Don't Miss Ed - Opens Tonight

I've seen it. It's great. Don't miss it. What more can i say?Anyone else get the idea that the late 90's will be remembered in theatre history for a spate of hyper-real, ultra-violent, and voyeuristic productions? Killer Joe, Popcorn and now Ed the AntiChrist.> Runs from September 29 to October 9 (ex Sunday/Monday) at 9:00pm @ the Old > Gold's Gym, 215 William Street. That's between The Brass Monkey and Universal > Bar. Tickets ($15/12) from Reds or at the door.But get to the Best of the Fest first, of course ;)CheersGrant

Finally someone who puts their money where thier mouth is!!(Just excuse me while I clamber atop my high horse for the following diatribe)Ed the Anti-Christ has risen from the ranks of ameteur theatre into the relatively high thingys of Artrage and everyone has said, "Good on them, well done, about time local talent was recognised!!!!"And yet where are you?We all bitch and moan about Effies and the lack of support for Perth theatre well heres your chance to do something about it. Go and see Ed the AntiChrist, Old Golds Gym, book through Reds.Come on people, Brett, David, Tim and the others are OUR PEOPLE, Dan is one of our brightest lights, yet whenever I say to people, "Well, when are you going" they've suddenly misplaced thier diarys.Time to stop being armchair activists and show where your alligences are.I'll see you all there.LEAH

May I add to Leah's comments with an opinion of my own.THE REVIEW IN TODAY'S WEST AUSTRALIAN BARES NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE EXCELLENT SHOW I HAVE SEEN.My own review of the show in October Stage Whispers is very positive......I loved it.I suggest dragging everyone you know to the show (except perhaps Grandma).Kimberley

EMAILNOTICES>noThat's the thing about reviews, isn't it? One man's meat is another man's poison...

Better do as the lady says. David Banner ain't got nothin' on her...;)>Ed The Anti-Christ, the romantic feel-good comedy thrill-ride of the year."Tiresome bad taste...""Mean-spirited and pathetic..." Robert Cooke, The West Australian.September 29 to Oct 9 @ 9pm. 215 William St (ex Gold's Gym) Northbridge. Right slap bang between the Brass Monkey and Universal Bars'. Book thru Reds or at the door. $15/$12.>> Finally someone who puts their money where thier mouth is!!> (Just excuse me while I clamber atop my high horse for the following> diatribe)> Ed the Anti-Christ has risen from the ranks of ameteur theatre> into the relatively high thingys of Artrage and everyone has said,> "Good on them, well done, about time local talent was recognised!!!!">> And yet where are you?> We all bitch and moan about Effies and the lack of support for> Perth theatre well heres your chance to do something about it. Go> and see Ed the AntiChrist, Old Golds Gym, book through Reds.> Come on people, Brett, David, Tim and the others are OUR PEOPLE,> Dan is one of our brightest lights, yet whenever I say to people,> "Well, when are you going" they've suddenly misplaced thier> diarys.> Time to stop being armchair activists and show where your alligences> are.> I'll see you all there.> LEAH>

I haven't been to see 'Ed The Anti-Christ'. I have my own show going up at PICA next Thursday night (!) - 'The DQ Thing' starring Garry T. Saunders, Tai O'Reilly & DJ Toborek.However, I would like to comment upon the review that appeared in The West Australian on Saturday and which Dan quotes in his response to Leah's call for action on the ITA website.The review concentrated primarily upon subjectively reiterating the plot of the play and commenting upon characterisation through descriptions of costumes and some surface-level motivational observations. There was negligable reference to theatrical technique or design and it seemed to me to emphasise and re-emphasise the elements that the reviewer decided were the most distastful for him. To call a play 'scatty', 'mean-spirited and pathetic' is highly emotive, subjective and anthropomorphic. It is therefore unhelpful from the play creator's perspective and unecessarily discouraging for a potential audience member. To complete the piece with the comment on the 'terrible acoustics' was, I believe, 'mean-spirited' and added insult to injury. The wrongly captioned photograph informing as of the existance of David Gardette's talented twin Peter was also very unhelpful. Will the WA please employ an editor to check grammar, spelling, captions etc?I am not suggesting that reviewers should have to like everything they see but when they are working for the only major newspaper in a small town I think that they should give some consideration for the artists working here too, in difficult and often unsupportive environments, and leave reviews of new material more open to ongoing, public scrutriny before slamming the door shut.I look forward, with feverish anticipation, to meeting this Robert Cook fellow at 'The DQ Thing' at PICA from next Thursday evening until Sunday evening.BEST WISHES TO DAN AND THE CAST AND CREW OF ED THE ANTI-CHRIST FOR THE REST OF YOUR SEASON.Take care,Jamie Cant

