Castaways review was cruel and uncalled for
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Andrea Mays
Published: October 10, 2008
The amusing “Corrections and Clarifications” explanations which unfortunately appear too often are the most entertaining part of the paper. I also enjoy reading the Letters to the Editor and now I feel that I
have to have my voice heard as well.
The theater review written by Mary Jordan (Oct. 9) was cruel and uncalled for. The Castaways Repertory Theater is one of several fine community theater companies in our area and well respected. Non-
professional community theater — not The Kennedy Center, Shakespeare Theater Company, not Broadway — all volunteering their time to present inexpensive theater productions to the Greater Prince
William County area.
The review concerning “Sherlock Holmes: Sign of the Four” took cheap shots at the makeup, accents, set, and especially the lead actor. Four paragraphs, nearly half the entire so-called review, was
depicting mean spirited remarks about the actor playing Sherlock Holmes along with his past performances in other Castaways productions. Jordan also questioned the director’s decisions to even cast
him in other shows. Yes, Jordan wrote a theater review, but a kinder style of critiquing is called for while still being able to get her own point across to the readers.
For the next “Corrections and Clarifications” section in your paper, there should be an apology by Jordan and the Potomac News & Manassas Journal Messenger for even running it.
ANDREA MAYS
Manassas
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( ecarmichael ) on October 22, 2008 at 7:02 am
Having seen the show in question, I can say that I agree with Ms. Mays far more than the reviewer. Ms. Jordan evidently has some personal ax to grind and has thrown professional ethics out the window. I have seen all three of the shows Jordan referenced in addition to hundreds of others in the area by other groups as a WATCH judge. She is completely untruthful, the three portrayals were distinctly different as were the characters.
Relating to mclement’s comment which read like it was written by Ms. Jordan. The same rule applies to reviewers with an additional caveat - Be accurate, write what is actually there, AND if a reviewer cannot handle a bluntly honest critique (even if it feels mean), then they are pursuing the WRONG kind of free-time activity.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( MClement ) on October 14, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I personally would much rather someone save me $15 seeing a show I will hate than protecting the feelings of people who willing put themselves out there, knowing criticism (even harsh criticism) is a hazard of making that choice. While everyone does volunteer their time, sets and costumes must be purchased (at least in part) so it is ANY theatre’s responsibility to make the show worth whatever price they set, so they can get good reviews and draw in more people to see it. $15 will get you into a movie, and you wouldn’t want someone sugar-coating their review of that would you? Inexpensive does not mean you get excused if you’re bad.
I work for a non-profit organization, and we have volunteers that work for us at every conference we host. Just because they volunteer doesn’t mean that if they do a really poor job, we should accept them as volunteers again because we feel they at least gave it the good ole college try. And our attendees are certainly not expected to be nice about really poor performance when we survey their experience.
Community theatre is also vastly different from other volunteer work—it’s not like it’s a selfless pursuit (except for some of the behind-the-scenes personnel). Non-professional just means you aren’t paid for your work; it does NOT mean that everyone has to make nice in their response to that work. As an actor, I am familiar with shows that get bad reviews, so let me try to educate the non-actor readers. Upon receipt of a negative review, the people involved with the show tend to cringe, maybe rant, perhaps even cry, and then decide they either need to do better next time, not pursue a next time, or chalk it up to “ah, the reviewer just doesn’t know good theatre.“
I feel it necessary to point out that Ms. Mays didn’t actually disagree with anything in the review, only the method of presentation. As far as the “cheap shots at the makeup, accents, [and] set,“ the technical aspects of a show all contribute to the overall experience of attending a play and are therefore as deserving of critique (good or bad) as the acting or directing. If a theatre cannot manage the technical aspects of a given show, it can always choose a different show to produce. And quite frankly, if an actor cannot handle a bluntly honest critique (even if it feels mean), then they are pursuing the WRONG kind of free-time activity.
Report Inappropriate Comment