More on JC
Thu, 25 Apr 2002, 09:41 pmWalter Plinge21 posts in thread
More on JC
Thu, 25 Apr 2002, 09:41 pmTo those who ever thought the review master was in the show...alas you are wrong. The review master doesnt realise they spoke to me after the show but they did. They also sat in front of me at Hamlet it would appear.
Now as to a little contradition of the review master.
I was really not happy with the Cross situation in JC and yes mistakes happen and yes people are killed injured , whatever. Other safe guards needed to have been in place...not just one bolt as it were.
Backstage crew should also be wearing shoes and at times not all of them were. Cast should not be incharge of set assembly crew should(as was evident with the cross episode) After all cast have enough to do.
The sound was less than fabulous, some of the priests could not be heard at all (Apparently no mics)_, mics had intermittent cutting in and out...reminissant of some Les Mis tec difficulties...gee I wonder why
The scaffolding on the set looked a bit flimsey and was distracting when the priests hit the rail and the whole thing shook.
One of the Guards had so much trouble seeing in the gloomy light and with a face mask he not only tripped up a ramp he then stumbled on a step as well....which made for some chortles in the audience.
So yes I thought JCSS was Fantastic as I stated the night I saw it but.....there were some staging and tec difficulties that did draw away from a polished performance and religate the show back to the status of "community theatre" is the prefered term.
This may all sound a bit harsh but I assure you it is directed only at tecs and crew who have a responsibility not only to the audience but also to the health and safety of the crew and actors which is paramount. It is all to easy to hide in the dark and become a bit lax with time
Now as to a little contradition of the review master.
I was really not happy with the Cross situation in JC and yes mistakes happen and yes people are killed injured , whatever. Other safe guards needed to have been in place...not just one bolt as it were.
Backstage crew should also be wearing shoes and at times not all of them were. Cast should not be incharge of set assembly crew should(as was evident with the cross episode) After all cast have enough to do.
The sound was less than fabulous, some of the priests could not be heard at all (Apparently no mics)_, mics had intermittent cutting in and out...reminissant of some Les Mis tec difficulties...gee I wonder why
The scaffolding on the set looked a bit flimsey and was distracting when the priests hit the rail and the whole thing shook.
One of the Guards had so much trouble seeing in the gloomy light and with a face mask he not only tripped up a ramp he then stumbled on a step as well....which made for some chortles in the audience.
So yes I thought JCSS was Fantastic as I stated the night I saw it but.....there were some staging and tec difficulties that did draw away from a polished performance and religate the show back to the status of "community theatre" is the prefered term.
This may all sound a bit harsh but I assure you it is directed only at tecs and crew who have a responsibility not only to the audience but also to the health and safety of the crew and actors which is paramount. It is all to easy to hide in the dark and become a bit lax with time
Re: More on crits
Mon, 6 May 2002, 07:51 pmHi Bob
I wonder why so many respondents in this thread are adopting pseudonyms? I note that the progenitor of this particular discussion posted under what appears to be her real name, but that most of the posts that have followed are anonymous.
Just wondering....
Bob The Builder wrote:
> why would anyone want to join a "community" that flocks to each
> other's performances only to sit on the net for the following three
> weeks disecting and criticising what they saw
> ...
> Someone wrote earlier that you can learn from this criticism
> - I fail to see how this to and fro quasi debating can help
> anyone or anything except perhaps to turn people away from
> joining the community theatre community, who turn and attack
> each other at whenever they can.
If you can't imagine how someone might learn something by having their work discussed and debated, then i guess that's fine. Maybe you should let those of us that still have something to learn just get on with it?
> While I'm on a roll - Review Master - get over yourself and
> get a real job!
:-)
> Have a great day and enjoy life for what it is not what it
> could be!
But that's kind of the point with theatre, isn't it?
The eternal "What If"
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
I wonder why so many respondents in this thread are adopting pseudonyms? I note that the progenitor of this particular discussion posted under what appears to be her real name, but that most of the posts that have followed are anonymous.
Just wondering....
Bob The Builder wrote:
> why would anyone want to join a "community" that flocks to each
> other's performances only to sit on the net for the following three
> weeks disecting and criticising what they saw
> ...
> Someone wrote earlier that you can learn from this criticism
> - I fail to see how this to and fro quasi debating can help
> anyone or anything except perhaps to turn people away from
> joining the community theatre community, who turn and attack
> each other at whenever they can.
If you can't imagine how someone might learn something by having their work discussed and debated, then i guess that's fine. Maybe you should let those of us that still have something to learn just get on with it?
> While I'm on a roll - Review Master - get over yourself and
> get a real job!
:-)
> Have a great day and enjoy life for what it is not what it
> could be!
But that's kind of the point with theatre, isn't it?
The eternal "What If"
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···