Ive seen Ed......twice! but thats nothing, i know people that have seen it five times!(well at least thats what they claim) You know it was even funnier second time round because i got to laugh when i knew a joke was coming up, and laugh at the actual joke, and laugh again when i reminised on it! "Mean spirited" my ass!!.....oops hang on, im supposed to be the nice one on this site...just disregard that last comment.Catherine "seen it twice and proud of it" Mc.

EMAILNOTICES>noReviews by their very nature will always be subjective. If Cooke had drooled about the play and how absolutely fabulous it was without going into the details you mentioned, I'm sure no one would have batted an eyelid.Any paying customer will only see the production once and the majority of Joe Public wants to be entertained - that's the bottom line - they're not really interested in references to theatrical technique or design and whether it's worth shelling out their cash. Also consider the reviewer is probably told you have X amount of space to write the review in. Hard to get a good balance if there's only 10 paragraphs available. Then consider a sub-editor may chop it, take out the balancing argument or even change words along the way.(And it would the sub-editor, not the reviewer, who got the caption on the pic wrong. And it should been picked up by either the check sub-editor or someone reading the page proofs.)And why *not* mention the fact the acoustics were terrible? If it's a fact, why should the general public not be made aware of it?This site constantly harps on about community theatre getting a break but when finally it gets a chance to go up there and play with the big boys, it seems no one here can take the heat.[And how do you necessarily know you'll get the same the reviewer for your production? If everyone is so beefed, why not call Cooke or the editor of the section Ron Banks? Why not write a letter? Banks often allows for a right of reply what some people consider a bad review]The bottom line is: a review is merely an opinion. That's all it ever can be. You can have 20 people see the same show and all walk away with different views. So the best thing to do is ignore reviews and wait for word of mouth. If I keep hearing something's good from several people, then I'll know it might be worth a look.

