Posts by Lyndon Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And I agree with Lyndon: "I try for reviews written for people who will never see the show".
I put it that way as wisdom passed on via a guy who went to a writing-for-students reviewing lecture from David Eggleton.
The guy, incidentally, wrote game reviews for Critic. An expert and enthusiast who, it seems, now employs 14 people in his development company. I never had a console and I buy about one game a year, but I always read his reviews.
-
Nice post, thanks.
As a sometime theatre reviewer and what I suppose was the scoopish equivalent of a section editor, I don't pretend to be in a position to play guru, but I have thought about some of these things.
I try for reviews written for people who will never see the show - most of the readers, especially so for a web review of NZ theatre as opposed to say film. If you can describe what happened and what the experience was like.
If that done well, I feel like that's what the crew - at least from an artistic rather than commercial point of view - want from a review too. I've know people to genuinely appreciate criticism as long as it makes sense in terms of what they thought they were doing. And doesn't do that painful thing of suggesting how it should have been different - there are always a million other possibilities, all could be good and bad and in my experience reviewers who do that aren't competent to make the suggestion.
It's partly my personality - I can't decide if it's a failing or not - but I don't think this really needs the final good/bad kind of call. I'm not a stars person myself. Actually I rememember a brief period where Critic tries to institute star ratings where 3 was average. People became confused and angry.
Anyway, If people can see what it is and how it was executed, they'll know if they'll like it or not. I prefer to rely on my theatrical experience in choosing appropriate details and describing rather than judging. Not that the opinion doesn't come through anyway, but it puts a paper wall between the 'fact' and the 'opinion'.
Not that I always achieve something purely like this, or that I always think that would be a good idea - and I'm sure I've even things that I though made me sound cool a time or two - but I think it's a good place to start.
Sometimes I expect this might make things look more interesting than they are, and I probably do ultimate say something is good easier than I say its bad.
Dabbling in theatre and reviewing at about the same level in Wellington makes it difficult to aviod people you know. It helps that early on, when I wrote a Critic review of a theatre department (where I studied) production - which was somewhat critical of the whole approach - the guy responsible thanked me at his first opportunity. And again, I can take refuge in description.
For all I know I may actually have erred as much trying to avoid favoritism - some of the people I know are very good at what they do.
Another thing I've been lucky to have from some of my music reviewers - especially with the luxurious space available on the web - is education. An expert writing accessibly about a novel performance can leave you knowing more about the whole genre.
Re the RSC, I don't agree with it but I can guess how it might work. If the paper is not in the habit of paying for the ticket then the reviewer surely want to make more writing the review than it costs to see the show. Unlikely here. And one would no doubt be looking at one's supply of free RSC tickets drying up for at least the near future.There's a lot to be said for media paying for stuff they review. I've read a memoir made it clear the Washington Post paid for their food reviewer. But I don't see that happening, for example, here soon. And if you actually are being honest and they'll still give you a ticket, everyone wins.
-
Re the Scoop budget coverage, with the pics of the politicans, does anyone, ever, "Click for bigger version" ?
Well, I myself find it useful as photoshop source material...
-
Long ago memories of comedy out the back of Ruby in the Dust
Hello! <waves>
Anyway...
It strikes me that the more nut-and-blots-ey this discussion gets the more it does seems to apply generally to at least the performing arts. I know my theatre experience means I really do looks for different things in plays than people I might overhear in the foyer. And can't stand some things they quite like.
When Jeremy mentioned having to make the publicity before the show it reminded me of a theory I had about The Pickle King, a show whose poster did not match its content. If you're going to do a devised touring show I guess you kind of have to throw everyone together for very few weeks then go. I'm guessing the did the posters first.
I'll add that we shouldn't be too limited in what might be considered comic "material". It's possible to make people laugh just using rhythm and breath.
Not that I'm suggesting that would make a good 50-minute set for any of y'all.
-
I just find it hilarious Copeland was late for the actual vote.
Oh, and this: Salon: Tinky Winky says bye-bye to Jerry Falwell
-
I also know one of the officers [Ellis case] involved was accused of having an affair with one of the mothers in the case
Colin Eade. Though you don't really need the "accused of". And the "one of" is selling him short also.
Otago Student magazine Critic got a very informal legal opinion on this in the mid-90s
I had not heard that story. These student newspapers with their no institutional memory,
-
'Cept Passengers on aircraft and ships. Masters of ships and pilots of aircraft can use reasonable force to maintain discipline...
While this does make me realise how much I was shooting my mouth off in general terms, specifically I can't resist pointing out the law (I imagine) doesn't provide for pilots hitting people to stop them doing it in the future.
Of course, those sailors...
-
The American Psch Association, as seen on Hard News Recently, via Fundy Post
Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demonstrate the presence of positive effects of corporal punishment, including effectiveness in halting future misbehaviour, not just the absence of negative effects, we as psychologists can not responsibly recommend its use
There's been a lot of bollocks around on both sides - I never thought the particular thing we seem to be talking about was all that critical. We don'ty exempt any other section of the population from assault law just because the milder forms of their actions aren't established to do any harm.
-
"a child sex, bondage and bestiality ring operating in Dunedin in 1984 run by the father of a police officer and attended by at least one Labour cabinet minister"
And to think they were looking in Christchurch all that time...
-
As some who's dabbled in comedy I can also appreciate what a treasure material that you've tried and tried until you've got it right and you actually know it works would be.
And if you look at it in behavioural terms (laughter reinforces, lack of it punishes) you could train yourself into not trying new stuff quite quickly.
Plus it's an effort and a cost, especially if you want to draw a line somewhere and suddenly start doing a whole new show (I realise bands do this).
The idea that's alright looks to me more like an unfortunate meme that has come up in a relatively small industry. Or just ordinary defensiveness.