer writer organizations has taught me to expect high turnover, and even a team of six could only go so many places in their spare time, so I think in the interest of giving all these different venues across the region a fair chance, I could not limit the reviews posted here to one designated group. I’d have to keep it open to submissions from all over.
But again, I’d be delighted to have that level of participation in investigating local theater and would do what I could to encourage it.
Mike,
Not rating the review – Peer ratings for the reviewer, similar to the structure of a moderator on a message board.
Let previous reviews be a platform for how valuable the readers find the information presented. That way if a reviewer is self-serving – the rating will show it.
C.C.
Amen Pat!
Pingback: Arts & Extras: Regional arts community information and its quirky culture – roanoke.com » “Stonewall Country” starts tomorrow at Theater at Lime Kiln
Pingback: From the newsroom: Roanoke Times editors provide insight into stories – Roanoke.com » Want to be a volunteer theatre critic?
Two thoughts: One, there is a difference in reviewing professional productions verses reviewing community theater productions. Many papers review the professional productions and simply post information about the community productions as prices and audience expectations, along with the accompanying criticism thereof, is considerably different. Almost all papers now do not review touring productions as the reviews have no meaning or impact on productions that are not running for any length of time. This would limit the productions to review to a much smaller list.
Two: To have viewers blog without reacting to a review printed by a professional can be relatively meaningless. Almost no major paper shirks their responsibility to set the tone and give their opinions first before viewers, whose prejudices are not revealed, can comment. A good reviewer is known and followed by readers who can make a judgment about attending based on the consistency of the reviewer. This is an important service to potential patrons of all professional productions. Same is true with movie reviews.
Richard, how would you define a professional production?
I’m not sure I’ve met Mr. Rose but I would like to respond to his post. I agree that having a respected and followed reviewer is preferable, but as Mike is trying to point out, it is not practical at this point in time. I still believe that creating discussion is better than silence.
The issue of “professional” versus “community” theatre has been a sore topic for me for many years since no one seems to want to define what will be considered “professional”. Will it only be equity houses? Will it be theatres that pay their actors? If I pay my actors (which we have done in the past and will do in the future), does that make Gamut professional even if we are not equity? My bone of contention is that there should be even handedness involved. The old scenerio where Mill Mountain was the only reviewed theatre in town did not sit well with me and many others. Either review everyone, or review no one. Either set a standard in the valley or don’t, but don’t draw a fine line where only one theatre gets coverage and the others don’t. As time has shown, being a “professional” theatre does not necessary equal sustainability. Showtimers, for example, is the longest continually running community theatre in the state. That’s an impressive accomplishment.
It is also possible that not every theatre truly wants to be reviewed. They want coverage pre-show but may not want an actual critique. I can say that Gamut is not one of those theatres. I have begged to be reviewed because I don’t believe that the theatre community has anything to strive for if no one ever demands anything of it. It will continue to wallow in mediocrity absent any set of expectations. And that, in my opinion, is a shame. Perhaps it would be useful to actually contact the various groups and see which ones are game to open themselves up for criticism. It is possible that there may only be 3-4 theatres (or less)that desire reviews…? If that is the case, perhaps this daunting task becomes more realistic to truly accomplish.
Ack…CRITICISM. More coffee = accurate spelling.
I fixed it, Miriam.
Miriam makes some excellent points. My own venue, Studio Roanoke, specializes in producing new works, and outside, impartial reviews are wonderful tools to use in evaluating the development of these scripts. And as posted earlier, these reviews may be vital to a play’s life beyond our little stage.
Are we talking about reviewing yet another production of “The Crucible” (or any well-established work) as opposed to something that has seldom or even never appeared on a Roanoke stage (or any stage, as is often the case at SR)? Is the professional/community theatre distinction even valid in Roanoke these days, especially with the lack of a functioning Equity house?
My infant proposal here is the best solution I can think of right now, given the resources I have available, for the philosophy I want to advocate for, the only one I think is fair at this point, given the blurring of distinctions that Kenley points out and that I’m well aware of: all should be eligible, or nothing.
Apropos of nothing discussed before: A policy I’ll put in place is that people who submit reviews for this blog can’t have been comped for tickets. The theater companies should get their money.
Great dialogues and discussions. What a great way to start my morning!
What about the Voices of the Valley model within The Roanoke Times? The difference would be that the theatre organizations would work with Mike/RT to develop the guidelines (as the group is doing right now). The Arts Council of the Blue Ridge will help facilitate if the group would like us to. We have two interns this summer and they could pull the pieces together.