> Reviews by their very nature will always be subjective. If Cooke> had drooled about the play and how absolutely fabulous it was without> going into the details you mentioned, I'm sure no one would have batted> an eyelid.I was not suggesting a drool-fest any more than overt, relentless negativity. Of course reviews are going to be opinionative. However, that is no excuse for a shallow & poorly structured piece of journalism, even though many a 'Joe Public' might be satisfied with such mediocrity. Read an informed theatre review in an international newspaper, or even some newspapers in the Eastern States and compare the depth and clarity. Of course, this is only my opinion...> Any paying customer will only see the production once and the> majority of Joe Public wants to be entertained - that's the bottom> line - they're not really interested in references to theatrical technique> or design and whether it's worth shelling out their cash.Are you implying that a review should entertain, rather than inform 'Joe Public' about a production? I think you underestimate the theatre going public. I think that they ARE interested in the process of theatre, given the opportunity. Why do we have to assume that theatre-goers are shallow and stupid? It doesn't have to be a highly complex diatribe of theatre jargon, just intelligent, informed commentary.Also consider> the reviewer is probably told you have X amount of space to write> the review in. Hard to get a good balance if there's only 10 paragraphs> available. Then consider a sub-editor may chop it, take out the balancing> argument or even change words along the way.> (And it would the sub-editor, not the reviewer, who got the caption> on the pic wrong. And it should been picked up by either the check> sub-editor or someone reading the page proofs.)I did take into consideration the erratic nature of the editing process of the newspaper. However, I believe a good reviewer can still write a decent review (that is not overtly subjective & negative) to a word count. I think it's a question of intent and technique.> And why *not* mention the fact the acoustics were terrible? If> it's a fact, why should the general public not be made aware of it?I agree, if the acoustics in a venue are unsatisfactory then the public should be informed, but I am not convinced that a theatrical review (that has already savaged the show) is the most appropriate place for it - especially as it formed the final parting comment in this case. I reiterate that it was "mean-spirited".>> This site constantly harps on about community theatre getting> a break but when finally it gets a chance to go up there and play> with the big boys, it seems no one here can take the heat. Does "playing with the big boys" and "take the heat" refer to the kind of environment into which you think community theatre enters once it becomes funded, performance work? To which "big boys" are you referring? I believe that, if you review the efforts of community theatre practitioners to develop and produce their work for the theatre maintsream (or for "the heat", as you call it)here in Perth that most are more than capable of being successful and taking "the heat". In fact most of them are keeping the Perth theatre scene alive...Sometimes they are even supported by well-informed, well-structured newspaper reviews and other associated media...> [And how do you necessarily know you'll get the same the reviewer> for your production? If everyone is so beefed, why not call Cooke> or the editor of the section Ron Banks? Why not write a letter? Banks> often allows for a right of reply what some people consider a bad> review]I don't. I was being facetious...And I think that there is a big difference between a 'critical' review and a 'bad' review. A critical review "judges the qualities or merits" with appropriate language and terminology. A 'bad' review suggests unecessary severity for its own sake with little substantiating, supporting detail.> The bottom line is: a review is merely an opinion. That's all> it ever can be. You can have 20 people see the same show and all walk> away with different views. So the best thing to do is ignore reviews> and wait for word of mouth. If I keep hearing something's good from> several people, then I'll know it might be worth a look.Let's just hope that the people you talk to don't read too many 'bad' reviews...And I would strongly advise that you do read some 'critical'reviews, but try and find publications that know how to write them.>

EMAILNOTICES>no> Reviews by their very nature will always be subjective.[SNIP]> The bottom line is: a review is merely an opinion. That's all> it ever can be. You can have 20 people see the same show and all walk> away with different views. So the best thing to do is ignore reviews> and wait for word of mouth. If I keep hearing something's good from> several people, then I'll know it might be worth a look.Ahhh, that's the trick though ain't it. Many people will NOT ignore the reviews. In fact, they depend on these said reviews to make their judgement for them, that's why poeple are paid to write reviews. If word of mouth alone was enough for Joe Public, then reviews would not be needed. The fact that people are more inclined to believe the words of ONE PERSON just because he writes for the paper is where the problem rests. What I feel is needed by the Paid Reviewer is more reviewing and less opinion. I read reviews in Tele Magazines and then watch the shows and my opinion of the show is very often opposite. I find it offensive when a reviewer presents an opinion - without support! and this happens very often.What we must also remember that (while it may not affect Local Theatre Productions much) a company or individual's reuptation can be elevated or smashed just on one review. When you have reviewers who call established performers "Newcomers" or "Unheards" as one past West Aust Reviewer did, then things need to be re-examined, and don't ask me the name of the reviewer, I don't remember, but I do remember the comments.Jeff "Rewind" Watkins

EMAILNOTICES>noI was not suggesting a review entertain rather than inform (although it has to have some quality to make the reader want to read it) - I meant Joe Public wants to be entertained *by any production* and they want to know whether it's worth shelling out their hard-earned dough.Dare someone to go out in the Hay Street Mall in the lunch hour and ask 100 people what they want to see in a theatre review. Those that are interested will most likely say "whether it's worth seeing or not".If acoustics affect the quality of the show, then surely it must best mentioned? Where else would you mention this fact? The lead on page one?It may not have been the final comment, you know. Sub-editors usually cut stories from the bottom up.Re: "Sometimes they are even supported by well-informed, well-structurednewspaper reviews and other associated media..." - as I said before, if you have such a problem with the review, why not take it up with arts editor Ron Banks or managing editor Paul Murray? Has anyone even thought to call Cooke and take up the issue with him?Or if you think the quality of reviewing is that bad in Perth, why not stop whinging about it and take some action. Why not contact Richard Ackland and his Media Watch team. You'd be surprised what they may or may not look into:If you have an item from a newspaper or magazine that you would like Media Watch (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/contact.htm) to consider, please send us:The masthead of the publicationThe full item (original not a copy) unmarkedThe date of publication of the storyA brief note of the point you think should be made about the item.Address your contribution to:Media WatchABC TVGPO Box 9994SydneyNSW 2001You can send your suggestion to the above address, fax it to us on (02) 9950 4313 or send us an email to mediawatch@your.abc.net.au

umm should i say break a leg??? or is there a 90's way of just wishing you all good luck for DQ???anyway GOOD LUCK....enjoy...and cya soon jamie dear.

