Why do we need Joe-reviewer to tell us what is good when word-of-mouth is now word-of-blog? Who knows the blogger on-line any better than the reviewer in the paper? Well...I do, but that is not my point.
New forum topics
Subscribe
Why do we need Joe-reviewer to tell us what is good when word-of-mouth is now word-of-blog? Who knows the blogger on-line any better than the reviewer in the paper? Well...I do, but that is not my point.
reviewers will survive
people are too lazy to get into any intellectual discussion about theatre. they'd rather be told what to think about a show and the establishment reviewer is the easiest way for that to happen. to actually go and seek out blogger thoughts on shows would mean actually caring about what the show was about and what people thought of it. it would mean investing in theatre and discussion about theatre. the only people who would write about it in their blog or actually read a blog about it are people who actually care about theatre as an art form and as a forum for social action or thought. how many people like that do you know? i bet you can count them on one hand.
Posted by a f ingram
Theatre reviewers v.s. blogs
I read recently (regarding the federal election coming up) that bloggers could be compared to 'someone standing on a street-corner shouting their opinions at anyone who will listen'. I guess the advantage to that would be that you can see this person and make character assessments (right or wrong) based on that. I personally wouldn't take the opinion of a stranger seriously, especially when they don't identify themselves. We have NO IDEA who these people are or why they are bothering with a 'review'. What hidden agendas might they have? I'd rather trust a reviewer who is known to us by their credentials and/or history in the genre. Even then you can decide if you generally agree or disagree with this person. (I generally agree with Roeper when it comes to deciding which movies I'll spend my money on.)
Posted by Satchmo
Reviews and Criticisms
I'll read a review from anyone, anywhere, anytime on anything. It's like a journal of their experience. Commenting on everything from the other audience members to the cover of the program. And a critic, while they may do the same, well...I expect more from them. I expect them to have perhaps seen a previous production of the play they are commenting on, or know a thing or two about the different styles of theatre and maybe discuss their thoughts about the choices made by the Director and Actors. And the average Joe just wouldn't typically be able or inclinded to go to such lengths. So, while I the days of the Reviewer may be numbered, I believe there will always be room for criticism.
Posted by Editor
Reviewers > Pro vs. Joe
Ian Alexander Martin
I'll grant that the ‘one person's opinion counts as much as another's’ argument holds true for most things, but I still want to hear what Jerry Wasserman Colin Thomas or Jo Leddingham thought of the show as they always have points to make that make see otehr sides of the success or failure of a production. Maybe they saw something that I missed. Maybe they thougtht something worked for the same reasons that I thoughtit sucked huge smelly goats.
The problem is that theatre - like any art - is subjective, and what one person thinks is an exercise in masturbation is someone else's glorious sensually freeing experience.
But what do I know; I'm a reviewer!
Posted by iam