A “call for intersted reviewers” (or other term defined by the group) would be the next step. The group would create the “job description” and “minimum qualifications”, etc.
Voices of the Valley participants do not get paid, but perhaps, with theatre reviewers, the participating organizations could pitch in $100 a year and these funds would then compensate the reviewers (?) This is just a thought. I think that if you had a core group doing reviews – and divvying up the duties – we could probably get volunteers that meet the requirements. And pitch as providing an important civic duty!
Also, if the group wanted The Arts Council to coordinate and work with the reviewers/Mike Allen, we would be very interested in participating.
Laura
Laura, I’m glad you posted here! I think you have some interesting ideas.
The more I’ve mulled this over, the more I think that the sense that there are so many theatres wanting reviews is perhaps a mistake to make at the onset of this conversation. First of all, I don’t believe that any of the area college productions should be reviewed. That is an academic environment with a built in audience to a certain extent and the goals of production are solely educational and not financial in nature, etc. I think they should be promoted, but not reviewed. I also don’t think that theatres further than an hour from Roanoke need coverage in the Roanoke Times. So that leaves Showtimers, Attic, Bedford, Studio Roanoke, Gamut, Star City and RCT. I honestly don’t think that all 7 of these organizations would be interested in being reviewed. Promoted yes, critiqued – no. If the Roanoke Times only ended up with 2-4 groups that opted in to serious critique, does that still remain an overwhelming goal?
Why not organize a meeting of these 7 groups and see who wants to open themselves up in this manner? Then an informed decision can be made about how much reviewing is even being discussed here.
I agree with Miriam. (And Roanoke Children’s Theatre would be among those wishing for review. We are having a “world premiere” in June of 2011 and the playwright needs to have a review in order to proceed with publishing.)I bet if we sit down together we could find a solution in finding an intelligent, qualified theatre reviewer. Perhaps a theatre professor from UVA, TECH, JMU, VCU or RADFORD. (Curious to know..would the Arts Council be able to pay an honorarium from membership dues?) I realize that membership money goes towards many activities in the valley already and probably doesn’t have a surplus.
We will faciliate the meeting if the group asks us to. And Mike??
No, we aren’t able to fund the honorariums. Not unless the fees/dues were increased and I don’t think the community would support this idea.
Let me/us know about next steps.
Laura, I would come to such a meeting if it got held, certainly.
This discussion has gone in some interesting directions. My goal remains encouraging direct theater-goer feedback on this blog, assuming we can get some.
If the various theater directors who’ve weighed in here see an opportunity to make use of that goal in order to get more detailed critiquing and feedback aired in a public venue, I’ve no objection.
If we think that putting our heads together in person would help move us toward what appears to be a common goal, I’m certainly game to attend a meeting as well.
As for opening up this blog for theater-goer feedback, I defer to you Mike to create your own guidelines for it and I sincerely hope there is some interest in discussing theatre here. Given the rather limited response this particular thread has gotten, I don’t feel hopeful to be honest. The people who responded here were exactly the people I expected to speak up. No more and no less. Not that I haven’t enjoyed the conversation of course, I simply wish more people had felt that this was important enough to weight in on.
And perhaps I have just summed up why the paper no longer reviews theatre.
Whelp, I do believe that there are some shows coming up. That would be a good test of whether or not people will post their opinions here. I’m embarrased to say I don’t have the list but I know Mike wrote of the up-coming productions. I think Attic hits the boards soon and i believe Little Town Players have a production in the works and certainly Showtimers does. So there are opportunities to critique or offer opinions for those shows….just saying.
This has been a fascinating and, I hope, useful conversation.
There’s one point, though, which has been missing, and which I’d like to add.
First, though, some full disclosure: I come to this discussion wearing several hats. One, of course, is my newsman’s fedora, as one of the editors for the newspaper (though I have no role in Mike’s arts coverage.) The other is an active participant in the valley’s theatre scene — sometimes as a writer, very occasionally as an actor, but most often as an audience member.
And it’s the audience member whose voice I’d like to hear join in.
I’m not speaking officially for the paper here, but I can speak generally about how newspapers operate — and when newspapers do reviews, well, we should keep in mind they’re not for the benefit of the theatre, or the participants in the show, but for the potential audience member.
That’s not really a philosophical choice, just a reflection of the economics: A newspaper’s goal is always to reach the widest audience possible. Even within a niche, such as arts coverage, the coverage isn’t there for the artists, but for all those who might have an interest in seeing art in some form. (Same with sports; we’re writing stories for the fans, not the coaches or the players.)