> I was not suggesting a review entertain rather than inform (although> it has to have some quality to make the reader want to read it) -> I meant Joe Public wants to be entertained *by any production* and> they want to know whether it's worth shelling out their hard-earned> dough.> Dare someone to go out in the Hay Street Mall in the lunch hour> and ask 100 people what they want to see in a theatre review. Those> that are interested will most likely say "whether it's worth> seeing or not".I think that you are correct in saying that a review should have "some quality to make the reader want to read it". This is precisely my point - that reviews should be of "quality", and what constitutes quality is intelligent, informed criticism. The 'Joe Public' of 'Hay Street Mall in the lunch hour' to which you refer is probably not going to go to an Artrage show anyway, regardless of the review, and is unlikely to read reviews.The people that tend to read reviews are discerning (or potentially so) theatre goers who are selective about how they commit their time, as well as their money, and who want to gain a clear, 'relatively' objective picture of the show they will (potentially) be wanting to see in terms of its theatrical style, presentation (context) and content.I think it's especially important for young adults to have access to reviews in local rags that do convey an understanding of the mechanics of theatre and performance. Journalists could do with the injection of credibility in the eyes of the young.I think that you will also find that a lot of people who would be attending theatre productions, such as those included in the Artrage festival, would be community artists themselves, and would therefore want to read a critique of what's on offer as opposed to an unsubstantiated slamming that is poorly edited and incorrectly captioned.The word "entertaining" is problematic, I think and has become a bit meaningless. Do you mean "entertaining" in terms of mainstream, big musical/ dance shows at somewhere like the Entertainment Centre? Eg GREASE & HAPPY DAYS?I think you'll find that many theatre goers actually regard theatre as a vehicle for other things, in addition to entertainment.I would also reiterate my earlier point that people who tend to go exclusively to shows that primarily just 'entertain' would probably not be reading reviews anyway. They would be relying on the hyper-positive, economically-driven advertising that is splashed about in the media and on the street, rather than critiques in the Arts section of newspapers.> If acoustics affect the quality of the show, then surely it must> best mentioned? Where else would you mention this fact? The lead on> page one?> It may not have been the final comment, you know. Sub-editors> usually cut stories from the bottom up.Whether the sub-editor or reviewer is to blame I would still stand by my original summation about the "mean-spirited" nature of the closing comment, in the light of the review's overall negativity. A review can STILL be critical without being oppressive, and there is no excuse for poor structure and inappropriate editing.> Re: "Sometimes they are even supported by well-informed,> well-structured> newspaper reviews and other associated media..." - as I> said before, if you have such a problem with the review, why not take> it up with arts editor Ron Banks or managing editor Paul Murray? Has> anyone even thought to call Cooke and take up the issue with him?>The ITA Green Room section is an adequate forum for my commentary. It's a local concern and the ITA website is an excellent vehicle for expressing local concerns. My intention is to have people think about issues and open an opportunity for some debate on a localised level, not to start an epic quest for justice.> Or if you think the quality of reviewing is that bad in Perth,> why not stop whinging about it and take some action.Surely my tone does not suggest "whinging"...Come on George.It's a robust Aussie colloquialism that I don't think is relevant here."Action"...hmmm...storming the West Australian building in the nude perhaps with DOWN WITH BOB COOK in pigs blood on my naked chest? Not my style. Placing this discussion point on the ITA website is action enough for me Peter (I mean George - glad I fixed that before this went to print).Why not contact> Richard Ackland and his Media Watch team. You'd be surprised what> they may or may not look into:> If you have an item from a newspaper or magazine that you would> like Media Watch (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/contact.htm) to> consider, please send us:> The masthead of the publication> The full item (original not a copy) unmarked> The date of publication of the story> A brief note of the point you think should be made about the> item.> Address your contribution to:> Media Watch> ABC TV> GPO Box 9994> Sydney> NSW 2001> You can send your suggestion to the above address, fax it to> us on (02) 9950 4313 or send us an email to mediawatch@your.abc.net.auGood idea George. I may well contact Media Watch and suggest that they do a programme on theatre reviews in Australia generally, and draw some conclusions about consistency, quality and structure across the states. Thank you for the address and details.Lousy acoustics here George.Take care,JC

Well I saw it...liked it...funny, witty, gloriously filthy, crude and dirty....perfect what more can i say...And Catherine McStravick.......ahhheeem.....i am ALSO the nice one in here....Could that mean there are two of us????? Can this place cope with TWO nice people? (by the way I have seen you perform down at Garrick.....very good!!!)Look out ITA!!!!!!!Teri (no longer a phantom) Welch

Thanks lovey!You know that there will always be a seat kept warm for you at my shows. Who would you prefer to be warming it? Sophisticated me or the delectable Tai? Maybe he and I could rub together and create twice the heat for ya?What an offer!JC

Hi George(apologies for the liberal snips!)> Reviews by their very nature will always be subjective. If Cooke> had drooled about the play and how absolutely fabulous it was without> going into the details you mentioned, I'm sure no one would have batted> an eyelid.I can't fathom your point here. Are you suggesting that because all poor reviewing is not openly criticised, i shouldn't pick on this instance?--8<--snip--8<--> This site constantly harps on about community theatre getting> a break but when finally it gets a chance to go up there and play> with the big boys, it seems no one here can take the heat.erm... "this site harps on"?now where did Jamie put that anthropomorphic label?;)This is just as much your site as anyone else's, George. Some of us (speaking for myself, of course) just hang out here more than others and need to get a life ;)The implied slur against a production you appear not to have seen for yourself doesn't do you much credit. Why don't you check out for yourself whether or not the "heat" was justified and report back?--8<--snip--8<--> The bottom line is: a review is merely an opinion. That's all> it ever can be.bzzzzzzt! wrong!We all hold opinions. Some of us might even share them with others over coffee or on this website but most people's opinions don't get broadcast (to the exclusion of everyone else's) to a couple of hundred thousand readers of Saturday's West. It may still be an opinion, but the added weight of broadcast to such a large audience as a professional review, removes it entirely from the field of being "merely an opinion" and into the arena of "speaking with authority".With that air of authority comes the weight of responsibility. In this instance, a responsibility to accurately report the dramatic merit of the production involved. The review in question (have you read it?) provides a precis of the plot, a sketch of a character and some unsupported moral judgements on the subject matter of the play.Ironically, all of the adjectives and descriptive phrases that Cook chooses to describe the production apply equally well to his review. Lacking in "depth and theatrical maturity", "tiresome". A "bad-taste", "scatty" review that "lacks ... heart" and "is all a bit mean-spirited and pathetic".As for your suggestion that Banks et. al. be approached and upbraided for allowing such matter to reach print, i can't quite tell if you are being facetious?CheersGrant

Is that a threat or a promise??? and ummmm does that mean i would be sittin on both of ya's???? whooo hooo an old girls heart stop for sure hehe...best offer i had all week btw....heheheLurrrrve ya loadsteri

> And Catherine McStravick.......ahhheeem.....i am ALSO the nice> one in here....Could that mean there are two of us????? Can this place> cope with TWO nice people? (by the way I have seen you perform down> at Garrick.....very good!!!)More to the point, can this place cope with two Catherine McStravicks! I havent performed at garrick but maybe you were thinking of playlovers, or blak yak....GRADS........or maybe not........damn sleep performing, ive been meaning to get that checked out!Glad to hear you saw Ed, Im going tonight for the third time, getting the action figures when they come out too...Catherine

oops...i meant blak yak...i might be nice but i am a little daft....sorry..*S*~dreamy look~ action figurines....*sigh*Teri