In that respect, a theatre review for a newspaper is quite simple to write. It simply needs to address these points: What’s the show about? Is it well done? Anything special I should know about it (spectacular set you simply must see, adult language you may want to avoid, flying monkeys howling down from the ceiling that will delight the little ones, etc.)? And, the ultimate bottom line, is this show worth my time and money to go see?
Academic credentials aren’t required, just a general interest in, and knowledge of, theatre — because what a general interest newspaper wants to provide is not an academic discussion of the script or the staging, but consumer advice for our readers.
I bring this up because, well, does this match what we hear theatre directors saying they want and need?
Pingback: Arts & Extras: Regional arts community information and its quirky culture – roanoke.com » Going to see a show? Tell me how it went.
Dwayne, thank you for posting in this long conversation. While I understand and agree with your point about a review being “consumer advice for the readers”, I do not think that is the only purpose that a review serves or should serve. When theatres set out to launch a production, they have goals they are trying to achieve. Likewise, an audience has expectations when it enters the theatre and sits down. A good review, in my opinion, should be a defining bridge between the two. The theatre crowd (technicians, actors, directors and playwrights) are also a newspaper’s readers. A good review should inform both the consuming public AND the producing artists.
I agree that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist but I don’t believe it’s enough to simply recap the plot and give warnings about language (not that you are suggesting that it is…I’m oversimplifying to make a point). When did we become a society that is willing to accept everything that is handed to us and never ask for more? (Probably the day the half hour comedy hit our TV’s.)
I will try to get back to my point… As several Artistic Directors here have pointed out, an original script actually NEEDS an informed and thoughtful review in order to be considered for publishing. If we are premiering completely new shows in Roanoke, doesn’t that warrant coverage? From my point of view with Gamut, we are not producing original scripts so that is not the issue for us. The issue for Gamut is that we want to meet the expectations of both ourselves and the audience. We want to know when Gamut fails in that regard so that we can push ourselves harder. Well written reviews will force theatre in this area to aim higher and continue to grow.
Being far removed from the inner circle represented here but knowing a bit about getting feedback from audiences (I train education professionals in southwest Virginia), it may be helpful to give more support to audience members around how to give feedback or craft a review. Nothing fancy. Just a short survey to post on the newspaper’s website where audience members could rate shows they’ve attended. If you support them in fashioning a response (make it in a familiar format, asking them to reflect on issues that are valuable to theater-goers as well as the theater professionals, and giving room for additional comments) you may receive a higher quality and quantity of feedback.
I would be served as a lay-critic/reviewer of a performance by being asked questions about what you want to know from me. I would also be served as a consumer of the paper and of local theater venues by having a “one stop” page on the Roanoke Times website where I could do a quick check of listings and reviews. It would also be great, to have a short description of the current offerings since, with them being new scripts… or not another performance of “The Crucible,” I’ve got little to go on when deciding how to spend my time and money. I’d like to go to more shows but, not knowing what they’re about… how I might connect… having some insight into the themes or tone of the piece… having a way to know which of my friends might be into going with me, well, I find it easier to flip on the tube. (Where I have a complete list of available options, reviews (stars), and short summary to help me make selections.) The AD’s, if they would, could provide a preview of the play on the webpage alongside the reviews (published by you or other reviewers AND audience surveys and commentaries).
As a person who loved going to shows but fell out of the habit, I’d love to be motivated back into a seat. Gotta say, it used to be the newspaper’s stories about theater performances that would inspire me to get my ticket.
Hope this is helpful.
Great suggestions, Laurie!
I’m so glad you posted Laurie!
I say reviewers stay home. When I was doing plays, I did them because I enjoyed it and not for some review. In the early 2000′s there was a reviewer but she was about as bright as a total eclipse and many productions she didn’t understand even though a first grader would have no problems understanding it.
I don’t need a review to decide what I want to see. I go by material and not an outsiders opinion of a production.
Leave the reviewers for professional theatre.
I watched Spain defeat Germany in the World Cup this afternoon. Germany was missing their center striker, so all the passes to his replacement were to no avail. I know this and it is my own appraisal of the game. Spain played brilliantly, but Germany played hurt, so to speak. I played soccer as an adult and coached children for years in it. I am capable of reviewing and critiquing soccer games.
I have acted in local theater and have had some modest success as a director. I have been a playwright. I am capable of reviewing plays and giving an insightful review. The problem is that I know virtually everyone involved in local theater. I cannot be objective for fear of hurting my friends. I see plays I think are poorly directed, others are poorly acted. But I have never said so to anyone, but try to encourage people. They are my friends. They are not paid, they volunteer, sometimes even when they know they have little talent. But the director needed a body on stage, a friend needed support, a theater is on the verge of closing. How can I offer a fair appraisal, one which might keep people away from a show? I saw a snapshot. Maybe the next night they hit the ball outta the park. Everyone else loved it. But I didn’t. So I keep my mouth shut. They are my friends. So you might have a big problem, Mike. But maybe there are people who can separate their feelings objectively, who have enough respect from others that their viewpoint doesn’t hurt. Maybe a Yankee or something.
Mike,
Thank you for taking the time to tackle the subject of Theatre in the Roanoke Valley & beyond. It drives me crazy when I hear folks bash this area for its lack of culture. There are, as you pointed out, enough shows going on at any given time that most folks would be hard-pressed to see one show from each producing organization.
I would like to point out that there is also a great deal of excellent Theatre taking place in a number of our area schools. Yes, as a high school Theatre Director that is a self-serving statement, but it also happens to be the truth. Sure, there are still some programs out there that struggle, but as a whole—many of the shows that you can see at the high school level are every bit as professionally produced as shows done by the theatres you mentioned.
I challenge the Valley’s arts patrons to take a Friday or Saturday evening out of their schedules this fall and visit an area high school—I believe that they will be pleasantly surprised. What they’ll see are well prepared, talented actors on superb sets, giving A+ performances. I’ve always told my audiences this and I’ll say it again; If you come to a Theatre Glenvar High production and can honestly say that it was not presented in a professional manner (worthy of your admission price)–then I will gladly refund your ticket fee. I am that confident in what today’s young performers are capable of giving to their audiences. Don’t believe me?—come and see for yourself.
I think Laurie made some great suggestions and thank you, Mike, for incorporating them into your blog.
@Sidney – I appreciate your points; however you bring up a subject which still needs some definition. How do you define “professional” theatre?
Upfront I will tell I have heard two definitions from theatre educators. One defintion in that the participants in the theatre venture are professional by nature of being union members. The other definition was based solely on the fact that the participants received payment for their participation. Both definitions could work as a descriptor of “professional” theatre. How would you define “professional” in this context?
Hi
in my experience as a local actor i have observed that few comnunity theater actors and directors want to be reviewed unless the review is glowing. actors and directors in these productions regularly say things like “this is the best production and the best cast ever” to themselves and their friends when the reality is quite different. while no actor, professional or otherwise honestly celebrates a negative review, there is very much a “how dare she?” sort of reaction to community theater reviews that even hint at something less than perfect about a production. the culture of community theater at least in this town is one in which the priority is placed on friendship, fun and encouragement. to me it is more like a club where people of various abilities and often with no experience can have the thrill of walking out on stage, saying a funny line or singing a song and receive virtually unconditional support from gracious and patient audiences. while i see this as a positive thing it is clear that the play and often the audience are not the priority. I don’t really see a place for a review in this context. On the other hand, some venues, such as Studio Roanoke, GAMUT, RCT and perhaps others are attempting to raise the bar. My experience with these three theater companies is that they want the audience to expect more. I think an outside review of productions by these companies would be welcome and useful to the public and the companies as they develop.
I do know for a fact The Roanoke Times has no interest in reviewing local theatre. Even they quit reviewing Mill Mountain Theatre or would just give short blurbs about MMT productions occasionally in MMT’s final years. I don’t know about The Roanoke Star-Sentinel, but from looking at their previous issues, they haven’t been much for entertainment reviews.
Miriam did point out one thing I failed to think about. I’ve been out of the theatre for over three years now and I had forgotten the newer play companies are doing original material. In that case, yes it would help the playwrite to get their work published.
I was going off of my experience where all the plays I’ve been in were Samuel French, Dramatists or some other royalty house who furnishes scripts to plays that have been produced over and over again.
That said, if you’re doing “You Can’t Take It With You” or “Blithe Spirit”, why get reviewed? For original plays, review it.
Mike,
I’m a little late getting to this conversation but I just wanted to voice in. I don’t get a lot of time to answer blogs or even read blogs that are posted but I had one things I wanted to say. Roanoke has A LOT of theater that seems to go unnoticed. Every thing from comunity theater, high schools, colleges, to others. Most of these shows are high quality and all of these places are looking for ways to draw in a bigger audience. I think a preview would be a better service to these. By the time a reveiw is posted it’s too late to see the play. I’m not against any review and would even welcome any comments but as far as trying in increase knowlege about theater in the area there definitely needs to be more coverage.